Introduction. Page I iii Abstract. Explanation of nicap and its policies
Download 3.34 Mb.
|
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. 
July 16, 1952; Massachusetts (Case 14) 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
September 9, 1954; New Zealand (Case 27) Drawing from photograph, by Eric Aldwinckle 
August 30, 1951; Lubbock, Texas (Case 11) Drawing from photograph, by Eric Aldwinckle 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.
"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. .
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).
August 20, 1957; Japan (case 33) Drawing from photograph, by Eric Aldwinckle 92 
March 1954; Rouen, France (case 24) Drawing from photograph, by Eric Aldwinckle 
May 11, 1950; Oregon (case 7) Drawing from photograph, by Eric Aldwinckle 
January 16, 1958; Trindade Isle, Brazil Drawing from photograph, by Eric Aldwinckle 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.
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).
"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.
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
Appearance of typical lens flare sometimes mistaken for UFOs; caused by bright light source reflecting from camera lens. Drawing from photograph, by Eric Aldwinckle
greenish halation is sympathetic to the detect and is effected by one of the color developers overcompensating around the undeveloped 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 no 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
Download 3.34 Mb. Share with your friends:
|
