◆ SpookStack

Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0 Photographic Cases (Continued) 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 §. 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 in- vestigators, 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 case is still listed as unknown or unsolved.’’ As in other gun camera and tracking camera cases, the film has not been re- leased 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, Lancs., 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 dis- proved. 24. Rouen, France. In conjunction with an article ‘‘Some- thing 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 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 scien- tists, 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 verti- cally 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 photo- graph of them with his Cannon 35 mm camera using Ansco- chrome 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 ‘“caureole- 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 ‘‘con- tactee’’? 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 indiameter, with some ‘‘appara~- tus 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 Koda- chrome. (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 Trent photoerapty OVed For Release 2001/04/02 ; CIA-RDP81RO0560R000100010001-0