◆ SpookStack

Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001- Photographic Cases (Continued) Correspondence between U.S. UFO groups and leading Brazil- ian investigators drew out many facts about the case, including background information about other similar sightings at Trindade Isle over a period of time, all of which tends to substantiate the January 16 sighting and photographs. No suspicion of hoax was uncovered by J. Escobar Faria, Sao Paulo attorney (NICAP Adviser), Dr. Olavo Fontes, M.D., in Rio de Janeiro (APRO Spec- ial Representative), or other Brazilian correspondents in a position to ascertain the facts. [See APRO Bulletins, January, March, and May 1960 for detailed series of articles about the Trindade photographs by Dr. Fontes]. Weighing all the facts, we conclude that the pictures appear to be authentic. They definitely are one of the potentially most significant series of UFO photographs on record, so that clarifi- cation of the incident and additional analysis is strongly desirable. In the interests of scientific investigation, we urge that secrecy about the case be lifted by the United States and Brazil and that a frank report of the facts be issuedtothe public. In particular, the full analysis reports by the Brazilian laboratories shouldbe made available to scientists. Information currently withheldby the U.S. Air Force about its investigation ofthe case through the American Embassy in Rio de Janeiro also should be made available to the public. Photographic data: Mr. Barauna useda Rolleiflex 2.8--Model E camera, speed 1/125, aperture £/8 (causing a slight over- exposure), 40. Troy, Michigan airport. Photograph taken by H.M. Stump using an Argus C-3 camera, from a private plane landing at the airport. Picture shows yellow-white oval with slighttrail. Verbal report states object hovered, then sped away to the west. 41. England AFB, La.--State Police case. Polaroid pictures taken by a state policeman at 12:20 p.m. were published by the Alexandria Daily Town Talk. The officer stated he saw ‘‘two glowing balls’? in the sky and that it ‘‘scared hell out of me.”’ He was not sure whether it was one double object, or two separate ones close together. The Air Force later stated the ‘‘UFO’’ was a reflection off the windshield of the patrol car. NICAP letters to the state police were not answered. 42. Ray Stanford Movies. NICAP first learned of the two color movies taken by Ray Stanford and a friend (one 8 mm, one 16 mm) inthe Fall/Winter 1959-60 issue of SAUCERS (now defunct) by Max B. Miller. Mr. Miller, wha later became a NICAP photographic adviser, examined the films and his evaluation is incorporated below. After preliminary correspondence with Mr. Stanford requesting the films for analysis, the films and a filled- out NICAP report form were received March11,1960. Additional report forms were sent to Mr. Stanford for some of the approxi- mately 12 other witnesses to fill out, and he promised to try to obtain signed reports. July 16, 1952; Massachusetts (Case 14) Jack Brotzman, NICAP scientific adviser in the £9,.shington area, projected the 8 mm film in the NICAP office and examined the 16 mm film frame by frame in the government laboratory where he is employed. Shortly thereafter, Max Miller became a NICAP photographic adviser, and since he had already examined the films he was consulted and asked for suggestions for further analysis. He gave NICAP some comments about the films, to the effect that they were not impressive in themselves, but together (because of some overlapping scenes) might have special signifi- cance. As he stated in SAUCERS, the overlap ‘‘makes simulation exceedingly improbable.’’ In June 1960, Mr. Stanford wrote inquiring about progress with the analysis. He also stated that, through an intermediary, the Air Force had requested copies of the films for analysis and permission for NICAP to forward the copies in its possession. Mr. Stanford granted permission. NICAP repliedto Mr. Stanford, giving preliminary conclusions, andadding: ‘‘Fora more thorough analysis, we would need the verbal reports you promised. . .to correlate the action described verbally with the action visible on the film. . .We also have [Max Miller’s] analysis of your films to guide us. Our consensus so far is that the films appear to be authentic, and it now becomes a problem of interpretation. For this reason, I believe it would be best to forward the films to [the intermediary and the Air Force representative]. . .” The films and Mr. Stanford’s report form were forwarded, as generally agreed by all parties, to the intermediary ina city on the west coast. (Names and exact location are deleted here because the intermediary and Air Force representative both requested that their participation be kept confidential). Over a year later, following an inquiry by Mr. Stanford, the films were returned to him by the Air Force representative with no comments about analysis results. The Story: The sighting and filming took place July 28, 1959, between 2:10 and 2:20 p.m. in Corpus Christi, Texas. There had been numerous UFO sightings in the area, and Ray Stanford anda friend had cameras ready. Mr. Stanford used a 16 mm Keystone K51 Executive camera on a tripod, with 75 mm Kern Yvar tele- photo lens, and daylight Kodachrome film. The aperture setting was approximately f£/10, and exposure was at 16 frames per second. The friend used an 8 mm Keystone K27 Capri camera with 25 mm lens, hand-held, and Type A Kodachrome film. The aperture setting was f/8, exposure 16 frames per second. Mr. Stanford notified Max Miller by telephone, August 1, that he had the films, still unprocessed. Mr. Miller subsequently viewed the films, which were processed in Los Angeles, several days before they were forwarded to Mr. Stanford. In his verbal report, Mr. Stanford states that three cigar- shaped UFOs were visible at one time, and a fourth appeared soon after. One of the objects reportedly ‘‘released’’ a small disc beneath it, and the disc sped upwards at about a 45 degree angle disappearing in the distance. Each of the objects was said to be sharply outlined, and blue-white in color. Only one object was photographed, appearing as a bright, slightly oblong light source. It does not maneuver. Also visible on both films is the contrail of an airplane curving slightly around the UFO, after apparently moving in the direction of the UFO. NICAP Comments: Examination’ of the films by NICAP showed no detail on the object, and no appreciable motion of the object. Venus, which was prominent at the time, was considered as an explanation, but ruled out because the image was enlarged considerably by the larger telephoto lens. The verbally described maneuvers, multiple objects, and launching of a disc were not confirmed by the films. The many other reports from alleged additional witnesses were never received from Mr. Stanford. His background relative to the UFO subject was considered. (He and his brother co- authored a privately published book entitled ‘‘Look Up’’, in which alleged contacts with space ships, ESP, anda chapter on ‘‘how the craft are constructed, propelledandcontrolled”’ are included. One is an alleged personal close-up visual contact brought about by ESP experiments), Also, Mr. Stanford previously took an 8 mm color film, September 18, 1956, which purportedly shows two jet interceptors chasing a UFO. 91 Approved For Release 2001/04/02 : CIA-RDP81R00560R000100010001-0