New York City, New YorkMay 1955

On Sunday, May 15, 1955, at 4 p.m., a television technician named Warren Siegmond was on the roof of a Chelsea public housing building in Manhattan with a young French woman, Jeannine Bouiller. He had rented a camera to photograph her. When Bouiller pointed to the sky, Siegmond saw a bright, metallic object hovering to the west at a 45-degree angle. The object then moved north very quickly in a bouncing pattern, returned to its starting point, and repeated the maneuver before rising vertically and disappearing. Siegmond exposed ten frames of film, though only five photographs were returned for development. The object remained visible for about one and a half minutes.

The object appeared oblong at first and then more circular as its angle changed. It gleamed white and reflective, like sunlight on aluminum, though it became grayer as it turned away from the sun. Siegmond estimated the object at about the size of a quarter at arm's length, located several miles away. He heard no sound and saw no exhaust or condensation trail.

Siegmond later took the photographs to Life magazine and the New York Journal American, both of which declined to publish them. The Journal American suggested the effect was caused by water vapor on the lens. The New York World Telegram eventually published the pictures and accompanying article. Afterward, Siegmond sold prints to interested readers.

The Air Force investigators concluded the photographs were fraudulent. They noted that objects in focus at infinity on Siegmond's camera should appear sharp, yet the object was consistently blurry while buildings and a water tower nearby remained in focus. This suggested the object was actually very close to the lens, probably less than six inches across. The investigators also observed that the photographs showed no evidence of retouching or laboratory manipulation of the negatives. Additionally, the photographs were submitted to photographers who confirmed that placing a small object fifteen to twenty feet in front of the camera lens while setting the focus at infinity would produce exactly the blurred effect visible in the images. The file notes that Siegmond, described as a "saucer fan," had been interested in UFO phenomena before the sighting and was actively enjoying the publicity generated by his account, which raised questions about his reliability as a witness.

Weather data and military records showed no unusual activity in the area at the time. A balloon identified in the same region hours earlier could not account for the sighting due to wind conditions and timing. The full case file is reproduced below as held by the National Archives, comprising 36 pages.