◆ SpookStack

Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001- Photographic Cases (Continued) ; N. Y. The camera had been in operation on the night of an im- ‘ portant UFO sighting by Federal Aviation Agency personnel at Redmond airport [Section V], and it was felt that an unusual op- portunity for objective confirmation of the sighting was available. However, the film was not received until August 1960 and the covering letter stated: ‘‘You have been a victim of the testing of the film copying process here at Ithaca, and we have just re- ceived the first copy. . .You should bear in mind that the camera gives a very small image of the sky, and it is seldom possible to see star sized objects unless they are very bright. . ad Max B. Miller projected the film and viewed it frame by frame. In his report to NICAP, Mr. Miller stated the film was ‘cin such deplorable condition as to be almost worthless. There are thousands of dust specks and processing specks. . .So 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 confir- mation was therefore totally inconclusive. (For data about All-Sky cameras and their use, see IGY . March 1954; Rouen, France (case 24) General Report Series, Numbers 5 & 6, September 1959, National Drawing from photograph, by Eric Aldwinckle 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). 46. J. J. Rehill, Miami, Fla. According to a story in the Miami Herald, December 6, 1959, Seaman Rehill while on leave saw a flash of light in the sky while taking a picture in the city. He used an Argus C-3 camera and color film. When the picture was returned after processing, it showed five white spots, one disc-shaped followed by a white streak. The paper reports: “The transparency itself was undamaged. There wasno 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 hadbeen 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. 47. Joe Perry, Grand Blanc, Michigan. The Detroit Times, May 11, 1950; Oregon (Case 7) March 9, reported the story of this photograph, stating that the Drawing from photograph, by Eric Aldwinckle FBI was investigating it. While pursuing his hobby of astronomical photography, Mr. Perry obtained a color photograph (slide) reportedly showing a UFO which was ‘‘disc-shaped with a dome and leaving a green trail.’’ (The image on the print examined by NICAP is similar to a black disc viewed edge-on, but not per- fectly symmetrical, and the ‘‘object’’ is surrounded by green coloration resembling a glow.) 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 isacinchmark. . . itcouldeither be foreign matter which attached itself to the film during processing or undeveloped emulsion, and I’m inclined to say the latter. . . the 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 rep- resentative, 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. 45. Redmond, Ore., FAA Case. After a great deal of dif- Appearance of typical lens flare sometimes mistaken for ficulty and lengthy correspondence, a copy of motion picture film UFOs; caused by bright light source reflecting from camera taken by an IGY ‘‘All-Sky’’ Camera site inRedmond, Oregon, was lens. obtained from the Cornell University Aurora Archive, Ithaca, (Drawing from photograph, by Eric Aldwinckle) Approved For Release 2001/04/02 “ CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0