click here for book review

UFO RESOURCE CENTER

UFORC CASE STUDY
Alberta UFO Photograph/Debris Analysis

ALBERTA, CANADA 1967
UFO Photograph #1
(C) 1998 The Regents of the University of Colorado*

THE CONDON REPORT: RE-EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE
By Christopher Montgomery

Along with excellent film of this UFO, some artifacts were recovered from the area, which were allegedly dropped from this flying object. Another red herring by the Condon Committee, they were not able to convince Canadian authorities that this incident was a hoax. The photographic evidence is what many considered by many to be the best evidence of the existence of UFOs. The following case studies are taken from the Condon files. They involve what my associate Tim Crawford, a Hollywood producer, calls the undisproovables. He came up with this adjective to describe those UFO films, which cannot be proven, nor disproven. Tim Crawford is an authority on UFO film. He probably has the most extensive library of UFO film footage…in the world. He owns UFO Video, a major UFO film distributor. Amongst his list of clientele is Hollywood Video. The Alberta UFO photographs present some good, hard evidence of the existence of UFOs in our environment. I will try to present a good overview of this incident, which involved the photography of a Unidentified Flying Object and the recovery of fragments that were alleged to have come from that UFO. Apparently, the military intelligence community finds UFO photographs valuable, as they are still actively intercepting any and all photographs pertaining to this subject. We will explore the reasons why this is the case, and offer supportive evidence to underscore this matter. It involves the appearances of shadowy figures that for all intents and purposes bespeak an affiliation with a secret government with advance directives towards an unknown goal. One of their objectives is to intercept and isolate any and all photographic evidence. The reason is quite clear. Photographic evidence is the best evidence of the existence of unknown alien visitors who frequent our reality in what is most commonly referred to as the UFO. We will explore this matter further in the web page entitled “Military Intelligence.”

DATE/TIME: July 3, 1967
LOCATION: Haywood Ranger Station, near Calgary, Canada. Location was estimated to be between 50-80 miles SE of Calgary, 3-5 miles E of Colman Kananaskis Hiway and 3 miles SSE of the Highwood Ranger Station.
INVESTIGATORS: Hartmann, Hynek and Beckman (USA) The RAF and other officials (CANADA).
WITNESSES: A salesman and two companions, one a 16 y/o boy. Hartmann said, “Only the sworn testimony of the witness could be described as making this case more impressive than most others.” There were some discrepancies with what role the third person played in this case study. It was unclear from my review of this case study. (The Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects p 470).
ABSTRACT: A salesman and two other male companions were reportedly hiking in the mountains doing some prospecting for gold and looking for a legendary mine. Someone spotted a disc-shaped object moving through the air above the tall evergreens. The salesman readied his camera and snapped photographs of the UFO. The object was said to have dropped some material from the craft, which Vallee would call a “liquid metal” substance, a common thread in some of the more dramatic UFO cases that Vallee has investigated.*

Canadian officials found that this case was “consistent with the testimony, the case was very strong.”

UFO DESCRIPTION: The object was described as being “shiny, and approximately 25-feet in diameter.” It had a “silvery hone to it.” One particularly interesting assertion that was made by the RAF was that the UFO object in the photograph “had a toroidal shape. Only the blurred image (plate 62) is pitched up towards the observers, and a light shone not quite centered in the dark disk can be interpreted as a highlight, as opposed to a central hole.” (IBID pages 474-475).

DEBRIS FRAGMENT ANALYSIS: The craft had allegedly “dropped a small object, which when recovered was reported to be composed of solder, aluminum and magnesium. I would like to examine those artifacts an do some analysis on the material. One of the metals often found in artifacts recovered from UFOs is aluminum. But there is something very special about this type of aluminum. I challenge the Board of Regents at Colorado University to allow my fellow scientists to have a sample of this specimen. With one test, we can verify if the material is extraterrestrial or not. Aluminum of this purity can not be produced here on earth due to some peculiar qualities found in Al. They need to get there hands out of the governments pockets and allow the real scientists to do their job.

Hartmann reported that one of the constituents in the fragments was “solder.” I believe that was the Condon committee’s way of playing down this mysterious artifact.

In the opening pages of Hartmann’s study, he says “The craft reportedly dropped a small object, which when recovered was reported to be composed of solder, aluminum and magnesium. Later, the late J Allen Hynek joined the study. At the time, Hynek was a “consultant to the USAF project Blue Book. He informed the Condon committee that “…a specimen or specimens brought out by the companion thought to be related to the sighting, were solder with particles of aluminum and magnesium alloy embedded in them.”

FYI…Hynek was the one, who coined the term “swamp gas,” a name that was frequently used to explain UFO sightings. Swamp gas is also known as Ignis Fatuus, or the will o’ the wisp. Hynek would later become one of the greatest UFO researchers of all time. After a lifetime of investigating UFOs, he passed this knowledge on to Jacques Vallee, another renowned UFO researcher who is not fooled by the government’s tricks to debunk the subject of UFOs.

My question is, was the Condon committee using its own strict rules to guarantee the continuity of evidence from the eyewitnesses to the lab, or was there a possibility of tampering here? I do not believe that this issue was ever addressed. Given the number of red herrings contained in the Condon Report, it would not surprise me.

Alberta, Canada UFO Photograph #2
(c)1998 The Regents of the University of Colorado

CAMERA PARTICULARS:


It was an Olympus Pen EE with a slide format at 18x24 mm (1/2 the 35mm format). When the pictures were snapped, the focus was set at 7 feet to infinity, using ASA 64-type film.

THE CANADIAN REPORT: According to Hartmann’s report, the “Department of National Defense in Canada described (the object) to be 35-40 feet in diameter with a depth ratio of 4 to 1.” They released additional details of the object dated “September, ’67.” The “disc-shaped” object was described as being “circular, shiny, aluminum, approximately 25 feet in diameter.” In addition, the key witness’ companion said No sound accompanied the sighting and no exhaust or colors of any kind were seen.” (Hartman page 471).

PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE: In their report, Canadian officials concluded that this case was “very strong.” I agree with them, in that they addressed the smoking gun issue, one that the Condon investigators consistently refused to address.

The Canadian report also concluded from the photographs that the object had a torus or possibly oblate ellipsoid shape, and that at about 2,000 feet, its diameter would have been 40-50 feet and its thickness 11.5-14 feet. The two photos together indicated ascent or the descent, in accord with testimony.”- Investigator Hartmann (IBID p.472)

According to Canadian officials, this case was believable, from the film footage offered as evidence to the fragments left behind. From what I hear the Canadian officials stating, the Condon investigators altered their analysis of the UFO photographs.

“From (the) statistical data supplied, the object has a diameter of 40-50 feet and has a depth of 11.5-14 feet…a review of all technical data…indicated a very acceptable degree of compatibility. If the story and photographs are a hoax, then it is a well prepared one, that would require a hoaxer’s part knowledge of photography and possibly photogrammetry to support the written and verbal information…” - HARTMANN (A quote from his interpretation of their report).

Was it a hand thrown model of a UFO? The Condon committee investigators had explored this question. They tried desperately to debunk this case, knowing that Canadian officials believed that this case was "very strong." They do not apply their own rules when performing their photo analysis. I'd like to meet the man who can toss an object one thousand feet into the air! Was this another red herring?

Here is a discovery. If you look in the lower right hand corner of the second Alberta UFO photograph, you can see a second disc. When I had first noticed it, I thought that it was a speck on my computer screen. But on closer examination, I had soon realized what the Condon investigators had never mentioned. The main UFO disc in this photograph has a companion.

“In my opinion, it is basically this problem that makes the ‘Calgary’ photos of no probative value in establishing the existence of ‘flying saucers:’ the photographs cannot be distinguished from photographs of hand-thrown models.” - HARTMANN (IBID p. 474).


MY ANALYSIS OF THE ALBERTA PHOTOS

A hand thrown object would not display the same characteristics that indicate the distance between the photographer and the UFO, which the Alberta photos demonstrate. *snip* The effects displayed by the distal source have all of the characteristics of the McMinneville UFO photographs. It is what is commonly referred to as image “scattering” and also “reduction in contrast.” The UFO object is scattering more than just its form. I will take this one step further…I propose that some of the reduction in contrast is due to the time warping field that this UFO is generating. This would account for the lack of sharp definition in most genuine UFO photographs. (IBID, p 402)

A NEW THEORY OF RELATIVITY



Whenever matter is present in time and space, it will create an envelope in that continuum, basically warping, or bending the time/space continuum. The occupants of the UFO merely manipulate the energy field surrounding their vessel to create a door, or opening into this parallel universe, from whence comes the gravity field bleed. They are simply manipulating the natural phenomenon to make it work for them.

Our technology has not advanced to the point where we can create a coherent field, due to the problems that the military is having with the production of a stable G-field wave. I hope that they never perfect this. I will do what I can to prevent this from happening and would ask that anyone reading this do the same. The last time I shared with Uncle Tom, they stole my concept and developed a new class of beam weapon technology. The problem is, they are using it for all the wrong reasons.

Dr. Hynek reported to the Condon project that a Fred Beckmann of the University of Chicago “had studied the original slides.” Using a densitometer, Mr. Beckman “concluded that the image was a ‘real’ photographic image, and that there seemed to be some haze in front of the object (that) suggested considerable range.” (IBID page 475)

Another red herring, Hartmann comments on the previous statement that Mr. Beckman made. Hartmann had this to say:

"In view of the shiny nature of the surface, the clear presence of bright highlights, and the relatively high contrast of distant ground details, it would be difficult, in my judgement, to get a clear indication of enough scattering between the observer and the UFO to indicate a distance of the order of only 2,000 feet.” - HARTMANN (IBID page 475)

MENSURATION: Measurements were done on 8”x10” enlargements of the original photographs. This gave the following data:
ANGULAR DIAMETER: O.-degrees .98 and 0.-degrees .84 (plates 61 and 62) respectively.
ELEVATION ANGLE: Approximately 35-degrees/horizontal range (Photo 1) @ 2,000 feet = altitude of 1,400 feet (approximately); (Photo 2) = Approximately 14-degrees/altitude of 240-feet (approximate).
ANGULAR DIAMETER: 0.9-degrees=linear diameter of 35 feet. [Diameter uncertainty 40%] so linear diameter of 35 feet +/- 14 feet.
THICKNESS: 8 FEET +/- 3 FEET.

THIS CASE REMAINS: UNSOLVED






Search Condon Report for specific items



McMinneville UFO Photograph ! Ft. Belvoire UFO Photograph ! Santa Ana UFO Photograph ! Kenneth Mundel UFO Photo/Analysis ! Ottowa UFO Investigation


__________________________

REFERENCES:
1. “Metal Ejecting UFOs” in CONFRONTATIONS: A CHALLENGE TO SCIENCE, © Jacques Vallee

2. THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS, Dr. Edward U Condon, © 1968 the Board of Regents at Colorado University.

3. THE CONDON REPORT: RE-EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE; 1999 Christopher Montgomery; Seattle, WA



**********************************************************************

*Public Notice: The Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects was originally copyrighted in 1968 by the Regents of the University of Colorado, a body corporate. It was subsequently published in reports of the United States Air Force and other governmental agencies and was published commercially by Bantam Books (currently out of print). 

Permission is granted for non-commercial use of this electronic document, to link to it, mirror it on an Internet site, or reproduce it electronically in whole or in part without modification, provided that this notice is included. 

Any other use requires advance written permission from The Regents of the University of Colorado.


HOME PAGE ! U.F.O. CASE STUDIES ! U.F.O.R.C. NEWS ! HOT LINKS



UFORCE___2000___CORE
_______________A WHITE KNIGHT PRODUCTION_______________


Click Here!