◆ SpookStack

Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0 Photographic Cases (Continued) greenish halation is sympathetic to the defect and is effected by one of the color developers overcompensating around the un- developed emulsion (if a cinch mark) or foreign matter.’’ 48. Schedelbauer, Vienna. Edgar Schedlebauer, a reporter for the Vienna newspaper ‘‘Wiener Montag’’, photographed a round, glowing object which he said hovered low over the ground for ten seconds emitting heat. The newspaper, alleging that the photograph had been declared authentic by outside experts, printed the picture’on the front page and labelled it ‘‘the most sensational photograph of our century.’’ The picture shows a bright white object something like a parachute canopy against a black back- ground. There are no reference points. NICAP wrote to Mr. Schedelbauer requesting the photograph and negative for analysis, but received no answer. Therefore the case must be considered incomplete. Since it is the type of photograph which could easily be faked, we are presently skeptical about it. 49. Mary Jo Curwen, Hazel Green, Wisconsin. A signed report form was received from Miss Curwen in July 1960, with a letter stating: ‘‘When the Air Force returns our film [A copy of the original] we will be willing to lend it to you.’’ After further correspondence, the film was finally submitted to the Minneapolis NICAP Subcommittee in April 1963. After analysis, it was then forwarded to NICAP Photographic Adviser Ralph Rankow in New York City, who also examined it. The film was returned to the Curwen family in June 1963. The analyses established that the film was worthless as evidence of UFOs. The images were tiny, almost merging with the grain of the film, showed no appreciable motion other than typical movie film ‘‘jump’’ and were also visible in other scenes against the ground. The witnesses did not explain why a mundane farmyard scene appears between two scenes allegedly showing UFOs against the blue sky. In the verbal report the witnesses stated they saw three saucer-shaped objects flying past in formation, oscillating up and down in flight, at 5:50 p.m. Miss Curwen attempted to film the UFOs with an 8 mm camera on a roll of color film which was being used primarily for family scenes. It is possible that the attempt was unsuccessful, and that the family naturally misinterpreted routine film specks as being images of the UFOs they had seen. At any rate, the film does not verify the verbal report. 50. Linz, Austria A photograph showing a globular UFO seemingly lighted more brightly on the underside, near what is apparently out-of-focus tree branches, was submitted to NICAP for analysis. Max B. Miller examined the picture, and stated: “Knowing what camera and lens made the photo, we can determine that the object was approximately 6 degrees in diameter. . .it appears to be out of focus rather than blurred due to motion. . . having no further data additional evaluations cannot be made. My own opinion, however, is totally negative.’’ d1. Jay Rees, San Francisco. This is one of the few photo- graphic cases involving ideal conditions for analysis; (1) An intelligent witness who saw and took good photographs of an un- usual object in the sky; (2) Full cooperation between the witness and NICAP analysts uniquely fitted for the analysis work; (3) Thorough analysis and submission of detailed formal reports by NICAP analysts. Mr. Rees first spotted the UFO at 1:45p.m. (PDT), August 9, 1960, in the presence of other witnesses at the civic center plaza in San Francisco. The object moved slowly west above a broken overcast which was being blown east by westerly winds of 10-20 mph (according to newspaper weather reports). The relatively rapid motion ruled out an astronomical explanation, and the wind direction seemed to rule out a balloon. Mr. Rees watched the object for 30 minutes, wishing he had his camera to record it. By this time the UFO was about 70 degrees above the SE horizon. Finally he decided to get his camera in the hope the object would still be visible. He rushed home and picked up his Zeiss Tessar 2.8 35mm camera, with 45mm lens and Kodachrome color film, and found a location at which the overcast was broken. He then proceeded to take 12 photographs in succession, taking care to include known objects in the fore- ground of each picture for reference points. In his initial report to NICAP, Mr. Rees stated: ‘‘I changed exposure and f-stop every several frames--from 1/500 to 1/250 to 1/125 and from f/5.6 to f/14. By this time the UFO was still moving due west into a brisk wind and above the clouds in the di- rection of the sun’s disc, about the zenith or 85 degrees from the southeast horizon. The slides were shot from 2:30 to 2:40. Thus in nearly an hour [from 1:45 to 2:40] of observation about 45 degrees of sky had been crossed.’’ After using up his film, Mr. Rees began observing the UFO through 8 x 30 binoculars, but it was perfectly circular and had no distinguishable characteristics. It was extremely luminous and clearly visible through thin clouds (confirmed on one of the slides). To both the unaided eye and through binoculars, the object had a node of light brighter than the remainder of the object on the westward or leading edge. After 3:00 p.m. the UFO disappeared in the sun’s rays and did not reappear. In later correspondence with Max B. Miller, to whom the slides were sent for analysis, Mr. Rees cited six arguments against the balloon explanation: (1) The extreme brightness for an opaque plastic balloon, suggesting emitted rather than reflected light. (2) There was a brisk westerly wind from the ocean, strongly evidenced by movements of the low fog and broken overcast. (3) The object suddenly vanished when near the sun’s disc, not reappearing. There was no subsequent report of a balloon landing. (4) Through binoculars there was no elongation of the object visible, and no instrument package, lines or other external apparatus. (5) The UFO gave the impression of rotating around its vertical axis, though the position of the node did not change. (6) The readily visible node and its constant orientation toward the west. (Node confirmed on photographic enlargements) In addition to making a thorough analysis of the pictures themselves, and studying various enlargements, Max B. Miller (with assistance from Robert C. Beck, another NICAP Adviser) also checked weather records and balloon records. There were no Weather Bureau, Navy or Air Force balloons in the area at the time of the sighting. Winds aloft up to 50,000 feet were gen- erally westerly and definitely inconsistent with the motion of the UFO. However, at 60,000 feet (the highest reading taken) winds were easterly at 9 knots. Excerpts from Mr. Miller’s detailed analysis report: ‘‘The images of the object on the original slides varied between ap- proximately .07mm and .09mm along their maximum axes... [Based on camera data] the object appears to have been between approximately 4.2 and 5.4 minutes of arc in angular diameter. [This variation in size could have been caused by additional grain structure in different exposures].’’ Mr. Miller then considers and rules out Venus as the source of the light (too small and too close to the sun), ‘‘An object 5 minutes in angular diamerter at 50,000 feet and 70 degrees above the horizon. . .would have been approximately 82 feet in dia- meter. . .’’ “(My first] reaction was that Mr. Rees had photographed some type of aerial balloon.’’ Mr. Miller then discusses the wind and balloon data, andcitesa letter fromthe Weather Bureau giving fairly complete information. ‘‘This statement did not, of course, rule out the possibility that a Skyhook or similar high altitude research balloon might have been photographed. . .’? Mr. Miller then cites Navy and Air Force letters stating none of their balloons were in the area. Neither the Air Force nor local newspapers hadany record of a UFO sighting in the area on that date, and no other witnesses turned up aside from the original group at the civic center. “Mr. Rees’. . .objections [about the possibility the UFO wasa balloon] seem tobe welltaken. . . . Itseems logicalto this writer that the usual appendage handing below these balloons would be relatively apparent, even under minimum magnification. How- ever, I certainly do not feel qualified to adequately comment on this aspect, and therefore recommend that this phase of the evaluation be dispatched to someone experienced inballoontrack- ing.”’ In conclusion, Mr. Miller stated he believed the following possibilities were eliminated: Aircraft, a bird, a cloud, foreign matter such as windblown newspaper, radiosonde or pilot weather balloons. ‘‘Unfortunately, the possibility that Jay Rees may have Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : ClA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0