Densitometer readings by a major California aerospace firm yielded the fact that the object had photographed much darker than it should have, if its true color was black, as reported by Tom X. This situation was clarified when further analysis by a Southern California geodetic survey firm revealed that the object’s color was probably red, which would photograph darker than black. It was subsequently learned that Tom X’s color perception was faulty. He saw deep red (or maroon) metal and/or light as black sometimes. Therefore, the possibility that the object was metal and/or glowing red must be considered.
As in most of the best UFO photos, the investigation of the Yorba Linda picture is ongoing. The witness/photographer “Tom X” has generously granted permission for researchers to use it without restrictions, and it is no longer copyrighted. It has become accepted by prominent researchers in the UFO field and is now a part of the official UFO packet distributed to the media by the Fund for UFO Research. In 1999, a computer-enhancement expert studied the Yorba Linda photo and confirmed its three-dimensionality. He also found a faint highlight on the body of the craft, indicating probable reflection of sunlight off the rounded surface, consistent with the position of the sun at the time of sighting.
The object in the Yorba Linda photo does not conform to any classic UFO category. However, small, apparently unoccupied UFOs have been reported often. Because of, the care taken by photogrammetric analysts, however, it is a potentially important piece of evidence. It is certainly among the closest UFO photographs taken to date.
—ANN DRUFFEL
Yungay (Peru) photos These photos were reportedly taken in 1967 by Augusto Arranda while he was trekking in the mountains near Yungay, located at about 10,000 feet in the Huaylas Valley of north-central Peru. Arranda had borrowed a camera from Cesar Ore, an acquaintance, who operated a tourist office in Yungay. The photos were given to the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) for analysis.
Yungay photo #1
One of the photos came to APRO’s attention, in 1968, through an indirect means. After some investigation, the photo was traced back to the Kodak Peruana S.A. processing laboratory, where an employee, in violation of company rules, had retained copies of the photos at the time they were being commercially developed. Kodak officials confiscated the photos from their employee before APRO could locate him and refused to produce them (they were obtained in 1969 through Eastman Kodak’s International Markets Division in Rochester, New York). No Kodak records were available to trace the photos to their original source.
The location of a full set of the photos, in Yungay, was made known to APRO by an official in the Peruvian Ministry of the Navy. A trip was made to Yungay, where the three missing photos (being retained by Kodak Peruana S.A.) were found and obtained from Mr. Ore. Arranda, the photographer, had mailed copies to Mr. Ore after the former returned to Lima, the capital. Arranda had presumably sent the negatives to Kodak for processing, explaining the two independent sources brought to APRO’s attention.
Yungay photo #2
In spite of intensive investigation, Mr. Arranda was not located by APRO, although conclusive evidence of his existence was obtained. Consequently, the details concerning the observation and the photography are not known; neither are the original negatives available for analysis. Although original prints exist in the United States, and several scientists have examined them, they have not been subjected to a comprehensive analysis. Their authenticity has thus been occasionally questioned. However, nothing emerged during APRO’s investigation to indicate a hoax. No publicity or commercialization was ever attempted by the photographer or by Ore. On the contrary, it took much effort to trace the photographs.
Yungay photo #3
In May 1970, a strong earthquake struck central Peru, resulting in the death of over 70,000 persons. During the earthquake, a glacier was dislodged from Mount Huascaran, one of the tallest peaks in the Andes mountain range, causing a large avalanche of ice, rocks, and mud to descend on Yungay at a speed of about 200 miles per hour. The entire town and almost its entire population of 20,000 persons were buried instantly. The earthquake has been called “the most catastrophic natural disaster in the history of the Western Hemisphere and ranks high among the world’s greatest natural disasters” (see Reps, William F., and Simiu, Emil, “Case Study: Engineering Geology and Siting Problems Related to the Peru Earthquake of May 31, 1970,” in Design, Siting and Construction of Low-Cost Housing and Community Buildings to Better Withstand Earthquake and Windstorms. National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series 48, U. S. Department of Commerce).
Yungay photo #4
The original camera and one original print which remained with Mr. Ore were lost in the avalanche. It is not known if Mr. Ore survived, and further in-country investigation was not undertaken.
—ETEP STAFF
Z
Zeidman, Jennie R. (b. 1932). Jennie Zeidman has been involved in UFOlogy since 1953, when, as a senior at Ohio State University (where she earned her B.A. degree in English), she was a student of Dr. J. Allen Hynek, and later his secretary and research assistant in the early days of Project Blue Book. She is now retired and divides her time between Columbus, Ohio, and Mt. Crested Butte, Colorado.
Jennie Zeidman
E-mail:
[email protected]
POSITION STATEMENT: I am by nature a skeptic. When I first became associated with Dr. Hynek and UFOlogy in 1953, I was convinced that all reported events could be explained in terms of already understood and identified phenomena: The only requirements were better investigations and better analysis. My position remained thus until about 1966. No single incident changed my mind; rather the sheer weight of the evidence, building case by case, and my personal involvement in interviewing dozens of witnesses, in the United States and abroad. My awareness of the history and philosophy of science and my accessibility to the reliable data contributed to my growing uneasiness. During the period of 1966-70, I gradually backed away from a “there’s nothing to it” stance, opening my eyes to the astounding similarity of global reports and the undeniable credibility of many of the witnesses. With the advent of more sophisticated investigatory techniques, I have seen the data strengthened and their validity sustained.
I now believe unequivocally that “there is something” to UFO phenomena. What, I cannot say. I have never proposed a theory of extraterrestrial intelligence to explain the reported events, yet certainly that theory cannot be ruled out. Whatever their meaning, their origin, their motives, UFO phenomena have, I believe, demonstrated their validity as a challenge to both physical and behavioral scientists. The subject is eminently worthy of serious research.
—JENNIE ZEIDMAN
Zwischbergen (Switzerland) photo On the afternoon of July 26, 1975, three Dutch hikers (B., his brother H. and their friend M.), were about to take on the last kilometers of a two-day mountain trip in the Swiss Alps, when at approximately 3 P.M. they allegedly encountered a circular object hovering in the air in front of them. The “UFO” seemed to be made of “some sort of metal, not unlike aluminum.” It had a dull gray color and its shape resembled that of an inverted soup-plate, “at least 15 meters in diameter.”
The object appeared to be suspended over the small village of Zwischbergen, at a distance of 100 to 500 meters. B. succeeded in taking a color slide of the phenomenon. Immediately after the photo was taken, the object started to move and glided behind the trees where it disappeared from view.
Zwischbergen photo, taken in Switzerland on July 26, 1975: a stereotype image of a “flying saucer”-type UFO from the seventies.
Back in the Netherlands, B., H., and M. showed the slide to a fellow-member of a local parochial choir, whom they knew was a coworker of the country’s largest (now defunct) UFO group NOBOVO. In the years that followed, the case received worldwide publicity. It is usually referred to as “the Saas Fee photo,” because of the proximity of this well-known ski resort to the location of the alleged sighting.
&nb
sp; The late Dr. J. Allen Hynek once referred to the “Saas Fee photo” as one of the best UFO photos ever. and UFO photoanalyst William H. Spaulding, after conducting a computerized image evaluation in 1977, concluded that “the object size is 25-30 feet in diameter” and “was ‘removing’ some of the fog/haze layer as it moved toward the camera”.
Eight years after details of the case had been published, additional “eyewitness testimony” surfaced. A group of Belgian tourists reportedly photographed “something odd in the sky” on that same day, at the same time. This second photo was taken from the village of Eison, only 49 km west of the location where the three Dutchmen had taken their picture.
These exceptional circumstances prompted CAELESTIA, a Belgian research and publication project for atmospheric anomalies, to undertake a follow-up investigation. Their findings were published in 1994 in a book called Unidentified Aerial Object photographed near Zwischbergen, Switzerland, on July 26, 1975.
A closer view
Study of the original slide by photo experts confirmed that the photo showed a three-dimensional object. With the image itself being explicit enough, only two possible interpretations remained: either the object is a meters-wide craft of unknown origin, or a small model. Although the investigation did not make it possible to decide either way, several circumstantial elements were uncovered that seem to point in the direction of a hoax. To wit:
• The analysis conducted by Spaulding proved seriously flawed and was found to be conducted, not on the original slide, but on a third or fourth generation print.
• It turned out that the slides preceding and succeeding the unidentified object photo were missing from B.’s slide collection (creating a suspicion that they were removed from the collection because they showed less succesful attempts to create a UFO shot).
• The rim of the object appears to be “dented” (possibly as a result of ungentle landings from previous attempts to get the object in the air in front of the camera.
• The dark coloration of the bottom-side of the object indicates that the image was not affected by aerial perspective, suggesting that the object was small and close to the camera.
• Attempts to imitate the photo with the help of an aluminum camping-plate yielded similar “flying saucer” pictures (video images of the sighting location confirmed that it is quite easy to launch and recuperate frisbee type objects at the site).
• Witness M., who emigrated to New Zealand in 1983, confirmed the sighting only after he contacted the other two witnesses.
• There existed a suitable climate for concocting a pratical joke of this nature: (a) similar bogus “flying saucer” pictures were common in the press those days; (b) only hours before the UFO shot was taken, the witnesses had created and photographed a funny face using a rock and dressing it up with a pair of glasses and a sun-cap; and (c) a few days before the trip to Zwischbergen, the group had already sighted a strange, light-reflecting object in the sky—“probably a weather balloon”—which they had jokingly referred to as a “UFO”).
• In spite of the large number of potential witnesses (popular ski-resorts in the valleys adjacent to the Zwischbergen valley, an air show at a nearby airfield and a major traffic congestion 20 km north northwest of the sighting location), no corroborative eyewitness testimonies were found that confirm the presence of an unconventionally shaped, meters-wide airborne vehicle over the Zwischbergen valley on the day the photo was taken.
Furthermore, the second photo taken at Eison that same day, proved irrelevant after study. Most likely it depicts a bird and was taken, not at the same time, but approximately one hour after B.’s UFO shot.
—WIM VAN UTRECHT
The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters Page 122
