 =====================================================================
THE UFO EVIDENCE, published by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, Copyright 1964 SECTION VIII SPECIAL EVIDENCE
Of these, the cases of UFOs being detected by the senses and confirmed by instrument generally are considered the most significant. Examples would include UFOs observed visually, which apparently caused electro-magnetic interference at the same time; simultaneous radar-visual sightings; UFOs reliably observed and also photographed. The cases in this section generally involve detection of a UFO by more than one of the human senses, or by the human senses substantiated by some, instrument. The human organism itself is a rudimentary scientific instrument. When a person not only sees something, but also experiences physiological effects of it, an extra dimension is added to the observation. If the effects are objectively verifiable by other persons, so much the better. If a UFO is reliably observed, and also leaves physical markings or traces, this adds an objective factor to the report. Another way of analyzing UFO sightings is to consider what they affect.
A sighting may affect only the human senses; it may also affect machines or
instruments (causing electro-magnetic interference in an automobile, leaving
an image on film, or showing up on radar); or it may affect nature (leaving
physical markings or substances on the ground). The strongest cases would
be ones involving several of these aspects. ELECTRO-MAGNETIC (E-M) EFFECTS In June 1960 NICAP published a booklet listing and analyzing reported cases in which electrical circuits were disrupted in the presence of UFOs. [1.] This phenomenon was first widely reported during the widespread sightings of November 1957 [See Section XII], but subsequent research uncovered additional cases which occurred before and after the 1957 cases. The E-M report, concluding that the evidence was "sufficient to warrant a more thorough investigation of UFOs, and an attempt to learn more about the E -M phenomenon through deliberate instrumentation for that purpose," was circulated to several hundred interested parties, including scientists and members of Congress. The E-M Report was a study of 81 main cases, plus 9 borderline cases which had some characteristics in common with the main cases. It was suggested that there were no doubt other similar experiences, either buried in the literature somewhere or unreported due to poor news coverage of UFO sightings at times. In the intervening 3-1/2 years, an additional 39 cases have been discovered. Thirty-two of these had occurred before the June 1960 publication date of the E-M Report; seven have occurred since. Where sufficient information was available to justify their inclusion, the newly discovered cases have been added to the original chronology. The combined listing of cases is reproduced below. The recent discovery that electrical circuits were upset by upper atmosphere atomic tests during 1961-62 leads to interesting speculation, and makes a definite scientific experiment feasible, concerning the manner in which UFOs could affect electrical circuits. These points are discussed following the chronology of E-M cases. Chronology of E-M Cases The cases listed here represent reports in which a distinct UFO, either a plainly visible object or light source (not merely diffuse or intermittent flashes of light), was observed at the same time and place that a definite electro-magnetic effect (E-M) such as a car-stalling occurred. Cases added since publication of the June 1960 report are denoted by a plus sign (+). (Sources appear under Note 2 at the end of the section).
E-M Cases (Continued) Secondary Cases: (a) July 6, 1947; Acampo, Calif. All lights in community went out, as citizens heard a roaring noise and saw a glow in the sky. (b) July 20, 1952; Cumberland, Md. Engineer reported unusual type of TV interference. Occurred within a few hours of the famous Washington, D.C., UFO sightings all over D.C. - Virginia area. (c) January 21, 1957; Bristol, England. TV pictures disrupted and noise heard on audio; same time as fiery light in sky with rays running through it. (Aurora?) (d) January 27, 1957; Glendora, Calif. Unexplained power failure. Two UFOs reported same night in general area. (e) May 7, 1957; New York, N.Y. TV disrupted, citizens complained about low-flying "aircraft". Commercial test plane blamed, but Air Force reported several unidentified blips on radar. (f) September 1, 1957; LeMars, Iowa. Car motor and headlights failed, as flash of light seen in sky. (g) November 2 or 3, 1957; Las Cruces, N.M. Car motor and headlights failed twice as witness, a UFO skeptic, saw flashes of light in the sky. Witness blamed it on "static atmosphere." (h) November 28, 1957; Hakalau, Hawaii. Car motor failed, driver felt numb, as bright flash of light appeared in sky about 20 feet above highway ahead of car. (i) December 1, 1957; Ann Arbor, Michigan. Telephone lines affected by odd noise in Detroit area, as numerous red lights observed in sky. (Aurora?) (j) Approximately August 16, 1958; Olean, N.Y. and Eldred, Penna. Strange noise lasting one minute heard on short wave, 2C meter band, in Olean. UFO seen in nearby Eldred about same time. 75 (k) December 7, 1959; Bangor, Me. Airport runway lights went out, airliner circling over field reported unexplained blinding glow around plane. During the summer of 1963 the story broke that Russian nuclear tests of 1961-1962 in the atmosphere had knocked out the electronic equipment on board a U.S. satellite in space, [3.] Publicity about this little-known side effect of high-yield nuclear explosions immediately led to speculation on the military applications of it. A prominent magazine on space activities later that year reported that the Soviet Union might be developing an anti-ballistic missile system based on the E-M effects of nuclear blasts. [4.] The main significance of this discovery, in relation to UFOs, is that it provides a clue about how UFOs might affect the electrical systems of automobiles. American scientists have theorized that an "electromagnetic pulse" is emitted by large nuclear explosions at high altitude. John Crittenden, General Electric consultant on radiation, has stated: "The detonation of (nuclear) weapons produces radiation over the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The prompt gamma pulse will affect electronic devices sensitive to ionization, and the radio-frequency signal propagated carries enough energy to damage electronic circuits drastically. . ." Mr. Crittenden added that a one-megaton explosion in space could affect electronic systems over a radius of 110 miles or more. In testimony before the House Committee on Science & Astronautics, major aerospace firms have strongly advocated the development of an atomic engine for use in the U.S. space program. [5.] Douglas Aircraft Corporation, for example, citing the inefficiency and great expense of normal rocket boosters, stated: "A gross reduction of these costs will come only with the development of a propulsion system with truly superior performance. Only then will extensive manned space travel on an interplanetary scale be practical. In our opinion, the greatest immediate hope for such an improvement may be found in nuclear propulsion systems. . ." [6.] The energy locked up in matter, obviously, is universal. UFOs could plausibly have some nuclear propulsion component, perhaps controlled explosions which incidentally interfere with electrical circuits under certain conditions. (Another conceivable explanation for the E-M effects observed in the presence of UFOs is that some atomic device or weapon on board is used deliberately and selectively, as a test or for other purposes. However, this is purely speculative). The fact remains that is is not necessary to postulate a "mysterious force" in some mystical sense to account for the observed effects. An atomic device capable of producing the observed effects is now technologically feasible. Even if this were not the case, it is false logic for a scientist to deny observations on the grounds that we cannot fully explain the mechanism involved in E-M effects. Taken in association with the other accumulated evidence about UFOs, the fact that we do have difficulty explaining the E-M effects could also mean that we are dealing with a superior technology about which we know very little. Notes Electro-Magnetic Effects. 1. "Electro- Magnetic Effects Associated With Unidentified Flying Objects
(UFOs)," by Washington, D.C., Subcommittee of the National Investigations
Committee on Aerial Phenomena. June 1960. 76 RADAR UFO SIGHTINGS Unidentified targets have been detected by radar on numerous occasions. Air Force radar-scope photographs of UFOs are classified (see box), but the facts of many radar observations have been published. The question is, what causes the unexplained "blips" on the scope? On the whole, theorists have tended to attribute all such reports to the vagaries of radar. This view is challenged here. NICAP's position is that the radar-UFO reports, after all, were made largely by experienced radar operators who were convinced they had tracked something solid and unexplained. The conflict amounts to data versus theory, with most theorists all too prone to assume that radar operators are incompetent. It is a well-known fact that false (or misleading) images can appear on radar scopes. However, if these could not be distinguished from the blips of solid targets, radar would be a use less instrument. Also, lights and objects have been observed visually in the positions where radar indicated the presence of unexplained objects. The theorists' ad hoc arguments to account for this aspect of the reports leave much to be desired. What can radar detect? How do different phenomena appear on the scope? What are so-called radar "angels?" These questions are analyzed following the chart which includes the controversial cases under discussion. Radar Cases Chart, Pages 76-80
81 RADAR: THEORY & FACT Except for cases of so-called "anomalous propagation"--false radar targets caused by bending or refraction of radar signals- - UFO targets on radar constitute objective confirmation of the reality of unexplained objects in the atmosphere. Some research reports have tended to explain-away radar UFO sightings as 'false targets. . .f sometimes caused by] a low angle radar beam......reflected from one surface to another before retracing its path to the radar." [66] Unexplained radar targets have been observed since the early days of radar. Some evaluations of this phenomenon appear to be more a rationalization of troublesome reports than objective studies of them. Facts of observation seemingly are ignored or glossed over in order to make a theory fit. A prime example of this procedure is the study by the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) of the famous July 1952 radar sightings over Washington, D.C. [67]. The CAA report concludes that the Washington sightings were "ground returns caused by reflection phenomena closely connected with the temperature inversions in the lower atmosphere." Table 1 of the CAA report, 'Tabulation of Unidentified Radar Targets and Visual Objects Reported to Washington ARTC Center," includes one case for May, twenty-two for July, and 11 for August. Yet the text goes into detail on, and bases its conclusions on, only reports for the nights of August 14/15 and August 15/16. Unlike the July cases, there were no visual sightings on these nights and the recorded speeds were extremely slow (about 24-70 m.p.h.) The characteristics of the phenomena on these nights, and the lack of visual sightings, do resemble so-called "angels" (which are themselves little understood non-visual phenomena). By contrast, many of the July cases involved objects tracked in high-speed flight and also observed visually by pilots exactly where radar showed the objects to be. Evaluations of this kind, aside from their glaring omissions of data and questionable reasoning, fail to take into account two vitally important points: (1) Because of the long history of false radar targets, they and their characteristics are well-known to experienced radar operators. (2) The bending of radar beams and creation of false targets on the scope cannot explain sustained radar-visual sightings. If a pilot sees a light source or object which changes its angular position radically, and ground radar shows a target maneuvering as described right where the pilot is looking, this cannot be explained in terms of the erratics of radar. Because it is known that false targets do occur on radar screens which
can be misinterpreted by inexperienced operators, radar- visual sightings
in general are more significant evidence than reports lacking visual confirmation.
As in all other aspects of UFO investigation, it is necessary to weed out
erroneous reports and to recognize that human error is possible. But the same
logic often applied to UFOs in general seems to be used by skeptics on radar
cases: Because error is possible, and because some people definitely have
been mistaken, all the reports are false. This is known as throwing
out the baby with the bath-water. What Radar Shows In general, a blip on radar always corresponds to a reflection off of some solid (or liquid) surface, though that surface may not be where the radar scope indicates it to be. The surface may be (a) a mass of raindrops in a cloud in the position where radar shows it to be; (b) a solid object in the air in the position where radar shows it to be; (c) something on the ground, reflecting back to the scope and only seeming to be an object in the air. The latter explanation commonly is invoked to account for all radar UFO reports. This highlights the real problem of radar sightings: Interpretation of the scope by radar operators. The phenomenon most subject to misinterpretation is the ''ducting" effect, where low-angle radar beams are bent around the earth's curvature. An object which would ordinarily be out of radar range might then be detected, and mistaken for something which seems to be closer and in a different position. A radar set can pick up echoes of its beam which have bounced around from more than one reflecting surface, and back to the antenna. In a case of this type, it would be severely strained coincidence for an unidentified object to be sighted visually in the same position as the false radar target. Weather Targets on Radar Weather targets on radar may be ruled out generally as a source of false UFO reports. Clouds and cold fronts are not detected by radar, except for rain-carrying clouds, in which case it is the moisture (precipitation) which is detected. An Air Force manual on the subject states '' , . in general, strong radar echoes will be returned only from air of high specific humidity in which intense convective activity releases water in large amounts." [68] The echoes received are ''false" only in the sense of not representing solid airborne objects. They are real liquid objects collectively acting as reflectors of the radar beam. Section II, Paragraph 15 of the Air Force manual discusses "Interpretation of Echoes." In general, weather targets show up as diffuse masses on the radar screen, and their origin is easily recognizable. Dense nimbostratus from which rain is falling, the manual states, can be detected to short or moderate ranges......echoes from nimbostratus usually appear on the PPI [Plan Position Indicator] scope as a mass of brightness concentrated about the center of the scope and merging into the blackness of the outer rings. . . there are many breaks and irregularities in the pattern since rain does not fall uniformly over even a small area." Radar Angels A recent example of radar angels occurred at the NASA Wallops Island, Virginia, base during the Spring of 1962. The observations were analyzed by the Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, for the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory. [69] The analysts theorized that "plate- like" objects could explain the observations, but commented: "It is difficult to conceive of foreign objects in the atmosphere having this plate-like shape. It is even more difficult to imagine that such objects would invariably maintain a consistent horizontal orientation while passing over the radar station. Although it is clear that radar angels have not been satisfactorily explained, the Center suggested that "most" of them were "caused either by very smooth layers of refractive index gradient or by a single intense [atmospheric] discontinuity. What are radar "angels". Used in its broadest sense, the term applies to all unidentified targets on radar. But this terminology is misleading, since the targets have been of three basic and distinct types: (1) Diffuse and intermittent targets probably attributable to meteorological effects; (2) Sharp, "solid" targets which give a persistent blip exactly like that of a moving metallic aircraft (sometimes also observed visually); (3) groups of targets, usually in very slow-moving meandering swarms, for which there are no known visual observations. We prefer to adopt the terminology of CSI, a UFO investigation group in New York City, and call the third type "angels;" the second "UFOs." The research section of CSI has published an excellent analysis of radar angels; pertinent extracts are quoted here. "ANGELS" Explained by Two Experts (Two Different Ways) Typical "angels" are characterized by being gregarious, slow-traveling (30-60 mph.), and much more conspicuous to radar than to the eye - in fact, it may be that no one has ever seen them except on a radarscope. They have been observed ever since 1943, when microwave radar was first being developed, and they have never been acceptably explained. The celebrated Washington radar sightings of July 1952 occurred during a period when typical angels were being seen there abundantly (for details, see C.A.A. Technical Report #180, Note 67). The radar visibility of birds happens to be known; it is very much less than that of angels. Birds (and a fortiori, flocks of birds) can be detected on a powerful radar set - at distances up to mile or two. Bonham and Blake, authors of an earlier claim that angels could be identified with birds (Scientific Monthly, April 1956), admitted that the visually-confirmed birds 82 they were able to pick up on radar were at distances "considerably less than a mile." Yet all authors agree that angels are clearly visible at distances of 25 miles or even more. If the "bird" theory is correct, it must be possible to show that ordinary aircraft-control radar can "see" a bird 25 miles away. No evidence that this is true has ever been presented, and no practicing radar operator will take such a suggestion seriously for a moment. Something that appears only sporadically, like angels, can not - in the name of simple common sense - be identified with something that is around all the time, like birds. That the bird-theorists can ignore difficulties as fundamental as this one only shows us once again how irrational the human mind can be when confronted by facts that point to some conclusion it does not wish to accept. The other leading "orthodox" idea about angels is that they are "refractive-index inhomogeneities of various types," in the words of a valuable though turgidly-written article by Vernon 0. Plank of the Air Force's Cambridge Research Center (Bedford, Mass.) in Electronics of March 14, 1958. Plank, like Harper, nails his thesis to the mast in his title: ''Atmospheric Angels Mimic Radar Echoes." As for birds, he informs us that they have "radar cross-sections as large as 20 sq. cm at S-Band. . Radar cross-sections of the non-wind-carried sources range as large as 700 sq. cm at L-Band. Birds cannot explain echoes with such large indicated radar cross-sections. There must be other sources." (In other words: the angels give a radar echo far stronger than that from a bird). This confirms what we have said above about the applicability of the bird theory But when Plank puts forward "convective bubbles, highly refractive portions of atmospheric layers and water-vapor or temperature anomaly regions" as his candidates, he is shutting his eyes to known impossibilities just as the bird-men have done. Not only are such atmospheric phenomena obviously incapable of flying counter to the wind, but they are known to be just as incapable as birds of producing the sharp, relatively intense "angel" echoes. To quote Herbert Goldstein in the authoritative Radiation Laboratory treatise Propagation of Short Radio Waves, ed. D. E. Kerr (McGraw-Hill, 1951): "In Section 7.4 it is shown that the refractive index gradients believed to exist in the atmosphere are much too low to account for the observed echoes." . "Then there are radar flying saucers. ' Plank continues. Here he cites no detail, and has only two remarks to make. "The classic saucer incidents over Washington in July, 1952, for example, occurred when the atmosphere was exceedingly super-refractive and spotty anomalous propagation was de- finitely in order.". . . (In reality, there was only a moderate inversion on those nights, and "spotty anomalous propagation" is a purely imaginary phenomenon. It has never been known to occur. There is no theoretical basis for believing that it could occur, and it would have had no resemblance to the Washington sightings if it did occur.) Plank's other 'saucer mechanism" (as he calls it) is the suggestion that real aircraft may generate ghost images by reflection to and back from some radar mirror on the ground, thus producing a phantom echo that might seem to accompany the plane. The accompanying diagram from the original article shows that Plank is unconscious of the optical grotesquerie of what he is proposing. Quite apart from that, he has not stopped to think that if this could happen at all, it would happen all the time, and would be a perfectly familiar nuisance to the radar men. The idea that reflection from refractive index gradients could account for radar UFO reports is also challenged by Merrill J. Skolnik, a scientist associated with the Research Division of Electronic Communications, Inc. In a 1962 book on the subject of radar, Mr. Skolnik states: ". . . there must be a large change in the index of refraction over a very short distance to account for the observed radar targets.. Unfortunately, the refractive-index gradients required by the theory are much greater than have been measured experimentally, and it has not been possible on this basis to account for the observed angel radar cross sections theoretically." [70] One of the persons consulted in preparing this report was a veteran Air Force radar operator, a Sgt. First Class, who has operated sets all over the world. He has also tracked unidentified targets, at White Sands, N.M.; in Detroit, Michigan; and during NATO maneuvers overseas. He stated that he had observed some "solid unidentified targets moving at variable speeds, up to 500 mph." He had observed targets which disappeared and reappeared on his scope. Sometimes the objects simply moved out of range. Ionized air "islands," which are commonly invoked to explain radar-UFO reports, he said were easily recognizable. Their blips "pile up" and they tend to develop a comet-like tail on the screen. Birds, he said, cause no problem even to novice operators fresh out of radar school. The targets which caused problems were those which exactly resembled a solid object, when there was no known aerial device in the position indicated. Special records are kept of all such sightings. Usually, in a case of this type, jets are scrambled and other radar stations along the path of the UFO notified. Another consultant, David L. Morgan, Jr. (physicist), Madison, Connecticut, submitted a paper to NICAP which he preferred to term "thoughts on the matter" rather than a detailed scientific study. In it, Mr. Morgan approached the question of radar-UFO targets theoretically, based on a general knowledge of physics. Citing hypothetical cases of different types of images which appear on radar screens, he analyzed each in terms of the probability that they could be explained by weather phenomena. Mr. Morgan independently concluded that the cases of an unexplained radar target pacing an aircraft could not be explained by an echo from the aircraft to another surface, and back to the radar set. "If a large, stationary ground object did this," he states, "it would always do it and this would be familiar to the radar operator. If the [radar-detected] object were a meteorological condition such as an ionized layer of air, it is highly doubtful that the reflection would be regular enough to give a consistent appearance, and sharp enough to prevent the blip from spreading in a radial direction." In summary, Mr. Morgan stated: "It may be said that highly specialized UFO patterns on radar scopes can be explained only by highly unlikely or even impossible meteorological conditions. In the case of inversions, it is further unlikely that a specialized condition would exist without the simultaneous presence of less specialized conditions that would immediately be recognized as coming from an inversion. Having examined various known phenomena which produce blips on radar, and theoretical attempts to account for unknown targets, a closer look at some of the radar-UFO reports is in order. Summer 1948; Goose Bay, Labrador Major Edwin A. Jerome, USAF (Ret.) reported the following information to NICAP in 1961. Major Jerome was a Command Pilot, Air Provost Marshal for about 8 years, and also served as an Intelligence Officer and CID Investigator. "My only real contact with the UFO problem was way back in the summer of 1948 while stationed at Goose Bay, Labrador. There an incident happened which is worthy of note. It seems that a high-ranking inspection team was visiting the radar facilities of this base whose mission at the time was to serve as a prime refueling and servicing air base for all military and civilian aircraft plying the north Atlantic air routes. GCA [Ground Control Approach radar] was a critical part of this picture, thus these high-ranking officers RCAF & USAF up to the rank of General as I recall. "While inspecting the USAF radar shack, the operator noted a high-speed target on his scope going from NE to SW. Upon computation of the speed it was found to be about 9000 mph. This incident caused much consternation in the shack since obviously this was no time for levity or miscalculations in the presence of an inspecting party. The poor airman technician was brought to task for his apparent miscalculation. Again the target appeared and this time the inspectors were actually shown the apparition on the radar screen. The only reaction to this was that obviously the American equipment was way off calibration. "The party then proceeded to the Canadian side to inspect the RCA"' GCA facility Upon their arrival the OIC related 83 this most unbelievable target they had just seen. The inspecting officers were appalled that such a coincidence should happen. I was part of the meager intelligence reporting machinery at the base and I was called in to make an immediate urgent intelligence report on the incident. The prevailing theory at the time was that it was a meteor. I personally discounted this since upon interviewing the radar observers on both sides of the base they stated that it maintained an altitude of 60,000 feet and a speed of approximately 9000 mph. To make this story more incredible the very next day both radars again reported an object hovering over the base at about 10 mph, at 45,000 feet. The "official" story on this was that they were probably some type of "high-flying sea gulls." You must remember all these incidents happened before the days of fast high flying jets and missiles and the now common altitude record-breaking helicopters." (Maj. Jerome then added: "On my recent tour in Alaska [circa 1960], I became very familiar with the early warning and air defense systems on the DEW Line and Alaska Air Defense Sectors. Many times high speed unknown objects were discerned which could not be explained as normal air breathing vehicles penetrating our sectors. Many of the citizens of Alaska along the Bering Sea Coast have reported seeing missile-like aircraft flying at very low altitudes at very high speeds. The AF denied the presence of Russian aircraft vehemently. When it was suggested that they might be extra-terrestrial everyone clammed up.") October 15, 1948; Japan Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt reported the following case received by Project Sign (the original Air Force UFO investigation project) in October 1948. An F-61 "Black Widow" night fighter on patrol over Japan, October 15, picked up an unidentified radar target. The UFO was traveling about 200 mph. between 5000 and 6000 feet. Each time the F-61 tried to close in, the object would accelerate to an estimated 1200 mph., outdistancing the interceptor before slowing down again. On one of six passes at the UFO, the crew of the F-61 got close enough to see its silhouette. The UFO appeared to be 20-30 feet long and shaped "like a rifle bullet." November 23, 1948; Fursten-Feldbruck, Germany An unidentified object resembling a reddish light was sighted east of the base at 2200 hours, local time. Capt. [names deleted from Air Force reports] said the UFO was moving south across Munich, turned southwest, then southeast. Not knowing the height, the speed could not be estimated; but it appeared to be traveling between 200 and 600 mph. Capt. reported the sighting to base operations, and the radar station checked its scope. An unidentified target, traveling 900 mph., was detected at 27,000 feet about 30 miles south of Munich. Capt. _____ verified that the UFO was now visible in that area. Radar then reported that the target had climbed quickly to 50,000 feet and was circling 40 miles south of Munich. March 8, 1950; Nr Dayton, Ohio In mid-morning, the CAA received a report from Capt. W. H. Kerr, Trans-World Airways pilot, that he and two other TWA pilots had a UFO in sight. A gleaming object was visible, hovering at high altitude. CAA also had 20 or more reports on the UFO from the Vandalia area. Wright-Patterson AFB, near Dayton, was notified, and sent up four interceptors. The UFO was also visible to control tower operators and personnel of Air Technical Intelligence Center on the base. Radar had an unidentified target in the same position. Two F-51 pilots reported that they could see the UFO, which presented a distinct round shape and seemed huge and metallic. But clouds moved in, and the pilots were forced to turn back. The Master Sergeant who tracked it on radar stated: "The target was a good solid return. . . caused by a good solid target.' Witnesses reported that the UFO finally climbed vertically out of sight at high speed. July 14, 1951; White Sands, N.M. During the morning two radar operators at a missile tracking site caught a fast-moving object on their scope. At the same time a tracker watching a B-29 with binoculars saw a large UFO near the bomber. Another observer sighted the UFO and, with a 35 mm camera, shot 200 feet of film. The UFO showed on the film as a round, bright spot. (The film has never been released.) Fall 1951; Korean Area Following are extracts from a letter to NICAP dated May 16, 1957, signed by Lt. Cmdr. M. C. Davies, U.S.N., then stationed at the U. S. Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida. My background is a Naval Aviator with approximately 4000 hours. At the time of the incident I was deployed with an Anti-Submarine Squadron aboard a CVE class carrier. I was assigned Air Crew Training Officer and prior to deployment had attended CIC Air Controller School at Point Loma, also Airborne Air Controller School and Airborne Early Warning School both located at NAS, San Diego. It was at night, I was riding with a radar operator which I often did to check on their proficiency. We were flying at 5000 feet, solid instruments, with our wingman flying a radar position about 3 miles astern and slightly to our right or left. The target, which was slightly larger than our wingman, I picked up on our scope, had been circling the fleet; it left the fleet and joined up on us a position behind our wingman, approximately the same position he held on us. I reported the target to the ship and was informed that the target was also held on the ship's radars, 14 in number; and for us to get a visual sighting if possible. This was impossible because of the clouds. The target retained his relative position for approximately 5 minutes and then departed in excess of one thousand miles per hour. He departed on a straight course and was observed to the maximum distance of my radar which was two hundred miles. Upon completion of my flight an unidentified flying object report was completed, at which time I was informed that the object was held on ship's radars for approximately seven hours. July 1, 1952; Ft. Monmouth, N.J. A radar tracking of two UFOs at Fort Monmouth, N. J. was one of a series of sightings which fit a definite pattern. It occurred at a time when the Air Force was swamped with UFO reports - good ones. [See Section XII, 1952 Chronology.] Also, it was the first of ten known incidents of UFOs tracked by radar during July 1952. (See chart). The sequence of events, reported by the Air Force UFO project chief, was as follows. 7:30 a.m. Boston, Mass. A couple in nearby Lynn and an Air Force Captain in Bedford saw two F-94's which had been scrambled on an intercept mission. The Captain saw one and the couple saw two silvery cigar-shaped UFOs, which moved southwest across Boston, out speeding the jets. 9:30 a.m., Ft. Monmouth, N. J. Radar tracked two UFO targets, also observed visually as two shiny objects. The UFOs approached slowly from the northeast, and hovered nearby at 50,000 feet for about 5 minutes.. Suddenly the blips on the scope accelerated and shot away to the southwest, confirmed by visual observation. A few hours later, Washington, D. C. A physics professor at George Washington University, and dozens of others, saw a grayish UFO bobbing back and forth in the sky about 30-40 degrees above the north-northwest horizon. None of the sightings could be explained. August 5, 1952; Haneda AFB, Japan Just before midnight, two Air Force control tower operators noticed a brilliant light in the sky, and joined others watching it through binoculars. The UFO approached the base slowly and hovered, plainly visible from the control tower. Behind the brilliant light, the observers could see a dark circular shape 84 four times the light's diameter. A smaller body light was visible on the underside. The object was tracked by ground radar, and an F-94 interceptor obtained a radar lock-on while chasing it. At one point, the UFO suddenly raced away at a clocked speed of 300 knots (about 345 mph.), dividing into three separate radar targets at spaced intervals. Contact with the UFO either by radar or visually, was maintained for over 30 minutes. During this period, scattered witnesses saw the UFO exactly where radar showed it to be. Conclusion: Officially "unknown." 1951-1952 Period; East Coast Air Force Base Period of September 1951 to November 1952; prominent east coast Air Force Base Confidential report, certified by Rev. Albert H. Baller, German Congregational Church, Clinton, Mass. Extracts from letter by Air Force Control Tower Operator to Rev. BaIler, dated March 10, 1954: "About 3 a.m., on a clear moonlit night, a buddy of mine who was radar operator on the same night shift called me rather excitedly on the intercom, and asked me if I could see any object in the sky about 15 miles southwest of the base. Using a pair of powerful binoculars I carefully scanned the sky in that direction and assured him that I could see nothing. It was then that he told me why he was so concerned. "For several minutes he had tracked an object on his radar scope, then all of a sudden it had stopped at a range of about 15 miles from the base and remained stationary. Being an experienced radar operator, he knew that whatever it was, it was of good size, at least as big as any of our larger transport planes. But what amazed him was the fact that it stopped and remained motionless on the scope. A full half hour passed and still this object remained in the same location on the radar screen. Remembering that I had an inbound C-124 Globemaster coming in from that direction, I thought that perhaps the pilot would see something out there that we couldn't. I gave the pilot a couple of calls and finally raised him just south of_______on his way in. I told him what we had on radar and asked him if he would mind swinging off his course slightly so that he could take a look for us. "I then turned him over to the radar operator who had picked up the inbound aircraft on radar and he guided the pilot to a new heading that would bring him directly into this blip that was still stationary on the screen. The pilot slowed his aircraft and he and his copilot and engineer started looking about them. I could hear the radar man giving the pilot directions on a monitoring speaker in the tower. "The aircraft got onto a line on the radar screen that would intersect the blip that was unidentified; then as the minutes went by the aircraft slowly approached the object on the scope. Both blips were equally bright and distinct. Then when it seemed that the two would collide, at about a half mile separation on the scope, the stationary object simply disappeared, vanished seconds before the big Globemaster reached its location. "None of the crew on the plane had seen anything at any time, although they were all observing closely at the time and were told how close they were getting all the way to the object. "How anything could vanish so suddenly from a radar screen without even leaving a trace of what direction it went is really amazing. When you bear in mind that a radar scanner usually has a sweep of better than 50 miles, that would mean that whatever the object was it went from a dead standstill at 15 miles and disappeared from the scope covering over 35 miles in a split second. Remember also that this object was there for over a half hour and did not disappear until seconds before the aircraft reached its position: certainly this couldn't be any electrical disturbance or other phenomena. Why then would it disappear precisely when it did?" Summer 1953; Yaak, Montana Unidentified objects were tracked at an Air Force radar site several times. S/Sgt. William Kelly described the incidents in a taped interview with Olean, N. Y., newsman Bob Barry. On one occasion Sgt. Kelly and other radarmen picked up six unidentified targets. In five sweeps of the antenna (about 1 minute), the UFOs changed direction 5 times, sometimes making 90 degree turns. When radar indicated the UFOs had approached within 10 miles of the station, the crew went outside to look for them. They saw six objects in trail formation, switching to in line abreast, then stack formation. Other radar stations were notified and they also tracked the UFOs. The radar crew calculated the objects' speed: 1400-1600 mph. (In 1953 the official world speed record for aircraft was 755.14 mph.; see table). At other times, the station tracked UFOs making similar maneuvers. Sgt. Kelly had also tracked UFOs climbing vertically out of the radar beam, with height finder equipment confirming the rise, until the objects went off the scope. July 3, 1954; Albuquerque, N.M. Nine greenish spherical UFOs which invaded a restricted flying area were detected by Air Defense Command radar and sighted visually. The Albuquerque radar station's message on the sighting was accidentally intercepted at Chicago Midway Airport by an airline operations employee: 0105-C. . . NINE UNIDENTIFIED SPHERICAL OBJECTS GIVING OFF GREEN LIGHT REPORTED 20 MILES NORTH ABQ [Albuquerque] FIELD AT 24,000 FEET. OBJECTS HOVERED MOTIONLESS FOR 6 MINUTES THEN PROCEEDED 340 DEGREES AT APPROX 2600 MPH. ALTITUDE AND SPEED BY TRIANGULATION. . . ABQ ADIZ RADAR. (NICAP Note: "ADIZ" means Air Defense Identification Zone; only aircraft which have filed a flight plan are allowed to fly through an ADIZ area.) March 23, 1957; Los Angeles, Calif. Confidential report obtained from CAA (now FAA) radar operator confirming
visual sightings at Oxnard AFB and vicinity. Report certified by NICAP Board
Members: Rev. Albert Baller; Dr. Earl Douglass; Mr. Frank Edwards; Col. Robert
B. Emerson, USAR; Prof. Charles A. Maney; Rear Admiral H. B. Knowles, At 9:55 p.m., Mr. K. E. Jefferson, Pasadena, saw a brilliant flashing object moving over Downey. Between that time and midnight, police switchboards throughout the Los Angeles area were flooded with hundreds of calls reporting a UFO. The reports poured into the Pasadena Filter Center. According to Capt. Joseph Fry, commanding officer of the Center, the first official report came in at 11:10 p.m., at which time Capt. Fry notified Air Defense radar. ''Between 2310 (11:10 p.m.) and 2350," Capt. Fry said in a statement to newsman Russ Leadabrand, "we had many reports. We had reports that indicated the UFO was orange-red, flashing a bright white light. Some of the callers claimed they heard the 'sound of reports' when the light flashed from the object." At the Filter Center itself, Air Force T/Sgt. Dewey Crow and newsman Les Wagner watched the UFO maneuver slowly around the area for over an hour. Just after midnight, Mrs. Robert Beaudoin, wife of an Oxnard AFB Captain, telephoned the base tower to report sighting the UFO. It was described as a large silent object, flashing a brilliant red light, and maneuvering above the Santa Rosa Valley An F-89 interceptor attempted to locate the object, but the Air Force denied it was able to make contact, although at the same time witnesses on the ground could see the UFO plainly near one of the Oxnard runways. Reports continued into early morning hours, with witnesses in various locations describing objects which sometimes hovered, and sometimes moved swiftly. The CAA radar report, obtained later, virtually proved that unexplained objects were operating over Los Angeles. The radar operator's report: "At 2350 (11:50 p.m.) I was watching the radar scope, when I noticed a target about 15 miles northwest and moving northwest. At first I thought it was a jet, then I noticed it was moving much faster than anything I had ever seen on the scope. About 40 miles northwest it came to an abrupt stop and 85 reversed course, all within a period of about three seconds. It then traveled back along its course for about 20 miles, reversed course again and disappeared off the scope at 50 miles (our radar reaches out only 50 miles). ''Approximately 5 minutes later 2 more targets appeared and disappeared off the scope in the same direction as the first; and these we had time to clock. They traveled 20 miles in 30 seconds which figures out to 3600 mph. A minute or so later a fourth target appeared in the same area as the other 3, 10 or 15 miles northwest, and went off the scope to the northwest at 3600 mph. 'Our radar does not give height of aircraft so I couldn't give you the height, however they had to be about 10,000 feet or lower because our radar's maximum height range is about 10,000 feet." November 5, 1957; Gulf of Mexico Just after 5:00 a.m. the U S. Coast Guard Cutter Sebago was about 200 miles south of the Mississippi delta. At 5:10 the bridge radar suddenly showed an unidentified target at 246 degrees true, moving N to S, range 12,000 yards (almost 7 miles). On duty were Ensign Wayne Schotley, deck officer, Lt. (j.g.) Donald Schaefer, first class quartermaster Kenneth Smith, and radioman Thomas Kirk. Interviewed in New Orleans, Ensign Schotley was asked how good the radar target was. Schotley: "The ship's combat information center confirmed the sighting. At that point it was reported falling astern rapidly. It was a good pip target.. It was a very strong contact, considered good." Cmdr. James N. Schrader, spokesman in New Orleans, said that at one point "in two minutes it went 33 miles straight away from the ship." (About 1020 mph.) At 5:14 contact was lost. At 5:16 contact was regained, object about 22 miles north. At 5:18 object faded off radar screen, range about 55 miles. At 5:20 contact regained, object appeared stationary, seven miles due north. About this time, A/1C William J. Mey, an Electronics technician at Keesler AFB, Mississippi (about 320 miles to the north on the Gulf Coast) spotted an elliptical UFO. In his signed report to NICAP, A/1C Mey gives the time as approximately 5:20 a.m. Looking south, he saw the UFO approach on a northerly course at about the speed of a propeller airliner, then accelerate rapidly and disappear into some clouds. This suggests that more than one UFO may have been operating in the area,,. and that the Sebago's radar may have tracked more than one of them. A/1C Mey's report is fairly consistent with the 5:18 radar report of the UFO headed north at over 1000 mph. If Mey actually saw the UFO at 5:28, it would have averaged about 1590 mph., from the time it faded from the Sebago's radar screen. If he saw it precisely at 5:20 a.m., it would have had to accelerate to nearly 8000 mph. to cover the distance in that time). At 5:21 the Sebago regained radar contact, and also saw the UFO visually for 3-5 seconds as a brilliant white object with no distinguishable shape. It was at a bearing of 270 degrees true (west), elevation about 31 degrees, moving horizontally from south to north. (A navigator obtained the elevation by noting a star at the same angle and taking a sextant reading of it). The UFO finally entered a cloudbank and disappeared. At 5:37 the cutter reported its last radar contact with the object, about 175 miles to the north, traveling about 660 mph. [See Section XII, November 1957 chronology, for other reports during the same period.] January 1961; Missile Base Confidential report certified by NICAP Director Donald E. Keyhoe and Assistant Director Richard Hall. During the test of a solid fuel missile, radar which was supposed to track the first stage instead tracked a UFO target. Test evaluation report in NICAP possession states "object unidentifiable." The UFO "appeared to be alternately hovering, then moving rapidly to a new location." 86 Radar 7. Ruppelt, Edward J., Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.
(Doubleday, 1956), p.68.
70. Skolnik, Merrill J., Introduction to Radar Systems. (McGraw-
Hill, 1062), ppg. 551-552.
86 PHOTOGRAPHS The photographic material listed below has been evaluated with this principle in mind: A still photograph purporting to show a UFO is, at most, approximately as reliable as the person who took it. If the witness is a reputable person and all pertinent data is provided, his photograph deserves careful analysis. Where character information about the witness is lacking, the photograph is of less value and it is necessary to suspend judgment about it. Still photographs can be faked very easily. In general, movie films are more valuable because they are more difficult to fake, and more subject to analysis independently of the character of the witness. NICAP Adviser Ralph Rankow, a professional photographer in New York City, gave the following estimate of photographic evidence for UFOs: "Everyone knows that photographs can be faked, but the real question is, to what extent can they be faked? We have seen Hollywood movies of realistic dinosaurs fighting one another. We have seen dams break and towns washed away by the flood waters. We have seen naval battles and ships blown up right before our eyes. In one movie I even saw Moses hold back the waters of the Red Sea. These were all very realistic scenes, and we had to keep reminding ourselves that what we were seeing was a Hollywood movie and not a real event. If these complicated scenes can be photographed so realistically why can't a simple thing like a UFO be faked? The answer, of course, is that it can, and what's more it has--time and time again. A UFO can be any shape, not just saucer or cigar shaped. This makes it very easy to fake by anyone, and furthermore any unintentional mark on a film can be, and some times is claimed to be a UFO. If model airplanes can be photographed to look real, then so can model UFO's. This does not mean that there are no airplanes, just because we are easily able to fake a picture to represent one. In the same way, the ability to fake a UFO photograph in no way implies that these things do not exist. This is just to point up the extreme difficulty of determining whether or not a photograph is authentic on just the unsupported word of one or two witnesses who may or may not be reliable. In truth, no photograph, no matter how clear it may be, can be considered evidence of UFO reality without a reliable witness. Now, this brings us to the question of what makes a reliable witness? One need not be a famous person whose name we all know, in order to be termed "reliable". A man's credentials give him reliability, not his vocation. Is he a mature individual or one given to playing tricks? What is the opinion of him held by those who know him best? Questions of this nature will help to determine how responsible and trustworthy an individual we are dealing with. It is only when a photograph is vouched for by such a veracious individual that it becomes important as evidence." In addition to the question of witness reliability, analysis of photographic evidence for UFOs is complicated by other factors. Many of the potentially most significant pictures were taken before NICAP was formed in 1956. Belated attempts to obtain all the necessary data for full analysis have proved extremely difficult. Since then, quite a few of the seemingly better movie films and photographs were submitted to the Air Force, rather than to NICAP, by citizens unaware of NICAP's existence. Secrecy and red tape thereupon obscured the facts. In some cases, because of the confusion surrounding the UFO subject and reports of tampering with or confiscation of films [Section IX], witnesses have refused to give up their films for analysis. Because of these problems, we consider it appropriate merely to list photographic evidence known to exist. This will supply references to data which would need to be analyzed thoroughly in any complete scientific investigation of UFOs. We have also attempted to rate each case according to its probable significance as evidence. The codes below indicate rating, film data, and status of analysis by NICAP. Other description and comments follow with cases numbered to match the entries on next page. 86 FILM DATA RATING STATUS OF NICAP ANALYSIS 1. March 1946. Fred J. Strange, Bernardston, Mass. (Inc) bS/VN
(Inc) 1. Fred J Stange, Bernardston, Mass. Photograph submitted in 1954 to Rev. Albert Bailer (now NICAP Board member). Witness states he first saw three discs in a group, then two other single objects. Photograph shows all five, according to Leonard H, Stringfield (CRIFO Newsletter; Vol. II No. 3, June 3, 1955). Lead object of V-formation is largest image. Photo taken with box camera. Other camera data not available. The slide viewed by NICAP, a copy of the original, is of very poor quality. Many splotches are apparent, but no easily discernible UFO images. 2. Frank Ryman, U.S. Coast Guard, Seattle, Wash. At 5:45 p.m. Mr. Ryman photographed a circular white object moving across the wind. (See Popular Science, August 1951; "Report on UFO", Ruppelt, p.37). Photograph reproduced in "Coming of the Saucers", by Arnold & Palmer, shows small, white, elliptical image. Photo carries identification: "Acme Telephoto, SE 86-7/5 Seattle." 87 3._Cmdr. A. V. Orrego, Chilean Navy. Reported sighting and photographing UFOs over an Antarctic base. Objects described as "one above the other, turning at tremendous speeds." Major Donald E. Keyhoe queried the Chilean Embassy and was told the films were classified. ("Flying Saucers From Outer Space," p. 44). Other sources indicate movie film was taken. 4._Norwood, Ohio, searchlight case. Rev. Gregory Miller, Norwood, Ohio, in the presence of other witnesses, with help of Norwood police officer, obtained 16 mm black and white movies of a large disc hovering in a searchlight beam. The disc emitted "two distinct groups of triangular-shaped objects." (CRIFO Newsletter, Vol. I, No. 5, August 6, 1954). One of series of well-witnessed sightings logged by Army searchlight operator, Sgt. Donald R. Berger. Three 25 foot rolls of movie film were exposed, using a Hugo Meyer F-19-3 camera with telephoto lens; also several still photographs with a Speed-Graphic and 14 inch Wallensach telephoto lens, the best of which were submitted to Time-Life and reportedly never returned. One photograph reproduced in "Inside Saucer Post. . .3-0 Blue," by L. H. Stringfield, Cincinnati, 1957. 5. Balearic Islands. A United Press Newspictures photo reportedly taken by Enrique H. Muller is reproduced in "The Coming of the Saucers," by Arnold & Palmer, Amherst, Wise., c. 1952. Shows large circular, fiery-looking UFO with rays of "flame" spinning off edge in pinwheel fashion. No reference points visible. No camera data available. 6. White Sands, N.M. tracking station, April 27, 1950, photographed UFO which had been observed visually. Reportedly shows smudgy dark object in motion. ("Report on UFOs," by Capt. E. J. Ruppelt, Doubleday, 1956, p.123). Filmed by Askania Cine Theodolite.
7._Paul Trent, McMinnville, Oregon, obtained two of clearest UFO photographs on record. Both show disc with superstructure. Reproduced by Life magazine (June 26, 1950) with comment that Mr. Trent is "an honest individual" and "the negatives show no signs of having been tampered with." Images closely similar to UFO photographed over France in March 1954 (see below). 8. White Sands, N.M., tracking station, May 29, 1950, photographed UFO which had been observed visually. Films by Askania Cine Theodolite cameras from two separate stations reportedly showed bright dots of light. ("Report on UFOs," Ruppelt, p. 124.) 9._Nick Mariana, Great Falls, Montana, obtained 16 mm color movies of two UFOs which appear as bright circular points of light. Footage of UFOs at closer range, confirming visual observation of discs with rotating rims, was reported missing from film when returned by Air Force. Remaining footage was contained in United Artists documentary movie "UFO" and compared to July 2, 1952, Tremonton, Utah film showing similar images. Mr. Mariana used Daylight Kodachrome film in a Revere turret type camera and obtained 315 frames showing the UFOs. The film was examined by the Air Force and Navy, but no formal reports released. Report on Photogrammetric analysis by Dr. Robert M.L. Baker, Jr., Douglas Aircraft Corporation, on file at NICAP. Air Force explanation that UFOs were reflections off jet aircraft said to be "quite strained," and the analyst states no definite conclusion. However, UFOs could not be explained as any conventional objects. 10. White Sands, N.M., tracking station, July 14, 1951. UFO tracked on radar, observed visually through binoculars, photographed on 200 feet of 35 mm movie film. Film reportedly shows round, bright spot. ("F.S. From Outer Space," p.48).
11. Lubbock (Texas) "Lights" photographs by Carl Hart, Jr., show V-formation of large perfectly circular objects. (See "Report on UFOs", p. 144 et seq.). Capt. Ruppelt, head of Air Force Project Blue Book, reported that "In each photograph the individual lights in the formation shifted position according to a definite pattern." Main photograph reproduced in True, May 1954. Taken with Kodak 35 camera set at f/3.5, shutter at 1/10 of a second. 12. Barra de Tijuca, Brazil, photographs of disc, taken by magazine writers Ed Keffel and Joao Martins. NICAP has never obtained any negatives for analysis. Prints show disc from five different angles. Critics have pointed out that in main photograph shadows on object do not coincide with shadows on ground below. Until this criticism is fully answered, photographs must be considered suspect. 13. Utah Movie. Warrant Officer D.C. Newhouse, USN, obtained 16
mm color movies of a group of UFOs which he and his wife observed visually
near Tremonton, Utah. At relatively close range, UFOs appeared flat and
circular "shaped like two saucers, one inverted on top of the other." Mr.
Newhouse unpacked his Dell and Howell Automaster camera, with 3 inch telephoto
lens, from the trunk of his car and obtained about 1200 frames of the UFOs
on Daylight Kodachrome film. During the filming, Mr. Newhouse changed the
iris stop of the camera from f/8 to f/16. The film was submitted to Navy
authorities, who forwarded it to the Air Force at ATIC in Dayton, Ohio,
where it was studied for several months. According to Mr. Newhouse, frames
of the movie showing a single UFO moving away over the horizon (hence providing
some ranging information) were missing when the film was returned. The hypothesis
that the objects were out of focus sea gulls was considered by the Air Force,
but could neither be confirmed nor denied. The report of Photogrammetric
analysis by Dr. Robert M.L. Baker, Jr., Douglas Aircraft Corporation (which
included a study of the 1950 Montana film--see above) also examined this
possibility. He states: "The motion of the objects is not exactly what one
would expect from a flock of soaring birds (not the slightest indication
of a decrease in brightness due to periodic turning with the wind or flapping)."
Dr. Baker reports that no definite conclusion could be reached, but "the
evidence remains rather contradictory and no single hypothesis of a natural
phenomenon yet suggested seems to completely account for the UFO involved."
[See Section IX re: later Air Force statements on Utah film]
Click here for larger image
14. Shell Alpert, U.S. Coast Guard, Salem, Mass., visually observed and photographed four UFOs in formation. Taken through window of laboratory, picture shows four roughly elliptical blobs of light. Photograph reproduced widely in newspapers and magazines. Date coincides with peak of Summer 1952 sighting "flap", in which four objects flying in formation were observed several times. Official Coast Guard letter, 8 August 1962 (copy in NICAP files): ..... it never has been determined what caused the phenomenal lights shown fin the photograph]." 15. Peru. Round UFO observed by Sr. Pedro Bardi, agricultural engineer, and others on a farm about 4:30 p.m., in Madre de Dios, Peru, noticed when short wave radio went dead. Object also seen four minutes later near Porto Maldo where Sr. Domingo Troncosco, customs administrator, photographed it. Photo shows elongated object trailing smoke, passing over the top of a tree and in front of a cumulus cloud. Photograph submitted by James W. Moseley. (For story and picture, see UFO Investigator, Vol. 1 No. 2, August-September, 1957) 16. Ralph Mayher, Miami, Fla. Using 16 mm film exposed at 24 frames per second, Mr. Mayher obtained good footage of a high speed UFO. Calculations by a physicist at the University of Miami yielded the information that the object was about 27 feet in diameter and travelling about 7550 mph. Retaining a few frames for personal study, Mr. Mayher submitted the main portion of the film to the Air Force for analysis. The film was never returned and no analysis report was ever released. (For story and pictures, see PlC magazine, June 1954). Enlargements of a few frames show a fiery looking roughly circular object, symmetrical, with two small peaks or projection on opposite sides of the disc. 17. Gun camera photos. Nr. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, August 1, 1952. Two jet interceptors chased a UFO which had been tracked on radar, and one obtained gun camera photographs of it before the object accelerated at high speed and disappeared. ("F.S. From Outer Space," p. 107-8; Hartford, Conn., Courant, August 2, 1952). Part of the 35 mm gun camera film is reproduced in True, December 1952, showing a faint, dark circular image. The Air Force says radar tracked a jet aircraft, while the pilots saw and chased a radiosonde balloon assuming it was the UFO which had shown on radar. The rapid acceleration of the object which the pilots observed (and filmed while stationary) would appear to rule out this interpretation. 18. Operation Mainbrace. During fleet maneuvers in the North Sea in September 1952, UFOs were sighted in the vicinity on several occasions. [See Section XII]. On September 19, American reporter Wallace Litwin, on board the aircraft carrier "Franklin Roosevelt", took three color photographs of a large silvery 88 spherical object which reportedly moved rapidly across the sky above the fleet. The pictures showed a round object, according to press reports, but have not been released to our knowledge. ("The Truth About Flying Saucers", Michel, p.130). 19. David S. Bunch film, Landrum, S.C. About 5:00 p.m. hundreds of people near Florence, S.C. had seen a large disc- shaped UFO. About six minutes later, a group of round glowing objects were sighted near Landrum. Among the witnesses were J.D. McLean and David S. Bunch. Mr. Bunch took 40 feet of color movie film, using an 8 mm camera with telephoto lens. The film was submitted to the Air Force, and viewed by Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe along with Air Force officers. It shows five glowing, oval-shaped objects. 20. Adamski "Scout Ship." Because of Mr. George Adamski's background as a self-styled "professor" of oriental mystical philosophy (later espoused by his "spacemen") and at least one claim of his which was conclusively proved false by NICAP investigators, his photographs are considered dubious. NICAP Board Member, Frank Edwards, (an experienced photographer) considers the Adamski pictures hoaxes. Mr. Adamski refuses to submit his negatives for analysis. 21. The Ellsworth AFB case, in which two jet interceptors chased a UFO which turned and followed the first jet back towards its base, was termed by Capt. E.J. Ruppelt "an unknown.. the best." Later information obtained by a NICAP member indicates that the UFO was photographed by gun camera and that the film verified the presence of a UFO, making it an even stronger case. Maj. Lawrence J Tacker, then Air Force Spokesman on UFOs, wrote to NICAP Member Alexander Overall: 17 September 1958, "Photos of the radar scope and gun camera photos were made but were not sufficiently clear for evaluation. The Ellsworth AFB ease is still listed as unknown or unsolved." As in other gun camera and tracking camera eases, the film has not been released for outside scientific analysis. 22. New Guinea film. Mr. T.C. Drury, then Deputy Regional Director of the Civil Aviation Department at Port Moresby, obtained motion picture film of a UFO at high altitude leaving a clear vapor trail. (telephoto lens used). The UFO climbed steeply and disappeared. Reuters, on March 14, 1954, reported that the film had been sent to the United States for "special processing." (Other sources indicate it was sent to ATIC at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.) On February 19, 1958, Mr. Drury, replying to a query by Max B. Miller, stated he had turned his film over to the Commonwealth Security Branch and had not seen it since. 23. The "Coniston Saucer" photograph was taken by Stephen Darbishire, 13, at Coniston, Lanes., England. His brother Adrian, 8, also reportedly witnessed the UFO. The boys' father is a doctor of good reputation. Using an inexpensive Kodak, extending bellows type, with only two lens settings ("bulb" and "infinity"), Stephen photographed a UFO rising low over a hillock. The picture, although blurred and of poor quality, shows a bright object (lighter than the sky background) strongly resembling a side view of the Adamski "scout ship". (See No. 20 above.) An orthographic projection by Leonard G. Cramp confirmed that the Coniston and Adamski photographs were of identical proportions. David Wightman, NICAP Adviser in England, has met the Darbishire family
and now knows them very well. He found no reason to consider the incident
a hoax. In spite of the above, we are inclined to be dubious of the photograph
(a) because it is an exact copy of the Adamski-type "saucer", which is in
itself dubious; (b) because it could easily be a cut-out or model of the
Adamski "saucer", and in fact on the photograph a black marking extends
from the object to the hilltop, which could be a support for a cut-out or
model. Admittedly, no motive for a hoax is apparent, and the validity of
the photograph is not disproved.
24. Rouen, France. In conjunction with an article "Something in the Sky," RAF Flying Review (July 1957) published a UFO photograph which was taken over Rouen, France. No camera or film data were given. The highly-respected aviation magazine termed it "one of the few [photographs] which seem authentic." The UFO resembles a disc viewed edge-on, and has a small projection on top. It closely resembles the May 11, 1950 Trent photographs. (No. 7). 25. RB-29 Photo. USAF photo taken as UFO was observed flying beneath an RB-29 near Dayton, Ohio. Picture reportedly showing unexplained circular light source, never made public. [See "Report on Unidentified Flying Objects," Ruppelt, pp. 310-312] 26. Scandinavian eclipse film. Three aircraft carrying scientists,
newsmen and other observers were flying near Lifjell, Denmark; on an expedition
to film and study a total eclipse of the sun. At 2:17 p.m. two shiny discs
were noticed flying past the planes and witnessed by about 50 people on
the three planes. John Bjornulf, chief cameraman of the expedition, managed
to obtain about 10 seconds (of the approximately 30 second UFO flight) on
16 mm color film. The film was reportedly shown on American television December
26, 1954. [See Section I]
27. Gibbons film, N.Z. Three disc-like UFOs were observed simultaneously near Nelson, N.Z., at positions 5 miles apart by Mr. K.M. Gibbons and Mr. Alex Ingram. A third witness later saw 5 simIlar discs in the same general area. Mr. Gibbons took photographs (number unspecified) with a Cannon 35 mm miniature camera equipped with telephoto lens, as the UFOs hovered low over a mudflat, wobbling like tops and glowing blue-white. Two of the discs tilted on edge, streaked up vertically and disappeared. Then the third disc brightened, and also streaked away. (CRIFO Newsletter, L.H. Stringfield, November 5, 1954; CRIFO Case 29). One of the photographs, showing an apparent oblate spheroid with small dark projection on top, is reproduced in "Flying Saucers Uncensored", Wilkins, p. 96. 28. Wannall Photo, Hawaii. Mr. and Mrs. William L. Wannall, Honolulu, Hawaii were driving south on 10th Avenue at 8:45 p.m., when they noticed "three large lights flying in a wide formation over the Kaimuki area.. sky was clear, and visibility unlimited, prevailing trade winds." (SAUCERS, Vol. IV No. 2). After watching the lights for about 1 minute, Mr. Wannall took a photograph of them with his Cannon 35 mm camera using Anscochrome color film (32 ASA), exposure 1/8, aperture f/1.8. NICAP has viewed only a black and white print, which shows three lights in a triangle pattern, two of which have sharply curving "trails". Off to one side is another, slightly larger, apparent light. There is a dark background with no visible landmarks. According to Max B. Miller, who examined a color print, the lights are bright yellow except for one of the "trails" which is bluish-green. The fourth "object" was not visible to the photographer. The light sources are surrounded by an "aureole- type effect." 29. Mrs. Elizabeth Klarer Natal, South Africa, took three photographs showing a metallic-appearing disc against a cloud background. She used a Brownie box camera. (See Flying Saucer Review, November-December, 1956). Clearest photograph strongly resembles an automobile hubcap. Mrs. Klarer is also a "contactee" with claims of meeting spacemen, similar to George Adamski's story. Photographs considered dubious. 30. Savage Photo, California. Photograph taken by Michael Savage, 15, son of Dr. Phillip M. Savage, Jr., San Bernardino, California. Shows elliptical outline of apparent disc-like object, large apparent size, above trees and wires. Michael said the UFO appeared to be about 20 feet in diameter, with some "apparatus or portholes" visible near the trailing edge. He said it moved at high speed and climbed out of sight at about a 55 degree angle. The alleged UFO is barely in the frame of the picture, one end clipped off by the edge of the frame. Could be cardboard or other model held up in foreground and photographed. Dubious. 31. Ray Stanford, California. Using a Wollensak 8 mm camera with telephoto lens, Mr. Stanford shot about 6 feet of film of a "tiny, flickering object moving in and out of the field of view;" (as described by Max B. Miller). The sequence was accidentally considerably underexposed. He used Daylight Kodachrome. (Pictures and story, SAUCERS, Autumn 1958); originally described in "Look Up", privately published book by Ray Stanford). 32. Twin Peaks, California. Photograph showing dark disc- shaped object with lighter dome (about 1/5 diameter of the object) against light sky with city and mountains visible beneath. SAUCERS (Vol. V No. 1) reports the picture was taken by Joe Kerska, about 12:30 p.m., facing east on the south slope of Twin Peaks, San Francisco. No camera data or character information available. The alleged UFO strongly resembles a small model at relatively close range, thrown into the air and photographed. No meaningful analysis is possible because of lack of data, but the photograph is considered dubious. 89
33. Fujisawa City, Japan. Taken by Shinichi Takeda near Enoshima Miami Beach at 11:28 a.m. Object reportedly also seen by his sister, who called his attention to it. UFO silvery in color, giving off brilliant glow at est. altitude of 3000-4000 feet, traveling N to S. When overhead, object made 90 degree left turn, sped up, and disappeared in clouds. A few minutes later 15 people on the beach reported a similar object which passed over at high speed. No camera data available. Picture shows capsule-shaped image near bank of cumulus clouds. 34. Leadford Photo, Calif. During the November 1957 "flap" [see Section XI; Chronology] Mr. Edwin G. Leadford, Anaheim, California, noticed an object giving off a reddish glow as he was driving home at about 12:10 a.m. Using his Graphic camera at f/4.5 and 1/10, Mr. Leadford photographed the UFO. The picture was printed widely as a United Press telephoto, showing an irregular elongated mass with a round projection on the top near one end. The Garden Grove Daily News reported receiving about a dozen calls from people who had seen UFOs in the same area that night. Mr. Leadford reported on November 8 that he had turned the photograph over to the Air Force for analysis. (San Diego Union, November 9, 1957). 35. Holloman AFB, N.M. photo taken by welfare nurse who filled out NICAP report form on sighting. (She requested anonymity, but her name has been published elsewhere). Photo shows white elongated object, huge in size, which did not move during the sighting. The color, size and lack of movement make it impossible to distinguish from a cloud, which it resembles. Conclusion: Probably a cloud. 36. S. S. Ramsey Photo. Mr. T. FogI, while radio officer of the S.S. Ramsey, off the coast of California, about 2:30 p.m., was alerted by the Second Officer to come see a disc. According to the story, he grabbed his Yashica C reflex camera and ran to the bridge. A thick circular object with a flat dome and a pulsating red light on the bottom was visible in the distance. As it neared, Mr. Fogl managed a photograph before the UFO accelerated rapidly and disappeared toward the coast. (See "Flying Saucer Review", Jan. -Feb., 1959, for picture and story). NICAP's Adviser in England was unable to contact Mr. Fogl, and nothing is known of his character. 37. Ralph Benn, Los Angeles, Calif., was alerted to some UFOs by his eight year old son at about 3:00 p.m. He ran outside, but the objects were gone. Judging by the reaction of the children, lie figured they had seen something unusual, so he ran back to the house and got his 8 mm movie camera equipped with 3 power telephoto lens. Other people close by gathered to watch, as they scanned the sky. Suddenly Mr. Benn noticed six objects information, moving slowly west in the northern sky. They were oval in shape and dull white. He obtained about 6-1/2 feet of Kodachrome film, using a Keystone Capri camera. The telephoto lens was an Elgeet 1-1/2 inch f/3.5 fixed-focus. Four sizeable, but undefined, blobs of light show up on the film. Mr. Benn allowed the Air Force to develop his film, was promised and received a 16 mm enlargement copy. Later, the original film was returned and the UFOs were (according to the Air Force) identified as balloons. In his description of the case (SAUCERS, Spring 1958) Max B. Miller states: "We have carefully examined Ralph Benn's original film as returned by the Air Force. A pronounced number of very noticeable horizontal 'streaks' were prevalent on the UFO portion, and it was found that about three splices were made in the UFO sequence, unknown to Mr. Benn. Apparently no quantity of film is missing, and examination indicates that only two or three frames were taken out at the points of splice. . ." Other passes of the UFOs were witnessed by a number of people, in formations including a three-quarter circle, grouped pairs, and a straight line. In his account, Mr. Benn states: "Who ever heard of planets, meteors or balloons flying in formation and traversing the sky three times from horizon to horizon- -and maintaining a different formation pattern with each pass?" 38. Cliff DeLacey, Hawaii. According to the Vallejo (Calif.) Times Herald of January 19, 1958, Mr. DeLacey obtained about 90 seconds of 8 mm color film showing some of nine UFOs which were sighted about 4:00 p.m. The maneuvers of the round UFOs, treetops and other reference points, reportedly were recorded. Mr. DeLacey did not answer queries from NICAP or from Max B. Miller, former NICAP photographic adviser.
39. Trindade Isle, Brazil. NICAP has carefully studied prints (but not the negatives) of the four successful exposures of a Saturn-shaped UFO, the verbal accounts and relevant facts. The UFO was sighted about noon January 16, 1958, from the deck of the Brazilian IGY ship "Almirante Saldanha" by a retired Brazilian Air Force officer, Capt. Jose Teobaldo Viegas, and Amflar Vieira Filho, chief of a group of submarine explorers on board. They alerted Almiro Barauna, an expert submarine photographer, who managed to take four successful pictures. Many other officers and men, attracted by the commotion, soon witnessed the UFO, including Capt.-Lt. Homero Ribeiro, ship's dentist. Capt. Viegas later stated: "The First view was that of a disc shining with a phosphorescent glow, which--even in daylight- -appeared to be brighter than the moon. The object was about the apparent size of the full moon. As it followed its path across the sky, changing to a tilted position, its real shape was clearly outlined against the sky: that of a flattened sphere encircled, at the equator, by a large ring or platform." In his 1963 book ("The World of Flying Saucers"), Dr. Donald H Menzel labels the Trindade photographs a hoax. His main reason appears to be that Mr. Barauna is a skilled photographer capable of faking a picture, and in fact, Dr. Menzel says, once did produce a fake "flying saucer" to illustrate an article. Further, Dr. Menzel notes, several of the witnesses, including Barauna were members of the same submarine explorers group on board ship (implying complicity in a hoax). However, other witnesses were not members of the explorer's group and there is no evidence of fakery in the case. On February 25, 1958 (four days after the pictures were first publicized by the Brazilian press) United Press reported from Rio de Janeiro that the Brazilian Navy Ministry vouched for the Trindade photographs. The report went On: "Navy Minister Adm. Antonio Alves Camara said after meeting with President Juseelino Kubitsehek in the summer Presidential Palace at Petropolis, that he also vouched personally for the authenticity of the pictures." This would be a curious statement to make to newsmen if the Navy had any suspicion of a hoax. The pictures and negatives were analyzed by both the Navy Photo Reconnaissance Laboratory and the Cruzeiro do Sul Aerophotogrammetric Service, both agreeing the pictures were authentic. The latter's written conclusion stated: "It was established that no photographic tricks are involved. The negatives are normal." 90 Correspondence between U.S. UFO groups and leading Brazilian investigators drew out many facts about the case, including background information about other similar sightings at Trindade Isle over a period of time, all of which tends to substantiate the January 16 sighting and photographs. No suspicion of hoax was uncovered by J. Escobar Faria, Sao Paulo attorney (NICAP Adviser), Dr. Olavo Fontes, M.D., in Rio de Janeiro (APRO Special Representative), or other Brazilian correspondents in a position to ascertain the facts. [See APRO Bulletins, January, March, and May 1960 for detailed series of articles about the Trindade photographs by Dr. Fontes]. Weighing all the facts, we conclude that the pictures appear to be authentic. They definitely are one of the potentially most significant series of UFO photographs on record, so that clarification of the incident and additional analysis is strongly desirable. In the interests of scientific investigation, we urge that secrecy about the case be lifted by the United States and Brazil and that a frank report of the facts be issued to the public. In particular, the full analysis reports by the Brazilian laboratories should be made available to scientists. Information currently withheld by the U.S. Air Force about its investigation of the case through the American Embassy in Rio de Janeiro also should be made available to the public. Photographic data: Mr. Barauna used a Rolleiflex 2.8--Model E camera, speed 1/125, aperture f/8 (causing a slight overexposure) 40. Troy, Michigan airport. Photograph taken by H.M. Stump using an Argus C-3 camera, from a private plane landing at the airport. Picture shows yellow-white oval with slight trail. Verbal report states object hovered, then sped away to the west. 41. England AFB, La.--State Police case. Polaroid pictures taken by a state policeman at 12:20 p.m. were published by the Alexandria Daily Town Talk. The officer stated he saw "two glowing balls" in the sky and that it "scared hell out of me." He was not sure whether it was one double object, or two separate ones close together. The Air Force later stated the "UFO" was a reflection off the windshield of the patrol car. NICAP letters to the state police were not answered. 42. Ray Stanford Movies. NICAP first learned of the two color movies taken by Ray Stanford and a friend (one 8 mm, one 16 mm) in the Fall/Winter 1959-60 issue of SAUCERS (now defunct) by Max B. Miller. Mr. Miller, who later became a NICAP photographic adviser, examined the films and his evaluation is incorporated below. After preliminary correspondence with Mr. Stanford requesting the films for analysis, the films and a filled-out NICAP report form were received March 11, 1960. Additional report forms were sent to Mr. Stanford for some of the approximately 12 other witnesses to fill out, and he promised to try to obtain signed reports. Jack Brotzman, NICAP scientific adviser in the Washington area, projected the 8 mm film in the NICAP office and examined the 16 mm film frame by frame in the government laboratory where he is employed. Shortly thereafter, Max Miller became a NICAP photographic adviser, and since he had already examined the films he was consulted and asked for suggestions for further analysis. He gave NICAP some comments about the films, to the effect that they were not impressive in themselves, but together (because of some overlapping scenes) might have special significance. As he stated in SAUCERS, the overlap "makes simulation exceedingly improbable." In June 1960, Mr. Stanford wrote inquiring about progress with the analysis. He also stated that, through an intermediary, the Air Force had requested copies of the films for analysis and permission for NICAP to forward the copies in its possession. Mr. Stanford granted permission. NICAP replied to Mr. Stanford, giving preliminary conclusions, and adding: "For a more thorough analysis, we would need the verbal reports you promised. . to correlate the action described verbally with the action visible on the film. . .We also have [Max Miller's analysis of your films to guide us. Our consensus so far is that the films appear to be authentic, and it now becomes a problem of interpretation. For this reason, I believe it would be best to forward the films to [the intermediary and the Air Force representative]....". The films and Mr. Stanford's report form were forwarded, as generally agreed by all parties, to the intermediary in a city on the west coast. (Names and exact location are deleted here because the intermediary and Air Force representative both requested that their participation be kept confidential). Over a year later, following an inquiry by Mr. Stanford, the films were returned to him by the Air Force representative with no comments about analysis results. The Story: The sighting and filming took place July 28, 1959, between 2:10 and 2:20 p.m. in Corpus Christi, Texas. There had been numerous UFO sightings in the area, and Ray Stanford and a friend had cameras ready. Mr. Stanford used a 16 mm Keystone K51 Executive camera on a tripod, with 75 mm Kern Yvar telephoto lens, and daylight Kodachrome film. The aperture setting was approximately f/8, and exposure was at 16 frames per second. The friend used an 8 mm Keystone K27 Capri camera with 25 mm lens, hand-held, and Type A Kodachrome film. The aperture setting was f/8, exposure 16 frames per second. Mr. Stanford notified Max Miller by telephone, August 1, that he had the films, still unprocessed. Mr. Miller subsequently viewed the films, which were processed in Los Angeles, several days before they were forwarded to Mr. Stanford. In his verbal report, Mr. Stanford states that three cigar- shaped UFOs were visible at one time, and a fourth appeared soon after. One of the objects reportedly "released" a small disc beneath it, and the disc sped upwards at about a 45 degree angle disappearing in the distance. Each of the objects was said to be sharply outlined, and blue-white in color. Only one object was photographed, appearing as a bright, slightly oblong light source. It does not maneuver. Also visible on both films is the contrail of an airplane curving slightly around the UFO, after apparently moving in the direction of the UFO. NICAP Comments: Examination of the films by NICAP showed no detail on the object, and no appreciable motion of the object. Venus, which was prominent at the time, was considered as an explanation, but ruled out because the image was enlarged considerably by the larger telephoto lens. The verbally described maneuvers, multiple objects, and launching of a disc were not confirmed by the films. The many other reports from alleged additional witnesses were never received from Mr. Stanford. His background relative to the UFO subject was considered. (he and his brother co-authored a privately published book entitled "Look Up", in which alleged contacts with space ships, ESP, and a chapter on "how the craft are constructed, propelled and controlled" are included. One is an alleged personal close-up visual contact brought about by ESP experiments). Also, Mr. Stanford previously took an 8 mm color film, September 18, 1956, which purportedly shows two jet interceptors chasing a UFO 91 With this background, there was some natural suspicion about the authenticity of the 1959 film. However, NICAP representatives who have talked to Mr. Stanford were impressed by his sincerity, and examination of the films by NICAP and Max B. Miller found no evidence of fakery or tampering with the films (which, as stated above, were processed in Los Angeles and examined by Max Miller before they were viewed by Mr. Stanford himself). We conclude that the films themselves are authentic records of some object in the sky, but that they do not substantiate the verbal report and do not constitute significant evidence of UFOs as the matter now stands. Comments by Max Miller quoted from SAUCERS, Vol. VII Nos. 3 & 4: "The 8 mm footage lacks sufficient resolution. . The 16 mm film is excellent, but the UFO sequence is extremely short, comprising not more than three or four feet. However, one or two scenes are identical in the 8 mm and 16 mm films, making simulation exceedingly improbable. It is [my] not inexperienced opinion that the cameras did photograph a visible object, and that super-imposure or double-exposure could not account for the images produced. What the object was, of course, remains an enigma. The first possibility to cross our minds was a polyethylene type balloon, but we have never heard of any of the shape recorded. . 43. Mike Schultz, Newark, Ohio. The Newark Advocate, Nov. 15, 1958 published three pictures and the story. Some excerpts from the article and a black and white print of the newspaper photographs were forwarded to NICAP in January 1959 by a member. Using an inexpensive camera and telescope, Mr. Schultz photographed what looked like a bright star in the sky. Then the object moved and stopped, and he took the second picture. This was repeated once more. According to the member who submitted the photographs, each picture is a double-exposure of one object (the images are double in each case) because of unavoidable motion of the camera and telescope. The pictures in NICAP possession (poor copies with no negatives) strongly resemble internal reflections in the telescope as might be obtained by an inexperienced amateur astronomer using poor equipment. Without more complete data, no final judgment can be made. 44. James M. Purdon, Jr., Imperial Beach, Calif. Mr. Purdon, an engineer with a west coast aviation company, obtained several feet of color movie film of a bright object with a halo around it, observed by him and his family between 4:20 and 4:50 p.m. The equipment used was a Kodak camera with telephoto lens on a turret. According to a report which Mr. Purdon submitted to NICAP, the UFO was first motionless for a long period of time. While he was phoning a newspaper, his wife saw the UFO disappear. Minutes later he obtained footage of a moving bright object (about 20 seconds of which, he states, "came out rather good"). According to his report, the UFO "hove into view from one direction,
slowed up to almost a stop, then proceeded at a 90 degree angle toward the
ocean. It accelerated quite rapidly at first. Then it oscillated up and
down." A TV antenna in the foreground furnishes a reference point on the
film, and the object moves behind a "Christmas tree" (presumably planted
in his yard).
92
Because the same film contained family scenes of great personal value to Mr. Purdon, he was not willing to risk loaning it for analysis. He did agree to show the film to any NICAP representative, but the nearest NICAP personnel were not able to make the trip for that purpose. To the best of our knowledge, the film has not been analyzed. 45. Redmond, Ore., FAA Case. After a great deal of difficulty and lengthy correspondence, a copy of motion picture film taken by an IGY "All-Sky" Camera site in Redmond, Oregon, was obtained from the Cornell University Aurora Archive, Ithaca, N. Y. The camera had been in operation on the night of an important UFO sighting by Federal Aviation Agency personnel at Redmond airport [Section V], and it was felt that an unusual opportunity for objective confirmation of the sighting was available. However, the film was not received until August 1960 and the covering letter stated: "You have been a victim of the testing of the film copying process here at Ithaca, and we have just received the first copy. . .You should bear in mind that the camera gives a very small image of the sky, and it is seldom possible to see star sized objects unless they are very bright. . Max B. Miller projected the film and viewed it frame by frame. In his report to NICAP, Mr. Miller stated the film was "in such deplorable condition as to be almost worthless. There are thousands of dust specks and processing specks. . .50 unless the UFO were of spectacular brilliance or dimensions, or were recorded on at least three consecutive frames, you'd never find it. Moreover, internal lens reflections (also countless) create an additional problem." The attempt to find photographic confirmation was therefore totally inconclusive. (For data about All-Sky cameras and their use, see IGY General Report Series, Numbers 5 & 6, September 1959, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Washington 25, D. C. The instruments consist of a convex mirror and a 16 mm motion picture camera adjusted to time-lapse photography). 46. J. J. Rehill, Miami Fla. According to a story in the Miami Herald, December 6, 1959, Seaman Rehill while on leave saw a flash of light in the sky while taking a picture in the city. lie used an Argus C-3 camera and color film. When the picture was returned after processing, it showed five white spots, one disc-shaped followed by a white streak. The paper reports: "The transparency itself was undamaged. There was no evidence whatsoever of any monkey business with the original film." Norbert Gariety, then editor of a UFO publication in Coral Gables, telephoned Rehill and interviewed him after the Herald story appeared. Mr. Rehill stated he had been interrogated by Air Force investigators, and they had examined his camera and the roll of pictures. NICAP wrote the public information officer at Mr. Rehill's base on January 4, 1960, but did not receive any reply. 47. Joe Perry, Grand Blanc, Michigan. The Detroit Times, March 9, reported the story of this photograph, stating that the FBI was investigating it. While pursuing his hobby of astronomical photography, Mr. Perry obtained a color photograph (slide) reportedly showing a UFO which was "disc-shaped with a dome and leaving a green trail." (The image on the print examined by NICAP is similar to a black disc viewed edge-on, but not perfectly symmetrical, and the "object" is surrounded by green coloration resembling a glow.) The FBI turned Mr. Perry's slide over to the Air Force for analysis. Later the Air Force stated their opinion "that the blue spots [sic] on the slide are not images but result from damage to the emulsion during the developing process." A color print of Mr. Perry's photograph was analyzed for NICAP by Max B. Miller, who reported September 18, 1960: The UFO "quite probably is a cinch mark. . . it could either be foreign matter which attached itself to the film during processing or undeveloped emulsion, and I'm inclined to save the latter. . . the
93
greenish halation is sympathetic to the detect and is effected by one of the color developers overcompensating around the un developed emulsion (if a cinch mark) or foreign matter." 48. Schedelbauer, Vienna. Edgar Schedelbauer, a reporter for the Vienna newspaper "Wiener Montag", photographed a round, glowing object which he said hovered low over the ground for ten seconds emitting heat. The newspaper, alleging that the photograph had been declared authentic by outside experts, printed the picture on the front page and labeled it "the most sensational photograph of our century." The picture shows a bright white object something like a parachute canopy against a black back ground. There are no reference points. NICAP wrote to Mr. Schedelbauer requesting the photograph and negative for analysis, but received no answer. Therefore the case must be considered incomplete. Since it is the type of photograph which could easily be faked, we are presently skeptical about it. 49. Mary Jo Curwen, Hazel Green, Wisconsin. A signed report form was received from Miss Curwen in July 1960, with a letter stating: "When the Air Force returns our film [A copy of the original we will be willing to lend it to you." After further correspondence, the film was finally submitted to the Minneapolis NICAP Subcommittee in April 1963. After analysis, it was then forwarded to NICAP Photographic Adviser Ralph Rankow in New York City, who also examined it. The film was returned to the Curwen family in June 1963. The analyses established that the film was worthless as evidence of UFOs. The images were tiny, almost merging with the grain of the film, showed no appreciable motion other than typical movie film "jump" and were also visible in other scenes against the ground. The witnesses did not explain why a mundane farmyard scene appears between two scenes allegedly showing UFOs against the blue sky. In the verbal report the witnesses stated they saw three saucer-shaped objects flying past in formation, oscillating up and down in flight, at 5:50 p.m. Miss Curwen attempted to film the UFOs with an 8 mm camera on a roll of color film which was being used primarily for family scenes. It is possible that the attempt was unsuccessful, and that the family naturally misinterpreted routine film specks as being images of the UFOs they had seen. At any rate, the film does not verify the verbal report. 50. Linz, Austria A photograph showing a globular UFO seemingly lighted more brightly on the underside, near what is apparently out-of-focus tree branches, was submitted to NICAP for analysis. Max B. Miller examined the picture, and stated: "Knowing what camera and lens made the photo, we can determine that the object was' approximately 6 degrees in diameter. it appears to be out of focus rather than blurred due to motion. having 110 further data additional evaluations cannot be made. My own opinion, however, is totally negative." 51. Jay Rees, San Francisco. This is one of the few photo graphic cases involving ideal conditions for analysis: (1) An intelligent witness who saw and took good photographs of an un usual object in the sky; (2) Full cooperation between the witness and NICAP analysts uniquely fitted for the analysts work; (3) Thorough analysis and submission of detailed formal reports by NICAP analysts. Mr. Rees first spotted the UFO at 1:45 p.m. (PDT), August 9, 1960, in the presence of other witnesses at the civic center plaza in San Francisco. The object moved slowly west above a broken overcast which was being blown east by westerly winds of 10-20 mph (according to newspaper weather reports). The relatively rapid motion ruled out an astronomical explanation, and the wind direction seemed to rule out a balloon. Mr. Rees watched the object for 30 minutes, wishing he had his camera to record it. By this time the UFO was about 70 degrees above the SE horizon. Finally he decided to get his camera in the hope the object would still be visible. He rushed home and picked up his Zeiss Tessar 2.8 35 mm camera, with 45 mm lens and Kodachrome color film, and found a location at which the overcast was broken. He then proceeded to take 12 photographs in succession, taking care to include known objects in the fore ground of each picture for reference points. In his initial report to NICAP, Mr. Rees stated: "I changed exposure and f-stop every several frames--from 1/500 to 1/250 to 1/125 and from f/5.6 to f/14. By this time the UFO was still moving due west into a brisk wind and above the clouds in the direction of the sun's disc, about the zenith or 85 degrees from the southeast horizon. The slides were shot from 2:30 to 2:40. Thus in nearly an hour [from 1:45 to 2:40] of observation about 45 degrees of sky had been crossed." After using up his film, Mr. Rees began observing the UFO through 8 x 30 binoculars, but it was perfectly circular and had no distinguishable characteristics. It was extremely luminous and clearly visible through thin clouds (confirmed on one of the slides). To both the unaided eye and through binoculars, the object had a node of light brighter than the remainder of the object on the westward or leading edge. After 3:00 p.m. the UFO disappeared in the sun's rays and did not reappear. In later correspondence with Max B. Miller, to whom the slides were sent for analysis, Mr. Rees cited six arguments against the balloon explanation: (1) The extreme brightness for an opaque plastic balloon, suggesting emitted rather than reflected light. (2) There was a brisk westerly wind from the ocean, strongly evidenced by movements of the low fog and broken overcast. (3) The object suddenly vanished when near the sun's disc, not reappearing. There was no subsequent report of a balloon landing. (4) Through binoculars there was no elongation of the object visible, and no instrument package, lines or other external apparatus. (5) The UFO gave the impression of rotating around its vertical axis, though the position of the node did not change. (6) The readily visible node and its constant orientation toward the west. (Node confirmed on photographic enlargements) In addition to making a thorough analysis of the pictures themselves, and studying' various enlargements, Max B. Miller (with assistance from Robert C. Beck, another NICAP Adviser) also checked weather records and balloon records. There were no Weather Bureau, Navy or Air Force balloons in the area at the time of the sighting. Winds aloft up to 50,000 feet were generally westerly and definitely inconsistent with the motion of the UFO. However, at 60,000 feet (the highest reading taken) winds were easterly at 9 knots. Excerpts from Mr. Miller's detailed analysis report: "The images of the object on the original slides varied between approximately .07 mm and .09 mm along their maximum axes....[Based on camera data] the object appears to have been between approximately 4.2 and 5.4 minutes of arc in angular diameter. [This variation in size could have been caused by additional grain structure in different exposures]." Mr. Miller then considers and rules out Venus as the source of the light (too small and too close to the sun). "An object 5 minutes in angular diameter at 50,000 feet and 70 degrees above the horizon. . would have been approximately 82 feet in diameter. "[My first] reaction was that Mr.Rees had photographed some type of aerial balloon." Mr. Miller then discusses the wind and balloon data, and cites a letter from the Weather Bureau giving fairly complete information. "This statement did not, of course, rule out the possibility that a Skyhook or similar high altitude research balloon might have been photographed. . ." Mr. Miller then cites Navy and Air Force letters stating none of their balloons were in the area. Neither the Air Force nor local newspapers had any record of a UFO sighting in the area on that date, and no other witnesses turned up aside from the original group at the civic center. "Mr. Rees'. . objections {about the possibility the UFO was a balloon] seem to be well taken. . . . It seems logical to this writer that the usual appendage handing below these balloons would be relatively apparent, even under minimum magnification. How ever, I certainly do not feel qualified to adequately comment on this aspect, and therefore recommend that this phase of the evaluation be dispatched to someone experienced in balloon track mg." In conclusion, Mr. Miller stated he believed the following possibilities were eliminated: Aircraft, a bird, a cloud, foreign matter such as windblown newspaper, radiosonde or pilot weather balloons. "Unfortunately, the possibility that Jay Rees may have 94 photographed a high altitude research balloon has not been eliminated." The photographs subsequently were delivered to the Minneapolis NICAP Subcommittee since one of its members, Mr. Wallace Roepke, was formerly on the Skyhook balloon atmospheric re search program and was still connected with General Mills. Also the Subcommittee has other scientists and a professional photographer. Mr. Roepke also filed a detailed report with NICAP on behalf of the Subcommittee. in consultation with experienced balloon personnel Mr. Roepke and Mr. Hub T. Sherman (Chairman of the Subcommittee and an astronomer by training) obtained the following facts bearing on the case: 1. Although plenty of advanced warning is given to airports concerning balloon launchings, records of such are destroyed 72 hours after launching. 2. Release of payload usually causes a sudden rise of the balloon and a resulting explosion or fragmentation, but there are anomalous cases where the balloon survives for several days or even weeks. 3. The balloons become nearly spherical at their maximum altitudes where they are not normally seen by many people, are easily seen in more teardrop form at lower altitudes. In view of the above, there was no way to check on the presence of a General Mills research balloon. One of the consultants believed the UFO definitely was a balloon at about 100,000 feet. It was observed that apparent direction of motion of the balloons can be misleading, due to cloud motion. "The disappearance of the object can be explained in at least three ways: a. Proximity to the sun and its overpowering glare. b. Proximity to the sun causing most of the reflection to be at the back side of the object as seen from the position of the observer. c. The object could have exploded or fragmented." Mr. Roepke expressed his confidence that the analysts were skilled and impartial, and stated his conclusion as follows: "In consideration of all the foregoing, it is concluded by one investigator that there is nothing of major significance in the Rees sighting to show that a balloon was not observed. One investigator considers that, in all probability balloon was sighted; while two investigators consider that the object was a balloon. Two other investigators were noncommittal." Thus four out of six of the General Mills scientists and technicians consulted leaned heavily toward the balloon explanation . In view of this fact and the lack of any maneuvers which could not be attributed to a balloon, NICAP's conclusion is that the UFO probably was a large plastic research balloon at 60,000 feet or higher. If so, this would be one of the anomalous cases cited above when the balloon did not explode upon releasing its instrument package. It is conceivable that the "node" was a partial rupture- -not quite sufficient to cause fragmentation- - resulting from the sudden rise following release of the instruments. 52. August 25, 1960, "mystery satellite" photograph. Data received by NICAP from the Grumman Aircraft Corporation in Long Island were a contact print and enlargement showing the motion of the unknown object in relation to the star field. Grumman stated the object was moving at a speed comparable to previous satellites, but from east to west. 53. A/3C Bellett, Golden, Colorado. Photograph submitted in letter dated January 16, 1961. Negative requested and subsequently furnished. Both were forwarded to Max B. Miller for analysis. Mr. Miller stated: "This is a very common negative defect. . .[which] occurs whenever a piece of foreign matter happens to collect on the negative at the moment of exposure." The picture shows a thin dark line (about the proportions of a thin cigar) against the sky high above a plateau. Nothing was observed visually. 54. Harry Caslar, Eglin AFB, Fla. At 4:45 p.m. while taking movies of his son on the beach at Eglin AFB reservation, Mr. Caslar noticed a UFO approaching from over the water. He managed to obtain footage of it with his 8 mm camera. The film was viewed by the staff of a local newspaper. The film reportedly showed a cigar shaped or elliptical object making a U-turn and receding out over the Gulf. Both the Air Force and a NICAP member approached Mr. Caslar about borrowing the film for analysis, but he refused to part with it. Based on the news paper description, the film sounds like an important one. How ever, neither the film nor stills from it have been viewed by NICAP. 55. Nashville triangle. A shining object at very high altitude , appearing roughly triangular in shape, was viewed over a wide area near Nashville, Tenn., from about 5:00 p.m. to sunset. Data on the incident was gathered for NICAP by member Paul Norman, including photographs of the object. Navy jets tried to inspect the object, but couldn't reach its altitude, which appeared to be at about 60,000 feet. Examination of the photographs and witness reports to NICAP led to the conclusion the object probably was a high altitude research balloon. Nothing contained in the photographs or reports strongly challenges this conclusion . Huge "Moby Dick" plastic balloons (named after Melville's legendary whale) used for high altitude research are pyramidal in form and can appear triangular in outline. Also, local authorities often know nothing about these balloons, which travel long distances glowing brightly in sunlight at times. When local airports are unaware of the nature of the objects, this sometimes adds to the mystery. (The NICAP Assistant Director once experienced a sighting of a "Moby Dick" hovering and glowing brightly over New Orleans. No one could account for it, and the object still resembled a bright light source through 6 power binoculars. With the aid of an astronomical telescope, he was finally able to resolve it. The plastic material and instrument packages were clearly visible). 56. Craig Seese, Newark, Ohio. NICAP received a telegram in June 1961 notifying us about the existence of some color movies of a UFO taken by a 16 year old boy, Craig Seese. Our informant was Robert William Miller, a young man with serious interest in UFO investigation who had formed his own group for that purpose. Mr. Miller had been one of five witnesses to the UFO sighting and filming. A meeting was arranged between the youths, and Mr. A. B. Ledwith, a NICAP member in the area with technical background (including photographic analysis work with Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory). Mr. Ledwith was requested to advise NICAP whether he considered analysis of the film worthwhile. After talking to the youths and viewing the film, Mr. Ledwith recommended analysis of the film and advised Mr. Seese to have several copies made, storing the original in a cool safe place. Mr. Miller was advised to forward one copy of the film to Max B. Miller in Los Angeles for analysis. (NICAP paid for the printing of one copy of the film for this purpose). The film was sent to Max Miller by registered mail August 7, 1961. About this time photographic analysis work began to pile up on Max Miller, and other commitments began to make demands on his time. As a result several analyses in the past two years are either incomplete or still pending. Max Miller is no longer a NICAP Special Adviser, and other arrangements are being made to complete the analyses. The color film was taken between 10:00 p.m. and midnight with a Brownie 8 mm camera and telephoto lens (2.5 power), f/1.9. The UFO appeared to the unaided eye as a single white light, but the film indicates three objects, one slightly off-frame. Mr. Ledwith has tentatively ruled out reflections and film defects as the source of the images. 57. Bob Feldman, Akron, Ohio. Color photograph of alleged UFO taken by 12 year old boy forwarded to Max B Miller for examination. No report received. Picture shows object resembling sky rocket, on Echtachrome film E-21.5 at 1/1250 seconds. 58. Paccione Moon Photos. A series of four photographs showing a dark spot moving across the face of the moon were submitted to NICAP by Ralph Rankow (now a NICAP photographic Adviser). A young employee, Michael Paccione, had taken them sometime around September 20, but could not recall the exact date. He used a Starmaster refractor telescope and 35 mm single lens reflex camera, with Tri-X pan film exposures of 1, 2, & 3 seconds. The time was just after 8:30 p.m. Mr. Rankow, a professional photographer, considers the negatives authentic. The photographs were then examined by Dr. James C. Bartlett, Jr., NICAP astronomy Adviser in Baltimore and Mr. Sidney Parsons, professional astronomer and NICAP member. Dr. Bartlett determined that, based on the fraction of the moon's surface which was illuminated in the photographs, the 95 data was consistent with conditions on September 17. Mr. Parsons made some rough computations of the size (diameter) and velocity of the object, assuming various distances from earth. The UFO traveled too slow for a conventional aircraft and was unlike a satellite. "The only conventional device which could comply with such an observation," Mr. Parsons concluded, "is a high- altitude balloon." Assuming the object was about 1/15 th the angular diameter of the moon, and at an altitude of 10 miles (52,800 feet), its diameter would be 31 feet. If at 100 miles altitude, the diameter would be 306 feet, etc. 59. Savage, Warrenton, Va. While returning home from Washington, D.C. to Warrenton, Va. in a car pool, Mr. Harvey B. Savage, Jr., and his companions noticed an unusual object in the sky with an elongated pear shaped tail or trail. The object appeared to remain stationary until he reached home. When he started to photograph the UFO with his 16 mm Bell & Howell camera using telephoto lens, the UFO changed position, then began moving rapidly. He managed to obtain several feet of film showing the object. (The above is a second-hand account from a close friend of Mr. Savage. The film was loaned to NICAP for analysis, a misunderstanding developed over the timing of the analysis, and Mr. Savage refused to fill out a NICAP form.) The film was copied by NICAP, the original returned to Mr. Savage. As viewed at NICAP, the film showed what appeared to be a contrail. The film was nevertheless forwarded to Max Miller for closer examination, and is among the unprocessed material awaiting analysis. 60. Jeanne Booth Johnson, Hawaii. Following some UFO sightings in Hawaii during March 1963, the Honolulu Advertiser published Mrs. Johnson's UFO photograph taken about a year previously. NICAP contacted Mrs. Johnson about analyzing the picture and received full cooperation. She had taken five exposures of ships in Kahului harbor, and the final exposure, when developed showed a large, dark pear-shaped object with what appeared to be a vapor-like trail above it. (She had not seen anything visually, but was intent on photographing the harbor scene and had not looked closely at the sky). The camera used was a Rolleicord, with 120 Tri-X (400) film. Camera settings f/5.6 and 1/250. All five prints and negatives were submitted to photographic Adviser Ralph Rankow. Enlargement of the UFO photograph revealed bubbles or spots caused by developmental defects elsewhere in the picture, making the authenticity of the UFO doubtful. Stating that it could have been coincidence, even though an unlikely one, that only this photograph of the series showed such defects, Mr. Rankow termed the case "undecided." However, the lack of visual sighting of such a large object (well within the frame of the picture) in addition to the detected defects in the negative cause us to conclude it is most likely not a real UFO, only a developmental defect. 61. F. DiMambro, Woburn, Mass. NICAP first learned of the existence of these four photographs in a news release form Mr. George Fawcett received in June 1962. The witnesses originally were anonymous, but Mr. Fawcett was contacted and obtained for NICAP the Polaroid prints and a signed report form in which Mr. DiMambro gave permission to use his. name. This added considerable value to the case. The pictures were forwarded to Ralph Rankow who examined them, and made copies for NICAP. The images are faint, due to overexposure, but readily visible. Mr. Fawcett's original report stated that the four pictures were taken in 30 seconds. Concerning this, Mr. Rankow said: "I sincerely question the ability of anyone to make 4 Polaroid photos on one camera in 30 seconds. It must have taken longer, or else they weren't developed for the full ten seconds. This is a possibility, since the streaks on the top and bottom of photos #2 and #3 would indicate improper developing. . ." (On the report form, Mr. DiMambro stated the UFO was observed for 40-50 seconds, but he gave no information about the actual filming). Mr. Rankow also raised this question: "Why did he not adjust the lens setting differently after seeing how light the first one came out? It would have been better to get one good shot than 4 like this." As NICAP stated to Mr. Fawcett, "If the witnesses are of sound character, I would say these are the most interesting pictures we've seen in a longtime." Mr. DiMambro is a concrete and brick mason who was building a chimney on the rooftop of a new home when the sighting and filming took place. Reportedly, there were three other adult witnesses. Lacking information about the witnesses, we are forced to place the pictures in the in complete category, pending additional data. The first three photographs show no landmarks. The fourth shows the UFO close above a definite skyline including trees. The UFO, in one exposure, appears to be perfectly circular with a smaller circular marking in the center. However, the alleged UFO could also be one or more relatively small objects thrown in the air and photographed. 62. Bruce Fox, Bayonne, N.J.. Mr. Fox submitted this photograph to NICAP in a letter dated November 19, stating he had seen a bright moving object in the sky about 8:15 p.m. and managed to take one successful photograph of it. The letter and photograph were forwarded to Ralph Rankow, NICAP Adviser, on November 20. Mr. Fox was asked to submit his negative, a signed report form, and to include camera data. All the requested information was provided, except the negative. The camera was a box type Spartus with fixed lens setting, using 620 black and white film, In a letter to Mr. Rankow, Mr. Fox stated that his original letter to NICAP had been in error, and that he had obtained two clear photographs. A second photograph was submitted directly to Mr. Rankow. No meaningful analysis of the photographs has been possible. 63. Ronald Gounad, Bayonne, N.J. Photographs showing groups of lights in the sky were submitted in January 1963. Lights resembling those on a Christmas tree were visible in the foreground. The UFOS reportedly were visible, and photographed two consecutive nights. The negatives were requested, and submitted in April. Meanwhile, Ralph Rankow examined the pictures and stated that nothing could be determined from them. It was deduced that the original light sources were three lights in a straight line one above the other. However, the camera was hand-held and the shutter snapped five times for each picture further confusing already nebulous photographs. Since the witness offered no comments or explanation about the needless multiple exposures, the photographs and negatives were returned to him with a rating of "dubious."
64. Angel Falls, Venezuela. Mr. Ah R. Diaz, Caracas, aboard a tourist plane on a vacation trip to the Angel Falls area of remote Venezuelan jungle, obtained color movies of a UFO rising from the base of a mountain into the sky. With the aid of Dr. Askold Ladonko, NICAP Adviser in Caracas, and other NICAP members in the area. Mr. Diaz was interviewed and still shots from the movie film were obtained. Later a Spanish-speaking NICAP member, Mr. Jose' Cecin, was able to fly to Caracas from New York City, and persuaded Mr. Diaz to loan the film to NICAP for analysis. The U.S. Air Force attache' had already viewed the film, but had not been permitted to retain it. As this Report is being written, the original film is in the possession of a professional scientist on the west coast who has previously analyzed UFO movies. An analysis report is expected sometime in 1964. Mr. Cecin has retained a protection copy, and plans are being made for independent analysis of it. A third protection copy is being stored for safe-keeping. The movie, taken from the side window of a DC-3 as it passed Angel Falls, shows a yellowish tear-drop shaped object rising at a slight angle across the face of Auyantupuy Mountain. The object seems to oscillate from side to side, until it is lost in the sky, apparently moving into clouds. The falls and mountain provide landmarks throughout. The jungle area where the film was taken is so impenetrable that no one has ever been known to reach it on foot. While filming the falls, Mr. Diaz noticed a bright flash of light through his view finder, and the film appears to verify the presence of something unusual. 
Appearance of typical lens flare sometimes mistaken for UFOs,
caused by bright light source reflecting from camera lens. Drawing from photograph by Eric Aldwinckle
96
Physical & Physiological
Effects
In addition to radar tracking, electro-magnetic effects, and photographs, there have been other indications of the physical reality of UFOs. These include markings or substances left on the ground, and physiological effects on the observers. (With a few exceptions, the physiological effects have been temporary and not severe.) The following chart lists 35 sample cases; about half are taken from Aime Michel's account of the intensive concentration of UFO sightings in France during fall 1954, the remainder from other sources. The chart gives a cross-section of the types of physical and physiological effects which have been reported generally as resulting from UFOs. In most cases, scientific investigation of these reports has been totally lacking. Therefore, it is not claimed that they prove anything. On the other hand, independent witnesses all over the world have reported very similar experiences. Their reports deserve far more attention than they have received to date. NICAP has tried to encourage more thorough investigation of them. A comparison with the listing of electro-magnetic effects (this section)
will show that there appears to be a relationship between E-M cases and
physiological effects. Hypothesis: That the presumed electro-magnetic
radiation from UFOs which affects electrical circuits also affects the
human body under certain conditions. If this hypothesis is correct,
the importance of scientific investigation in this area is obvious. Physiological Effects; November 1957 As in the fall 1954 French sightings, the November 1957 "flap" in the United States brought with it reports of physical and physiological effects from UFOs. On a farm in Scotia, Nebraska, November 3, Roger Groetzinger (10) was milking the cows when he noticed an oblong object circling low over the barn. He thought it was a plane about to land, and went outside to the pasture fence to watch. The object was at low altitude emitting a humming noise. Suddenly Roger found that he could not move. As the UFO gained altitude and started moving away, the paralysis left. When Roger's mother returned home, she found a thoroughly frightened son. Where the UFO was seen low above the ground, heavy fumes lingered in the air. A week later, Mrs. Leita Kuhn in Madison, Ohio, observed a brilliant glowing object at close range. The physiological after effects of her sighting were fairly serious. Between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m. on the morning of November 10, Mrs. Kuhn had been having difficulty with an overheating stove in her kennel. It was a dark night, snowing and windy, and she had to make several trips between her house and the kennel. Finally, after she was sure all was well in the kennel, she shut the door and stepped outside. Suddenly she realized the sky was very bright. It had stopped snowing. "I stepped away from the kennel," she told NICAP, "and there in back about 60 feet above ground was a huge glowing object. It was phosphorous in color. Base, forty feet wide and nine to ten feet thick, dome-like top. Top seemed brighter than bottom. I looked the bottom over well. . " Exhaust-like clouds were visible on the left side of the object. "The top was brighter. I couldn't look at the top. My eyes burned so I closed them- -orange sparks seemed to glow every- time I closed my eyes. . . The brilliance is beyond description ." Becoming frightened, Mrs. Kuhn fled to the house. She looked out the window and it was dark again. "I went back outside and it was gone. There was no noise, no odor. It was 1:55 a.m." Mrs. Kuhn couldn't sleep, and wondered what to do about the sighting. UFOs were not supposed to exist; who could she report it to? "I decided not to," she said. "A few days later I had to see a doctor. My eyes were troubling me, a rash was driving me insane and I hadn't slept since November 10. Upon hearing my story, he advised me to report it. Which I did--thank goodness. The publicity was tough but through it I met others who have seen these too." UFO witnesses sometimes need psychological reinforcement. In the face of repeated official denials that UFOs exist, a person would begin to doubt his own sanity unless he knew that others had made similar reports, Mrs. Kuhn was shocked by her experience, and a little bitter toward those in authority. "I surely wish they [the Air Force] would call on me. I've been wanting to tell them I'm mad--clear through. I feel duped and deceived." Later NICAP contacted Mrs. Kuhn again to inquire about her health. In a detailed letter which she requested be treated as confidential, she described in detail what the physiological effects had been. Although ultra-violet radiation had been suggested as the cause at one point, the doctors she consulted treated her for a variety of ailments which had not been present prior to the UFO sighting. Some were painful and emotionally disturbing, and she began to fear for her life. In time, the symptoms began to clear up until, as of her January 1959 letter; her health was returning and she felt "rather well." Aside from the physical effects, Mrs. Kuhn experienced several psychological problems. Local civil defense officials treated her report seriously, but why did the government deny the existence of UFOs? Some friends rebuffed her, curiosity seekers plagued her. Getting no satisfactory explanation from government or scientific authorities, she sought an answer among UFO believers. In the process, she encountered the inevitable crackpots who took every light in the sky to he a space ship bearing noble beings. She was repelled by their attitude toward UFOs, and felt they only obscured the truth. Mrs. Kuhn seemed to be an intelligent and level-headed woman who was shocked and disturbed by an experience so immediate that it caused her to lose confidence in officialdom. She now feels it" is urgent that the truth about UFOs be made public so that others may be prepared psychologically where she was not. At last report, she had given up her kennel to devote more time to establishing the truth about UFOs. SOUND The notion that UFOs are typically silent, unlike piston and jet aircraft, is true in general. In a surprising number of cases, however, UFOs have made noises of some kind. This aspect of the phenomena should be studied carefully in the future, since it could provide some important clues to the nature of UFOs. To date, the descriptions of the sounds have been sketchy. This line of questioning has not been pursued by investigators in as much detail as it might have been, probably because of the "silent UFO" stereotype Useful information for a study of UFO sounds would include careful estimations (or measurements when possible) of the distance of the object from the observer when the sound was heard; and ideally tape recordings of the actual sound, as well as information about the appearance of the UFO and what maneuvers it was making at the time. Sound detection and amplification equipment would be required for any complete scientific investigation. The following chart is intended only to be descriptive, and to organize seeming patterns tentatively. The eighteen cases above were selected from a larger sample (approximately 50) of readily available sound cases, in a manner designed to minimize the accidental inclusion of misidentified aircraft, etc., which may have been seen under unusual lighting conditions and reported as UFOs. This was done by taking cases in which the UFOs exhibited "typical" characteristics such as sharp turns, erratic maneuvers, and rapid acceleration. Cases involving simple straight line flight at moderate speeds, regard less of the physical appearance of the supposed UFO, were excluded. The result gives a wide distribution, both by date and geographical location, of fairly typical UFO sightings, with the added feature of sound from the objects. These apparent patterns emerge: * UFOs which make sharp explosive noise during rapid acceleration or high-speed flight. * UFOs which emit a humming (whining or whirring) noise while hovering or moving relatively slowly. * UFOs which make a whistling or "swishing" noise like rushing air. Assuming that the sample of cases is representative, we next have to take into account variations in terminology used by different witnesses in describing what they have heard. We shall assume that "whirring," "whining," or "humming" constitute a single type of sound. This has sometimes been compared to the sound made by an electric motor or generator. The French theorist, Lieutenant Plantier, has developed the concept of deriving propulsive force from primary cosmic rays by transforming the energy into "a local field of force that can be varied and directed at will." His theory has the merit of predicting some of the observed features of UFOs. However, it rules out sonic booms (postulating that an air cushion carried along with the UFO would buffer sound), when there is evidence that UFOs do make sonic booms. Another similar approach, suggested by Prof. Dr. Hermann Oberth, is that whoever operates the UFOs has knowledge of the control of gravity. The UFOs' apparent circumvention of the laws of inertia, as we understand them, has been the single most difficult feature of UFO phenomena to account for. Could control of gravity explain how this is possible? The above speculation may or may not be close to the truth. If we forget for the moment the problem of inertial effects and assume we are dealing with controlled devices which in some manner surmount that problem, we can hypothetically explain the UFO sounds as (a) actual sonic booms; (b) actual "engine" noises very similar to a "whirring" electric motor; and (c) whistling, rushing air effects of a solid body traveling through air. There are indications that only the sonic booms are heard at any appreciable distance. At distances comparable to those attained by high-altitude aircraft, where we are able to hear jet or piston engines at least faintly, UFOs apparently are virtually silent. The July 13, 1959, New Zealand case (and similar data) suggests a direct relationship between the level of sound and acceleration, with increased intensity or shrillness when power is applied. Angel's Hair An interesting phenomenon which has been linked with UFOs is so-called "angel's hair." This gossamer-like substance has been observed falling from the sky, sometimes in great quantity. However, it (if indeed only one type of substance is involved) has only been observed in association with UFOs in about one-half of the cases. Also, it is obvious that in many cases the sub stance has been nothing but cobwebs spun by ballooning spiders. [Natural History, January 1951; "Those Things in the Sky." On at least one occasion, small spiders have actually been found in the material leaving little doubt about the identification. Although we do not presently consider angel's hair to be significant evidence of UFOs, (or for that matter to be clearly differentiated from spider webs in most cases) there are some surprising reports on record which cause us to suspend final judgment. A typical angel's hair report (though not designated as such) is reported in the Humboldt (Calif.) Times, November 11 and 12, 1958. Residents of Trinidad, Rio Dell, and other northern California towns reported showers of cobweb-like material on November 9, some in strands 5 to 6 feet long. Two fishermen at sea, George Korkan and Jack Curry, said the substance settled on their boat in such quantity that it made the boat appear to be "a million years old." A sample of the substance obtained at McKinleyville airport was examined by Dr. Erwin Bielfuss, assistant professor of biology at Humboldt State College. The newspaper quotes him as ruling out the possibility of it being a mold growth or animal product, and suggesting it is either plant life or a plastic material. Although it was reported that strands up to 40 feet in length were draped over trees and wires, there were no reports of spiders being found. A trained biologist witnessed a fall of angel's hair about 1957. He gave the following statement to NICAP: "Several years ago, I would estimate close to the summer of 1957, two others and myself witnessed a phenomenon that could be best described as "a sky full of cobwebs" off the Florida coast a short distance south of Miami. At that time I held the position of curator of the Miami Seaquarium, and I was taking part in a specimen-collecting trip aboard the Seaquarium vessel Sea Horse, which was skippered by collections director Capt. W. B. Gray and his assistant, Emil Hanson. "We were traveling northward after a successful day's collecting , somewhere between Soldiers Key and Key Biscayne and approximately three miles off the Florida mainland. The sky was clear on this particular day and little or no wind was blowing. For a period of two hours or more we observed occasional strands of what appeared to be very fine cobwebs up to two or more feet in length, drifting down from the sky and occasionally catching in the rigging of our craft. On being questioned by the others as to what might be the nature of these webs, I explained to the others that an oft-repeated statement in natural history books is that 99 very young spiders on hatching will frequently pay out long strands of silk from their spinnerets until the wind catches them and they eventually become airborne, sometimes being transported many miles and even, as I seemed to recall, far out to sea on occasion. "At the time I assumed that some phenomenon of temperature or timing had resulted in the mass hatching and exodus of a certain type of spider somewhere on the mainland, and that furthermore, these webs must be fragments of the original strands which in themselves may have been of considerable length. Spiders can and do at times produce vast lengths (in proportion to their size) of web material at little expense to their own metabolism , and I visualized the little spiderlets, wherever they might be, continuing to emit their silken trails during their airborne journey as the wind broke and blew the first ones away. Although we captured a number of these strands on our fingertips, no spiders were to be seen despite the likelihood that a certain percentage of them would still have spiders attached. "With the intention of examining the strands under my laboratory microscope when we reached the Seaquarium, I care fully placed several of them inside a mason jar, allowing them to cling to the inside of the glass before I capped it. Under high power I had hoped to see the tiny adhesive droplets that adorn most but not all spider webs, and were these present, there would be little doubt of their true nature. However, when I uncapped the jar later in my office, no trace of the web material could be found. "This phenomenon is to me still unexplained, and I have seen nothing comparable to it before or since. I will mention by way of information that I have always been interested in the biology of spiders and their webs, particularly the giant orb- weaver Nephilia, whose bright golden web is a fairly common sight through the Everglades. Strong enough to support small pebbles, this web has actually been woven into cloth by natives of the tropics. "From the foregoing, I would say that it is possible that the strands we saw were something other than spider web, and I have no explanation for the apparent disappearance of the collected material in the mason jar." /s/ Craig Phillips The reported dissipation of the angel's hair in this case is commonly reported. Some analysts who do not think all angel's hair is cobwebs use this feature to differentiate "true" angel's hair from spider webs. If this assumption is correct, angel's hair unfortunately becomes a will-of-the-wisp which disappears before it can be analyzed properly, and therefore it does not constitute good physical evidence.U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior; 11-5-63 Biologists who have examined angel's hair which has subsequently dissipated have been unable to account for it in terms of spiders. The substances which have not dissipated so far show no particular pattern, and may be attributed to many different phenomena. The following chart includes all reported cases of falls of gossamer-like material which have been compiled by NICAP for specific dates. 100 Of the 43 cases of angel's hair, visible unidentified objects were
reported in just over half (23). The most common descriptions
of the UFOs have been "cigar-shaped" or like "silvery balls". Sudden accelerations
and high speeds have been reported, but a person seeing something at relatively
close range and thinking it is a larger object farther away could easily
over estimate the speed. Nevertheless, the cases of cigar-shaped Rapid dissipation of the substance was reported in 12 of 43 cases. In seven of these 12 cases, there were also visual sightings of UFOs. 101 Notes 71. Keyhoe, op. cit., p.174. 103 |
|
| Section IX, The Air Force Investigation (pages 105-117) NICAP Home Page |
* 
