◆ SpookStack

te Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010002-9 = Nobody gives much weight to the argument “I saw it in print, so it must be true.” The grounds are equally shakey for accepting the hypothesis “I saw a photograph, so-I know it’s true.” Falsification of prints, tampering with negatives and photos of deliberate hoaxes glut the files of research or- ganizations whose main concern with them is to identify them for what they are so that the serious UFOlogist will not be hoodwinked. Less serious organizations, directing their product to the entertainment rather than enlighten- ment of their readers, will publish such photos to titilate an eager and gullible audience. Along with photos established definitely as fakes or as honest mistakes in identification by the photographers, are the rare examples of officially recorded “unexplained aerial phenomena;” photos that have been analyzed and evaluated by irrefutable authorities and declared to be genuine. Tliese are the photos that have introduced an element of doubt in the minds of scientists, reporters, publishers, engi- neers, pilots and researchists once dedicated to the premise that interplanetary craft could not exist. The photos on this and the following four pages are de- voted to examples, most of which fall into this category. On the left are two, taken by the same man. Their his- tory illustrates the frustration with which a serious pho- tographer, who captures on film a “thing” which no one can explain, is often confronted. These shots are two of five that were taken at the time of the now famous Lubbock Lights incident in Texas in August, 1951. The lights first were witnessed by men of such high pro- fessional status that their reports promptly generated re- sponse and official recognition from UFO researchists and Air Force personnel. The sighters were four university pro- fessors, one of geology, one of chemical engineering, one of physics and the fourth the head of the petroleum engineer- ing’ department. What they saw on the night of August 25 was a formation of some 15 to 30 bluish-green lights, traveling in semi-cir- cular fashion from north to south. An hour later, the lights were back, but this time in no particular pattern. During the course of the next several days, the professors watched, examined and recorded twelve different sightings of these objects, sometimes three in a single night. The same lights were seen by hundreds of other people in the area during the next two weeks and the newspapers were full of stories on the sky show. It was to be expected that photographers, both profes- sional and amateur, would be on the scout for a shot at the “things.” One of the latter who was, was a Texas Tech freshman, Carl Hart, Jr., who, on the hot summer night of August 31, had pulled his bed close to the -window for some relief from the heat. The position provided him with an excellent view of the clear sky. Before long he saw a formation of lights appear to the north. The lights disap- peared, but word that these objects were inclined to reap- pear had spread throughout the area and Hart, hoping such would be the case in this instance, set the lens of his Kodak 35 at £3.5 and one tenth second and went out into the back yard. The lights did come back. Hart took two photographs. They returned a third time, and this time he got three shots. He later was to describe the same blue-green lights as had been seen by the professors, but.in Hart’s sighting, they were grouped in a perfect V. The image that came up on the developed negatives was ‘sufficiently strong to inter- est the local newspaper and the photographs were published. These, coupled with the credibility of the original sight- ers, was-sufficient basis for the Air Force to investigate the incident thoroughly and Edward Ruppelt was to report later in his Report On Unidentified Flying Objects the extent of that exhaustive investigation which got underway with his own examination of Hart’s negatives that he then sub- mitted to the Photo Reconnaissance Laboratory at Wright Field. The negatives, soiled from excessive handling and scratched by dust particles, showed the images of -light in inverted V-formation, blurred from camera mo- tion, circular in shape, each near a pinpoint source of light. Enlarged, the blow-ups showed that “the individual lights in the formation shifted positions according to a definite pat- tern.” (The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, Rup- pelt. Doubleday). The film also showed that the lights were considerably brighter than the stars, or, at least, had more effect on the film. The discrepancy in the “soft, glowing lights” reported by the professors and the intensity of those exposed on the film was puzzling. The Air Force photo lab was asked if there could be an explanation for something that was dim to the eye but came up bright on film. Their answer, Ruppelt reports, was “a light source which had a color far over in the red end of the spectrum, bordering on infrared” . . . such as might be produced by extremely high temperatures, They concluded their explanation with “We have nothing in this world that flies that appears dim to the eye yet will show bright on film.” Ruppelt’s own report to the press was “The photos were never proved to be a hoax, but neither were they proved to be genuine.” He concluded his own summation with “There is no definite answer.” There is no definite answer to many photographs that have been submitted as evidence of UFQs, but there is a steadily developing body of opinion that natural phenom- ena, weather conditions, reflections and hoaxes cannot be responsible for all of the photos that are submitted in verifi- cation of sightings that have been made. Frequently pho- tographers film aerial phenomena in one section of a state with no knowledge at the time that the same objects are being viewed by witnesses in another section of the same or neighboring states. In many instances, photographers, well aware that their photos are genuine, are reluctant to submit the prints for publication because of the ridicule and charges of fakery that attach to such claims. It is unfortunate that men and women of established integrity are loath to announce themselves since it is only” through the-cooperative efforts of sighters, photographers, _ researchists and scientists that the complete answers will emerge. As enthusiasm and acceptance continue to spread . among the more responsible element of our society, it is logical to assume that more and more people will willingly contribute their names and their knowledge to reports and photos of UFO sightings. And in the interest of those de- voted to intelligent research, a pox on anyone who par- ticipates in a hoax. continued on next page Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010002-9 37