◆ SpookStack

Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0 Photographic Cases (Continued) photographed a high altitude research balloon has not been eliminated.’’ The photographs subsequently were delivered to the Minnea- polis NICAP Subcommittee since one ofits members, Mr. Wallace Roepke, was formerly on the Skyhook balloon atmospheric re- search program and was still connected with General Mills. Also the Subcommittee has other scientists and a professional photographer. Mr. Roepke also fileda detailed report with NICAP on behalf of the Subcommittee. In consultation with experienced balloon personnel Mr. Roepke and Mr. Hub T. Sherman (Chairman of the Subcommittee and an astronomer by training) obtained the following facts bearing on the case: 1. Although plenty of advanced warning is given to airports concerning balloon launchings, records of such are destroyed 72 hours after launching. 2. Release of payload usually causes a sudden rise of the balloon and a resulting explosion or fragmentation, but there are anomalous cases where the balloon survives for several days or even weeks. 3. The balloons become nearly spherical at their maximum altitudes where they are not normally seen by many people, are easily seen in more teardrop form at lower altitudes. In view of the above, there was no way to check on the presence of a General Mills research balloon. One of the con- sultants believed the UFO definitely was a balloon at about 100,000 feet. It was observed that apparent direction of motion of the balloons can be misleading, duetocloud motion. ‘‘The dis-~ appearance of the object can be explained in at least three ways: a. Proximity to the sun and its overpowering glare. b. Proximity to the sun causing most of the reflection to be at the back side of the object as seen from the position of the observer. c. The object could have exploded or fragmented.”’ Mr. Roepke expressed his confidence that the analysts were skilled and impartial, and stated his conclusion as follows: “In consideration of all the foregoing, it is concluded by one investigator that there is nothing of major significance in the Rees sighting to show that a balloon was not observed. One investigator considers that, in all probability, a balloon was sighted; while two investigators consider that the object was a balloon. Two other investigators were noncommital.’’ Thus four out of six of the General Mills scientists and technicians consulted leaned heavily toward the balloon explana- tion. In view of this fact and the lack of any maneuvers which could not be attributed to a balloon, NICAP’s conclusion is that the UFO probably was a large plastic research balloon at 60,000 feet or higher. If so, this would be one of the anomalous cases cited above when the balloon did not explode upon releasing its instrument package. It is conceivable that the ‘‘node’’ was a partial rupture--not quite sufficient to cause fragmentation-- resulting from the sudden rise following release of the instru- ments. 52. August 25, 1960, ‘‘mystery satellite’? photograph. Data received by NICAP from the Grumman Aircraft Corporation in Long Island were a contact print and enlargement showing the motion of the unknown object in relationtothe star field. Grumman stated the object was moving at a speed comparable to previous satellites, but from east to west. 53. A/3C Bellett, Golden, Colorado. Photograph submitted in letter dated January 16, 1961. Negative requested and sub- sequently furnished. Both were forwarded to Max B. Miller for analysis. Mr. Miller stated: ‘‘This is a very common negative defect. . .[which] occurs whenever a piece of foreign matter happens to collect on the negative at the moment of exposure.’’ The picture shows a thin dark line (about the pro- portions of a thin cigar) against the sky high above a plateau. Nothing was observed visually. 54, Harry Caslar, Eglin AFB, Fla. At 4:45 p.m. while taking movies of his son on the beach at Eglin AFB reservation, Mr. Caslar noticed a UFO approaching from over the water. He managed to obtain footage of it with his 8mm camera. The film was viewed by the staff of a local newspaper. The film reportedly showed a cigar shaped or elliptical object making a U-turn and receding out over the Gulf. Both the Air Force and a NICAP member approached Mr. Caslar about borrowing the film for analysis, but he refused to part with it. Based on the news- paper description, the film sounds like an important one. How- ever, neither the film nor stills from it have been viewed by NICAP. 55. Nashville triangle. A shining object at very high alti- tude, appearing roughly triangular in shape, was viewed over a wide area near Nashville, Tenn., from about 5:00 p.m. to sunset. Data on the incident was gathered for NICAP by member Paul Norman, including photographs of the object. Navy jets tried to inspect the object, but couldn’t reach its altitude, which appeared to be at about 60,000 feet. Examination of the photographs and witness reports to NICAP led tothe conclusion the object probably was a high altitude research balloon. Nothing contained in the photographs or reports strongly challenges this conclu- sion. Huge ‘‘Moby Dick’ plastic balloons (named after Mel- ville’s legendary whale) used for high altitude research are pyramidal in form and can appear triangular in outline. Also, local authorities often know nothing about these balloons, which travel long distances glowing brightly in sunlight at times. When local airports are unaware of the nature of the objects, this sometimes adds to the mystery. (The NICAP Assistant Director once experienced a sighting of a ‘Moby Dick’’ hovering and glowing brightly over New Orleans. No one could account for it, and the object still resem- bled a bright light source through 6 power binoculars. With the aid of an astronomical telescope, he was finally able to resolve it. The plastic material and instrument packages were clearly visible). 56. Craig Seese, Newark, Ohio. NICAP received a telegram in June 1961 notifying us about the existence of some color movies of a UFO taken by a 16 year old boy, Craig Seese. Our informant was Robert William Miller, a young man with serious interest in UFO investigation who had formed his own group for that purpose. Mr. Miller had been one of five witnesses to the UFO sighting and filming. A meeting was arranged between the youths, and Mr. A. B. Ledwith, a NICAP member in the area with technical background (including photographic analysis work with Smithsonian Astrophy- sical Observatory). Mr. Ledwith was requested to advise NICAP whether he considered analysis of the film worthwhile. After talking to the youths and viewing the film, Mr. Ledwith recom- mended analysis of the film andadvised Mr. Seese to have several copies made, storing the original in a cool safe place. Mr. Miller was advised to forward one copy of the film to Max B,. Miller in Los Angeles for analysis. (NICAP paid for the printing of one copy of the film for this purpose), The film was sent to Max Miller by registered mail August 7, 1961. About this time photographic analysis work began to pile up on Max Miller, and other committments began to make demands on his time. Asaresult several analyses inthe past two years are either incomplete or still pending. Max Miller is no longer a NICAP Special Adviser, and other arrangements are being made to com- plete the analyses. The color film was taken between 10:00 p.m. and midnight with a Brownie 8mm camera and telephoto lens (2.5 power), £/1.9. The UFO appeared to the unaided eye as a single white light, but the film indicates three objects, one slightly off-frame. Mr. Ledwith has tentatively ruled out reflections and film de- fects as the source of the images. 57. Bob Feldman, Akron, Ohio. Color photograph of alleged UFO taken by 12 year old boy forwarded to Max B, Miller for examination. No report received. Picture shows object resembling sky rocket, on Echtachrome film E-21.5 at 1/1250 seconds. 58. Paccione Moon Photos. A series of four photographs showing a dark spot moving across the face of the moon were submitted to NICAP by Ralph Rankow (now a NICAP photographic Adviser). A young employee, Michael Paccione, had taken them sometime around September 20, but could not recall the exact date. He used a Starmaster refractor telescope and 35mm single lens reflex camera, with Tri-X pan film exposures of 1, 2, & 3 seconds. The time was just after 8:30 p.m. Mr. Rankow, a professional photographer, considers the negatives authentic. The photographs were then examined by Dr. James C. Bartlett, Jr., NICAP astronomy Adviser in Baltimore, and Mr. Sidney Parsons, professional astronomer and NICAP member. Dr. Bartlett determined that, based on the fraction of the moon’s surface which was illuminated in the photographs, the Approved For Release 2001/04/02% CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0