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.

179
rod
N.T.TuDE
tOURIE
3•
MOTION
OF
UFO
SYSTIM
a..„.
—
73
2.3
2.n
23,
230
223
220
[WS
.1.
-
.
Ara,
A07.•
IG0 IS5
IN,
Nteasurable
Foreground
First
Appears
on
Frame
222.
223.
.20.8.
I
--
.00-ptif
4
"
114
0
1
226.
227.
2210
•/1.1,
14
FIGURE
3b
SEPAR•TION
DIST•NCE
OF
UFO
SYSTEM
IcaStIrahlt
.
on,r000.1
First
Appuars
1
Anes•
120
j
ric_lic
i
;ga
rg,11?
is,
"
sis-
aio•
r
•
II
10
TM(
ISICONOSI--.
FIG.
3a.
Motion
of
UFO
system
in
altitude
and
azimuth.
3b.
Separation
distance
of
UFO
system as
function
of time.
distance
can be
made
on
the
basis
of
the
angular
data
presented
by
the
film.)
Figure
4
also
shows
where
Mariana
and
his
secretary
first
viewed the "hovering
and
rotating"
UFO's
near
an Anaconda
smoke
stack.
After
over
a
decade
of
speculation
and
hypothesis
checks,
all
natural
phenomena
(e.g.,
birds,
balloons,
insects,
meteors, mirages,
etc.)
have
been
ruled
out,
except
airplane
reflections,
on
the
basis
of
winds (which
the
weather
bureau
reported
as
blowing
in
the
opposite
direction);
the
lack of
an
observable
trail
(which
would
have
betrayed
a
bifurcated
meteor);
and
bright-
ness,
angular speed,
and
steady motion,
which
could
not
be
reconciled
with
the
supposition
that
they were
birds
or
insects.
These
same
facts,
together
with the
weather bureau
report [1]
and
the
Sun
angle,
also
seemed
to
rule
out
various
forms
of
optical
lens
flare,
atmospheric
mirages,
or
cloud
reflections.
From
analyses
of speed
and
geometry, which
included
a
knowledge
of
the Sun's
azimuth
at the
time
of
the photography (asconfirmed
by
the
shadows
on
the
film)
the
images
could
have
been
(although
not
without
some
stretch
of
theimagination)
specular
Sun
reflection
from
airplane fuse-lages.
This
explanation
seemed
attractive since
it
wasrumored
(although
not
verified
[2])
that
two
jet
air-
planes
(1"-94's)
were
landing
at
Malstmm
Air
Force
Base
at the approximate time
of the
sighting.
This
rumor was
reinforced
by
a
presentation
by
E.
J.
Ruppelt
to
a
panel
of experts in
January,
1953
(the
panel's
mem-
bership
was
not
revealed,
but
may
have
been
called
the
"Robertson panel"
[4]).
Ruppelt
[5] indicates
"the
in-
233
.
telligence
officer
at
Great
Falls
had
dug
through
huge
stacks
of
files
and
found
that
only
two
airplanes,
two
F
-94's,
were
near the
city
(Great
Falls)
during the
sighting
and
that
they
had
landed
about
two
minutes
afterwards.
.
..
First
we
studied
the
flight
paths of
the
two
F
-94's.
We
knew
the
landing
pattern
that
was
being used
on
the
day
of
the
sighting
and
we
knew when
the
two
F
-94's
landed.
The
two
jets
just
weren't
any-
where
close
to
where
the
two
UFO's
had
been."
Figure
4
bears
this
conclusion
out
since
the
objects
were
in
the
opposite
direction
from Malstrom
Air
Force
Base
and
headed
away
from
the
airfield.
The
panel,
however,
did
not
consider
this
as
positive
proof
for eliminating
the
jet
-plane hypothesis.
Experiment
Using
a
camera
similar
to Mariana's
(Revere
turret
type
with
a
3"
focal
length telephoto
lens),
a
series
of
photographic experiments
were
carried
out
by
the
author
on an
array of
objects
(see
Figure
6-22 on
page
321
of
reference
[3])
at
various
distances
and
Sun
angles
and on
jet
plane
reflections.
The
results
of these
experi-
ments, however,
made
the hypotheses of
airplane
reflec-
tions
quite
strained.
The
long
persistence
of the
images would have
re-
quired
the
airplanes
to
have
moved on
a
unique
parabolic
path
with
Mariana at the
focus.
Unfortu-nately, these hypothetical parabolic
paths
would be
incompatible with the 171° heading
defined
by
the data.
In
addition,
the apparent
size
of the images
(admittedly