◆ SpookStack

Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0 Photographic Cases (Continued) data was consistent with conditions onSeptember 17. Mr. Parsons made some rough computations of the size (diameter) and velocity of the object, assuming various distances from earth. The UFO travelled 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 angu- lar 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 pearshapedtailortrail. The object appeared to remain stationary until he reached home. When he started to photograph the UFO with his 16mm 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 abouta year pre- viously. NICAP contacted Mrs. Johnson about analyzing the pic- ture 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 £/5.6 and 1/250. All five prints and nega- tives 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 on 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 or- iginally were anonymous, but Mr. Fawcett was contacted and ob- tained for NICAP the Polaroid prints and a signed report form in which Mr. DiMambro gave permission to use his name. This added considerable value tothe 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 thatthe four pictures were taken in 30 seconds. Concerning this, Mr. Rankow said: “T 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 inthe sky about 8:15 p.m. and managed to take one successful photograph of it. The letter and photograph were forwarded toRalph 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 wasa box type Spartus with fixed lens setting, using 620 black and white film. Ina 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 sub- mitted 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 ina 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 returnedto him with a rating of ‘‘dubious.’’ 64. Angel Falls, Venezuela. Mr. Ali 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, andother 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 per- mitted 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 ofa 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. Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : G1A-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0