Symposium on unidentified flying objects: hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, second session, July 29, 1968.

128
VENEZUELA
FM)
I
In
June
of
1963
I
received
a
movie
film
clip
from
a
Mr.
Richard Hall
that
had
purportedly
been taken
from an
aircraft
(DC
-3)
near
Angel
Falls,
Venezuela, at
about
12:15
p.m.
This
film
clip
was
8
-millimetercolor film,
exposed
at
16
frames
per second
and showed a
very
bright
yellow,
slightly
pear-shaped
object
that disappeared
in
a
cloud
bank
after
about
60
or
70
frames.
At
the
time
I
was
the
head
of
the
Lockhead
Aircraft
Co.'s
Astrodynamics
Research
Center.
We
had
developed
a
small
group of
photogrammetrists
consisting
of
Dr.
P.
M.
Merifeld
and
Mr.
James
Rammelkamp,
and
were
able
to
undertake
a
study
of
the
film.
Initially,
Merifeld
and
Rammelkamp
found
little
of
interest
on
the
film.
After
their
preliminary
examination,
I
expended
con-
siderable
effort
in
further
analysis.
Again,
I
was
only
able
to
draw
the
conclusion
that
the
yellow
object
was no
known
natural
phenomenon;
but
we
could
make
a
quantitative
determination
of
angular
rates
and
accelerations,
and
the
bounds
of
distance, linear
velocity,
and
accelera-
tion,
the
film
was
lost
(except for
a
microphotograph
exhibiting
the
object
on
one frame).
There
was, however,
no
question
in
my
mind
as
to
the
anomalistic character
of
the images.
CALIFORNIA
FILM
In
January
1964,
Mr.
Zan
Overall
showed
me
three
cinetheodolite
films
which
had
been taken
simultaneously
by
three
different,
cameras
of
a Thor
-Able Star launching
at
Vandenberg
AFB
(project
A4/01019). These
films depicted
a
white
object
moving
vertically
(relative
to
the
film
frame)
against
a
clear,
blue-sky
background.
The
object
was
about
as
bright
as the
booster's
second
-stage
exhaust,
and
passed the
booster
at
about
one-third
degree per
second.
Rough
esti-
mates of
the
direction
of
the
Sun—based
on shadows on
early
frames—
and
the
winds
aloft—indicated
by
the
motion of
the
rocket's
exhaust
plume)—were
made.
These,
together
with the
brightness
of
the
object
and
its
rate
of
ascent,
seemed
to
rule
out
balloons, airplanes, lens
flare,
mirages,
et
cetera.
Since
one of
the
cinetheodolites
was
at
a
site
some
distance
from
the other
two, a
parallax determination
of
the
actual
distance
and
speed
of
the
object
could be determined
rather
easily.
Because
the
films
were
on
loan
from
the
Navy,
I
was
unable
to
carry
out
the necessary
study
and a
determination
of the
precise
character
of
the
phenomenon
(natural or
anomalistic) could
not be
made. In
1967,
I
discussed
the matter with Prof. William
K.
Hartmann
of
the
University
of Arizona,
and
Prof.
Roy
Craig of the University
of
Colorado.
At
that time, they were
involved in
the Colorado
UFO
Study Group,and
indicated that they
would attempt
to obtain the
film
for further
analysis.
Although
I am
confident
that they
made
a
con-
scientious
effort
to obtain
the
films,
apparently they were
unsuccessful
(as of
6
months
ago,at
least)
.
PROBABLY
NONANOM..A.LISTIC
FILMS
In
addition to the foregoing
film
clips—which seemed
to involve
data that were the result
of anomalistic
phenomena—the Montana
film
in
my
opinion, certainly
was
anomalistic
and
all
of the other films
except for the California film,
most probably were anomalistic—I