◆ SpookStack

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 (almost7 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, consid- ered 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 tech- nician 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 norther- ly course at about the speed of a propeller airliner, then ac- celerate rapidly and disappear into some clouds. This suggests that more than one UFO may have been op- erating 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.”’ Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0 PHOTOGRAPHS The photographic material listed below has been evaluated with this principle in mind: A still photograph burporting to show a UFO is, at most, approximately as reliable as the person who took it. If the witness is a veputable 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 real- istically 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 air- planes, just because we are easily able tofake a picture to repre- sent 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 ver- acious 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. Insome cases, because of the confusion surrounding the UFO subject and reports of tamper- ing with or confiscation of films [Section IX], witnesses have re- fused 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 at- tempted 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. Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CiA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0