Introduction. Page I iii Abstract. Explanation of nicap and its policies
Download 3.34 Mb.
|
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 research 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. However, 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 1/15th 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 incomplete 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 attaché' 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. 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.
Download 3.34 Mb. Share with your friends:
|