The Photo Analysis
Norwood Searchlight Incident
August 19, 1949

19 April 2002
Kenny Young:
Using a page out of Leonard Stringfield's book SAUCER POST 3-0 BLUE that contains a photo of the supposed Norwood Object of 1949, Research Scientist Richard F. Haines, Ph.D. evaluated the image and offered the following remarks (abbreviated) in correspondence dated December 22, 1996:
Dr. Richard Haines:
I have digitized the B&W (screened) print you sent and:

1) the UFO is not completely round. The upper-right 1/6th (approx.) is either missing or not illuminated to the same degree as is the lower portion of the object. This suggests that it is not self-luminous. If the photo was taken some distance away (at ground level) from where the searchlight was located then this viewing angle might have caught the upper portion of the object in its own shadow.

2) A diamond screen pattern was used to print the original photo for the newspaper article. Unfortunately, such patterns deletes as much as 50% of the original image in order to increase contrast.

3) I think that this photo still shows the presence of several (about 3) small luminous sources located at about 0.5 to 0.8 UfO diameters from its edge. They barely show up against the screen background since they are so small.

4) The weather on the night this photo was taken was hazy between the ground and the object.

5) It isn't clear whether the round object was seen by virtue of being illuminated by the searchlight or because it gave off its own light. 

The various explanations given for the main phenomenon are mostly ludicrous and I intend to say this in my brief review of this incident in my book (CE-5). Why was Sgt. Donald Berger operating the searchlight at all? Did he belong to the Catholic church? Did he only volunteer as a private citizen but knew how to operate it from his military career? Why was he wearing his uniform in the photo? This strongly suggests that he is on official Army duty.

If, as Berger states, he "held the disk in the beam of his ... searchlight for more than an hour," does this mean he had to reposition the beam to keep the UFO illuminated, or that both the beam and the UfO were completely stationary for 60 + minutes? This is an important issue. Lighter-than-air craft of the time could not hover that precisely with or without any local winds. A ground-tethered gas (helium?) balloon could be the cause except that it: !) would be noticed during its launch in daylight hours, 2) would have to be hundreds of feet in diameter. See pg. 153 in my "Project Delta," 1994 for an aerial photo of a huge research balloon in flight. 3) Would be a definite hazard to aviation. How far is this UFO sight from your local airports? Are there any approach or takeoff paths near this site?