◆ SpookStack

ontinue aper photographs were forwarded to NICAP in January 1959 PhotogreAPLOED For, Relgase 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81 R00560R000100010001-0 ases (| September 9, 1954; New Zealand (Case 27) Drawing from photograph, by Eric Aldwinckle August 30, 1951; Lubbock, Texas (Case 11) Drawing from photograph, by Eric Aldwinckle With this background, there was some natural suspicion about the authenticity of the 1959 film. However, NICAP representatives who have talked to Mr. Stanford were impressed by his sincerity, and examination of the films by NICAP and Max B, Miller found no evidence of fakery or tampering with the films (which, as stated above, were processed in Los Angeles and examined by Max Miller before they were viewed by Mr. Stanford himself), We conclude that the films themselves are authentic records of some object in the sky, but that they do not substantiate the verbal report and do not constitute significant evidence of UFOs as the matter now stands. Comments by Max Miller (quoted from SAUCERS, Vol. VII Nos. 3 & 4): “The 8 mm footage lacks sufficient resolution. . .The 16mm film is excellent, but the UFO sequence is extremely short, com- prising not more than three or four feet. However, one or two scenes are identical in the 8 mm and 16 mm films, making simu- lation exceedingly improbable. . . It is [my] not inexperienced opinion that the cameras did photograph a visible object, and that super-imposure or double- exposure could not account for the images produced. What the object was, of course, remains an enigma. The first possibility to cross our minds was a polyethelyne type balloon, but we have never heard of any of the shape recorded. . .”” 43. Mike Schultz, Newark, Ohio. The Newark Advocate, Nov. 15, 1958 published three pictures and the story. Some ex- cerpts from the article and a black and white print of the news- by a member. Using an inexpensive camera and telescope, Mr. Schultz photographed what looked like a bright star in the sky. Then the object moved and stopped, and he took the second picture. This was repeated once more. According to the member who submitted the photographs, each picture is a double-exposure of one object (the images are double in each case) because of un- avoidable motion of the camera and telescope. The pictures in NICAP possession (poor copies with no negatives) strongly re- semble internal reflections in the telescope as might be obtained by an inexperienced amateur astronomer using poor equipment. Without more complete data, no final judgment can be made. 44. James M. Purdon, Jr., Imperial Beach, Calif, Mr. Purdon, an engineer with a west coast aviation company, obtained several feet of color movie film of a bright object with a halo around it, observed by him and his family between 4:20 and 4:50 p.m. The equipment used was a Kodak camera with telephoto lens on a turret, According to a report which Mr. Purdon submitted to NICAP, the UFO was first motionless for a long period of time. While he was phoning a newspaper, his wife saw the UFO disappear. Minutes later he obtained footage of a moving bright object (about 20 seconds of which, he states, ‘“‘came out rather good’’), According to his report, the UFO ‘‘hove into view from one direction, slowed up to almost a stop, then proceeded at a 90 degree angle toward the ocean. It accelerated quite rapidly at first. Then it oscillated up anddown.”’ A TV antenna in the fore- ground furnishes a reference point on the film, and the object moves behind a ‘Christmas tree” (presumably planted in his August 20, 1957; Japan (case 33) Drawing from photograph, by Eric Aldwinckle Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : GIA-RDP81 R00560R000100010001-0