Two lights reported over Manchester, New Hampshire, on 26 February 1966 became the subject of repeated Air Force photographic analysis. The observers described a pair of objects; the submitted photography contained only one image that analysts considered genuine as an image. Further information permitted a conditional size calculation, but did not produce an identification. The released file preserves that distinction between measuring a photographic mark and establishing what caused it.
The report from Manchester
A letter dated 28 February placed the observation at about 8:32 p.m. on the 26th, with the observers on foot in Manchester looking north. It described two objects moving west towards the Merrimack River, apparently over the Route 101 area. The letter went to the UFO officer at Pease Air Force Base. The administrative destination was in Portsmouth, but the observation itself was in Manchester.
The writer said the objects looked reddish-orange through seven-power binoculars, with flat undersides and rounded tops. A portable spotlight was switched on; the writer then reported a bright flash from the rear object a few seconds later. This is a report of a sequence, not a demonstrated exchange of signals. No controlled repetition or independent instrument recording establishes that the light responded to the observer.
The same letter mentioned interrupted radio communication and television interference. These were associated observations reported by the writer, rather than established effects of the objects. Their occurrence in the narrative does not identify the source of the interference or show that it was caused by an aerial craft. The file’s strongest technical material concerns the photograph, not an investigation demonstrating an electromagnetic effect.
Accounts that did not agree
A typed questionnaire gives 26 February 1966 at 8:32 p.m. Eastern Standard Time and a duration of one minute thirty seconds. It says the object was not continuously visible. The administrative summary card gives a shorter duration, while the observers’ descriptions also differ on the direction of movement. These values should not be combined into a single precise timed flight path.
The final Air Force reply, dated 16 November 1967, sets out the conflicts directly. One observer described a clear night and orange-red objects, originally estimated at half a mile away; a later estimate changed the distance to 600 feet. The other observer described cloudy conditions, bluish-white lights and a different direction of travel. Both described two objects. Agreement about the number did not resolve the disagreement about appearance, conditions or course.
These discrepancies limit reconstruction, but they do not independently prove deliberate fabrication. They are also why the file should not be reduced to a dramatic description of two identical craft following a known route. The official conclusion distinguishes the sighting’s conflicting data from the photograph’s lack of sufficient clarity. Those were related difficulties, rather than two names for a solved identification.
The first photographic assessment
Photo Analysis Report 66-24, dated 10 June 1966, was prepared by Charles A. Burton. It examined submitted photographic material and found one true image, appearing as a white ball on the print. The analysts considered the image smeared, consistent with movement of either the camera or the image source. They found little or no evidence of a sharply defined object within the bright central area.
The report also noted the absence of stars in the background. It compared that with the stated clear, starry conditions and the witness’s comparison of the object’s brightness to an aircraft wing light. This was an inconsistency identified by the analysts under the supplied description, rather than an independent measurement of the sky’s brightness. The report could not positively identify the image.
Other apparent marks on the negative did not, in the analysts’ view, show the characteristics of genuine photographic images. They suggested processing or handling defects for those marks. That proposal applied to the additional marks; it was not a demonstrated identification of the main bright image. Nor could they locate the reported second object on the print. A photograph of one light cannot simply be treated as photographic confirmation of both reported objects.
Requests for camera information
The Air Force asked for film, camera, lens, focal length, exposure and distance information. An August response specified a four-by-five-inch Speed Graphic camera, Royal Pan film and exposure details recalled by the writer. The later technical report records the claimed distance as 600 feet and the aperture as f/4.5. Missing technical information remained important, particularly the focal length needed for measurement.
On 28 November 1966, Burton completed Photo Analysis Report 66-50. Joint work by the photographic analysis and processing branches did not identify the image. The report said the claimed flashbulb would have had little or no effect on illuminating an object at the stated distance and aperture. That is a limitation on a proposed photographic lighting condition; it does not establish what the distant object was.
The November report retained the earlier conclusions. This is a useful point in the chronology: an additional letter and further examination did not automatically convert an inconclusive photograph into a resolved case. The technical record documents what was checked and what remained insufficient, rather than merely repeating the original description.
A later measurement, with conditions
A third assessment, Photo Analysis Report 67-69, is dated 2 October 1967 and was prepared by John W. Summerfield. It says an original negative, unavailable for the earlier assessments, had now been provided, together with focal-length and altitude information supplied for the purpose of measurement. The report rated the photographic quality poor.
Using those supplied values, Summerfield calculated an oval image corresponding to approximately fourteen feet across its major axis and twelve feet across its minor axis. These figures are sometimes the kind of detail that makes a photograph sound like a measured vehicle. Here they were conditional results. The calculation depended on the input information supplied by the witness; it did not independently establish the object’s range, altitude, structure or physical size.
An oval photographic image also does not demonstrate that the source was an oval solid body. The earlier analysis had already identified smearing and an absence of a definite internal outline. The 1967 measurement answered a limited geometric question under stated assumptions. It supplied no positive identity and no evidence of occupants, landing, radar tracking or non-human origin.
The final reply
The 16 November 1967 letter, signed by Colonel James C. Manatt, brought the witness discrepancies and photographic findings together. It repeated the conditional dimensions, but said no definite outline or shape permitted an identification. The sighting remained filed under conflicting data, while the photography was described as insufficiently clear for positive identification. Those are the documented findings, rather than a later claim that an unknown image proves an extraordinary craft.
Outcome: Insufficient evidence. Repeated analysis could not identify the main image or establish a reliable reconstruction from the differing witness descriptions. Proposed processing defects concern other marks, and the later size estimate relies on supplied information. Neither point resolves the main image or the separate visual report. The available evidence therefore supports a qualified account of an inconclusive investigation, rather than a high-confidence unexplained craft.
Location and sources
Location note: The pin is a rounded Manchester city reference from the U.S. Census Gazetteer. It marks the approximate observation locality in New Hampshire, not a private residential address, a surveyed flight path or a visitor attraction. It is unrelated to the separate Manchester Airport cases in England.
Released Project Blue Book file: the 28 February 1966 letter at PDF page 40; typed questionnaire at pages 19–25; Photo Analysis Reports 66-24, 66-50 and 67-69 at pages 44, 43 and 42 respectively; final reply at page 12. Original text was read, with the core letter, questionnaire date, reports and closing reply checked against page images. Earlier or otherwise unrelated material bundled in the file is not treated as an additional episode of this encounter.
Syracuse, 1966 offers another contemporary example of the difference between an observer’s description and a laboratory’s narrower conclusions. Sources, image rights and metadata checked 13 November 2026.