photographer was (a) looking through a camera's optics and (b) was not expecting to see anything hanging motionless in the air.

It is highly unlikely that the object photographed was a commercially available Frisbee. There are significant top surface contour differences between a Frisbee and the photographed disc. This was shown by a careful comparison of photographs of a Frisbee model with scale dome oriented the same as the photographed disc and illuminated by sunlight under the same angular conditions. The surface reflections were markedly different in each case. In addition, the presence of the tiny, concentric micro-grooves on all Frisbees would not be expected to yield a sharp contrast gradient as is seen in Figures 7(b), 8, and 9. When the author attached a light-weight dome to a Frisbee it would not fly very far nor very high. It is problematical whether another person could have achieved such a feat. The author inspected the frame immediately following the frame in question and found that it had been taken in Campbell River following the trip north. The immediately preceeding frame was also located. It showed Mr. D.M. and their daughter standing in front of a small pond at the Provincial park on the day the photograph had been taken, exactly as stated by the photographer. If someone had tossed a model up into the air in order to photograph it, only one photo was taken. It is fortuitous that such a clearly focused image was obtained on the first try, if this is what happened. Furthermore, this explanation does not stand up under scrutiny of the author's in-depth interviews and site visit. The fact that the photographer stated that she was taking a photograph of the mountain (and not of a UFO disc or model) is further supported by the fact that the top of the mountain was well centered in the photograph. The object was not centered. The lack of any image blur suggests that the disc was nearly motionless which would make it more difficult to see, other factors equal.

In summary, this investigation has shown that a mature adult with high credibility and little or no interest in UFO phenomena obtained a single, colored, sharp imaged photograph of an unidentified aerial disc-like object. Her subsequent reactions to seeing the disc's image on her photograph produced surprise and dismay as well as the normal array of "answer-seeking" behavior. She has not capitalized on having such a photo⁷ and still acts somewhat embarrassed at having taken it without seeing the disc. The disc's identity has not been identified to date.

Allen, C. W. (Ed.). (1963). Astrophysical quantities. London: The Athlone Press.

Eastman Kodak Co. (1980). Kodacolor II film specifications (Publication DS-11). New York:
          Eastman Kodak Co.

Haines, R. F. (1978). UFO drawings by witnesses and non witnesses: Is there something in common?
          UF0 Phenomena, 2, 123-151.

Haines, R. F. (1979). What do UFO drawings by alleged eyewitnesses and non-eyewitnesses have
          in common? In R. F. Haines (Ed.), UF0 phenomena and the behavioral scientist (Chapter 12).
          Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press.

Kodak Co. (1973). Understanding graininess and granularity (Publication F-20). New York:
          Eastman Kodak Co.

Neblette, C. B. (1965). Photographic lenses. New York: Morgan and Morgan Publishing.