There are several Wanaque sightings for 1966: one in January, one in February, and one in October.
Photos of the UFO(s) seen by many witnesses during those sightings have been published, one of them here:
But we don't know if the photo is from the January, February, or October sightings.
The David Ickes web-site quotes Tony Bragalia (from The Bragalia Files):
"I am not aware of the location of the negatives (given they exist) nor the identity of the photographer/s who took these intriguing images. Though I cannot vouch for their authenticity, at least one of the witnesses contacted thought that there was a good similarity to what was seen at Wanaque.
They could though be “fakes” made after the event to simulate what had happened at Wanaque. Or perhaps they are of a similar event."
Dominick has provided a link to Mallan's excellent accumulation of witness testimony for the October and earlier sightings.Click here for Mallan's article
Lloyd Mallan's exegesis of the Wanaque UFO sighting of October 11th, 1966 is an example of superb research and interviewing technique(s), both of which he is noted for.
In the linked piece that Dominick provided, Mr. Mallan gets one of his interviewed cops to tell him what kind of weather was extant on that October 11th, 1966 night:
"Was the sky clear?" I asked Sergeant Thompson.
"It was a perfectly clear night, yes."
The weather for that night is listed by NOAA weather as this:
Now, was it a clear night or a rainy/snowy, highly precipitate night?
Also, Tony Bragalia told me to observe that deatils were seen through the ray that allegedly emanates from the UFO -- something that Tony thinks authenticates the photo and sighting.
If it was indeed highly precipitate both on October 11th and October 12th, 1966, how could such details be so readily seen, or photographed?
Mr. Mallan also got this testimony for the earlier sightings in January or February:
"It was overcast, starting to rain - the sky was just starting to be socked in. You couldn't see any stars in the sky or even the moon..."
And the same caveat applies -- if it was raining during those sightings, how was it possible for the camera to catch details in the background of the UFO photo?
Also, Ms. Mallan's interviewees give testimony that the object was the about the size of a car (close up) or just a bright light (when seen from a distance).
Anyone familiar with how a camera, circa 1966, would capture something in the sky, they know that an object's image wouldn't be as large as that which the photo depicts.
The photo, above, for me (and Lance Moody, among others), is a fake, but Tony Bragalia and others (Jeff Ritzmann for one) think an analysis of the photo(s) or their negatives will provide proof of a UFO or not.
Getting hold of the original snapshots (or negatives) will be daunting, but Mr. Bragalia has pulled other rabbits out of a hat, so....
While a few things don't add up here, the "research" goes on.Nota Bene: I can't determine the exact date of the alleged Wanaque photos. Who took them and when is murky.