The UFO Iconoclast(s): Wanaque: Bragalia vs Reynolds

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Wanaque: Bragalia vs Reynolds

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

Anthony Bragalia has been researching the 1966 Wanaque UFO sighting(s) for a while now and he just received more material and information from a witness on the scene in 1966, who sent Mr. Bragalia a newspaper clipping from the time period, a clipping that included the famous photo of one alleged Wanaque UFO shooting a ray or beam of light down on the waters of the Wanaque Reservoir:

The photo was taken by a police officer who turned the negatives over to the Air Force. never to see them again, but he retained a print.

Neither the cop nor any member of his family will come forward to discuss the sighting(s) or the photo.

My friend, Anthony, insists that this is a bona fide photo of one of the Wanaque UFOs, although his current correspondent and witness writes that the photo is nothing like what was seen at the time.

I 've always thought the photo is bogus and wrote about it earlier here and at the RRRGroup blog. Mr. Bragalia has written about Wanaque and the photo at his blog with us -- http://bragalia.blogspot.com (see the archive).

I see a corny representation of a UFO and a contrived photo. Mr. Bragalia sees an extraterrestrial craft shooting a ray or beam upon the waters below it. For what reason? Neither he nor I have any idea.

Anyway, I'd like your take on the photo (or the Wanaque sightings themselves).

Stay on topic and let us have access to whatever expertise you have about the photo or the sightings, won't you?

Your view(s) may quell the contention between Mr. Bragalia and me.

RR

61 Comments:

The beam is too delineated without diffusion or focal distortion as typical of any night shot for that era, especially if it was shot "on the fly" with little or no response time to manually adjust all the settings to get "a perfect shot" that in reality, the image is too perfect.If that beam were as bright as depicted, it would have been an over exposure.

By Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
I concur totally, Bruce.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Bruce-

I did not know that you were an optical scientist!

If there were not at least two cop witnesses who said that they saw this I might agree. But there were. It was "like a light funnel" that sucked up the water and cut through the ice.

I suggest you study nano-photonics and the behavior of light. Light can be "engineered" to do many things. Think lasers.

AJB

By Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
My "take" is that Bragalia is probably right and that you are probably wrong. There were cops, reservoir guards (who found thawed ice where the UFO had been hovering),the mayor of the town and several councilmen, radio reporters, and over 200 vehicles on or near site. Most describe a very bright, egg shapped object that darted from place to place ("quick stops" was the expression)and that, at times, shot down beams of light toward the ice...which is what several of the 5 photos show. One of the photos, allegedly attributed to a policeman named "Charles" showed up almost immediatedly. If it was faked, it was one hell of a rush job pre-Photoshop. Aliens? I have no idea. But something VERY unconventional happened around that reservoir in late January of 1966, and it was attested to by multiple witnesses.

By Dominick, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Thanks, Dominick...

But I'm really hoping for more about the photo, itself, not the Wanaque episodes or sightings.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
"The photo was taken by a police officer who turned the negatives over to the Air Force. never to see them again, but he retained a print."

Where is the print these days?

But this isn't the print. It is a reproduction (jpeg) of a reproduction of the print in a newspaper or magazine. It would not be unusual for a publication to have retouched the image to compensate for the low resolution, and perhaps to emphasize parts of it for the story.

It looks to me as if it has been retouched, much like the BOLA photo was retouched -- the ufo and the light beam may have received attention. Until the issue of retouching is understood, I don't think we can form a conclusion whether it is faked. It might simply the publication's practice of retouching.

Regards,

Don

By Don, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Don;

WE'ren ot going to get our hands on the original print (or those missing negatives).

I know you want originals to deal with but can't you make suppositions, based upon the "retouched" newspaper photo?

There are better copies of the photo online, inside Mr. Bragalia's postings about the Wanaque episode and also at my postings (as noted).

There are also rather good copies online, via Google.

Since we don't have and won't get the original reprint, I would hope that some observations might be made using what we do have, as Bruce as attempted to do.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
If you have "original print" or very good scan of "original print", let us know by a PM.
We have some photo experts in our little team, maybe they could provide good infos.

Regards,

Gilles

By Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Thanks Don!

What Rich did not do was to let readers see the text of the accompanying photograph from the newspaper "The Morning Call."

But I will:

"...the twin beams of light melted the thick, mid-winter ice, according to police reports. Picture was made by a patrolman who says he surrendered negatives to Air Force investigators. Picture was given to The Morning Call by August C. Roberts of Wayne."

AJB

By Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
As you may know, Rich, I surmised that the Battle of LA photo may have been retouched a year before it was actually revealed to have been done so.

I wrote about my comical experience dealing with Frank Warren and how he worked (and still works) hard be sure that the truth takes a back seat to his UFO religion.

http://www.notaghost.com/2011/05/the-protocols-of-frank-warren.html

This particular photo appears to me (as someone who does visual special effects for a living) to be a poor and silly fake.

The saucer zealots make the mistake of mixing various evidence together, instead of considering each item separately. They then believe that by collecting this stuff together, their case is strengthened.

Augie Roberts admitted faking some photos but I don't know if these were among them. I am looking into this.

Best,

Lance

By Lance, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Exactly Lance...

Mr. Bragalia would bring in the newspaper copy or what the cops said, but it's the photo itself I'm dealing with, a poor excuse for the depiction of alien visitors from an advanced intergalactic race.

Supplemental blah, blah, blah doesn't not impress me or you either apparently.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Tony provided a link to a larger photo from our server site, for those who need or want a better view:

http://query.homestead.com/light-beam.jpg

RR

By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
I guess I’m the only one who sees the obvious connection to the Socorro sighting two years earlier.

Anthony says the witnesses described something "like a light funnel" that sucked up the water and cut through the ice.”

Zamora described the “blue flame” under the object he saw as …” like a "stream down"--a funnel type--narrower at top than at bottom. Flame possibly 3 degrees or so in width--not wide. Flame about twice as wide at bottom as top, and about four times as high as top was wide.” If you decode his description, what he was saying was the part of the “blue flame” that protruded below the object was basically a truncated cone, with an included angle of about 14 degrees. A 14 degree cone is in reasonable agreement with what is being depicted in the Wanaque photo.

Dominick writes “Most [Wanaque witnesses] describe a very bright, egg shaped object that darted from place to place … and that, at times, shot down beams of light toward the ice.”

Zamora described an egg-shaped object that emitted intermittent beams of light. It is the intermittent nature of the “blue flame” with its associated noise (among other considerations) that eliminates the possibility that either the Socorro or the Wanaque object were propelled by rocket or jet engines.

At the Socorro landing site, there was evidence (in the form of heat damaged foliage and vitrified sand and rocks) that testified to the deposition of large amounts of heat energy underneath the center of the object (and therefore in the direct path of the beam). At the Wanaque site, there was evidence (in the form of a hole cut in the ice) that testified to the deposition of large amounts of heat energy underneath the center of the object (and therefore in the direct path of the beam).

By far the best scientifically competent explanation that I have seen in the open literature describing what UFOs are doing (but not necessarily how they are doing it) is Paul Hill’s book, Unconventional Flying Objects—a Scientific Analysis. His explanation invokes the presence of an “acceleration field” (which today we would call space-time warping) which explains at one stroke a multitude of the phenomena reported in the presence of metallic, axially symmetric UFOs. In order for this explanation to work, it is necessary to focus the “acceleration field” so that it is not of equal strength above as compared to below the object. Paul shows that this focused field would exert an apparent force on everything in its path, including the air, and water, tree limbs, and clouds (when present). The formation of standing patterns on the surfaces of water bodies (peaks and troughs) is an often reported phenomenon underneath metallic UFOs that is easily explained by this conjecture.

The cone is not formed by a simple light source inside the object and shining out through a hole. If that were the case, we would expect to see scattering from dust, water and other particles in the atmospheric column which would cause a fuzzy boundary. We would also expect to see a decrease in intensity from the top of the beam to the bottom. Both of these physical optics effects can be seen, for example, in the beam of searchlight, but are not seen here. By my conjecture, the cone extending below the UFO is a region in which there is a gradient in the space-time fabric that is strong enough to, for example, strip electrons away from the nuclei of Nitrogen atoms in the air. Recombination of such electron-ion pairs could plausibly explain the blue hue of the cone (which corresponds to the energy level of singly ionized Nitrogen) and emission of heat and penetrating radiation that is also often associated with such reported objects. The light is being created uniformly on (and perhaps within) the surface of a cone bounded by the focused field.

These are my preliminary thoughts.

By Larry, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Thanks, Larry....

An erudite comment, as usual.

But I would really like to stick with the Wanaque photo as displayed.

Bringing in Socorro or what Wanaque witnesses said takes us away from an analysis of the photo/image itself, even if there are other sightings of a like nature.

One can't open the door to all things UFO without muddying the issue, which is this: Is the photo real or a contrivance?

RR

By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Some common sense observations from this writer don't require nano-photonics and the behavior of light, especially since you did not bother to explain how these and their entwined relationships relate in specific terms to the image. Not to be curt but I could say it was due to mustard relish. So..please..explain.

By Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Rich: "I know you want originals
to deal with but can't you make suppositions, based upon the "retouched" newspaper photo?"

Considering all that, the image looks like it has been enhanced, but I don't know if it is due to a hoax, retouching, or just a not too good reproduction. I'll look online for a better version and see what I can see.

Tony, I don't have a news story with the photo, but some from 10/12/66, and a few of the Lorenzen's articles from APRO. It's been awhile since I read them. Then there is the 2/13/67 story about the fake USAF officers at Wanaque (which may have been written by Keel, since it has a NANA dateline). I was not able to confirm the existence of Col. Freeman with a quick check of PBB.

Regards,

Don

By Don, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
BTW..The critical assumption that what the two cops saw and what the representation as depicted in the image as being accurate reflections of each other cannot be proven by any material means.The other possibility is the inverse, light being reflected upward from the frozen ice, making a moving circular pattern on the denser cloud cover of which, this denser atmospheric cloud effect would not be visible to the naked eye. Only by the source of effect of light. Either way..there is more than enough room for doubt and as one who seeks a material causation for this phenomenon,or Roswell..your benchmark for evidence seems to sway.

By Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
But, RR, these commens DO relate to whether the photo is real or a contrivance. After all, you really don't think that someone on this blog is really going to step forth and admit that they took the picture, have the original negative, and will submit it to technical analysis. The best that we can do at this point, the very best, is offer up a technological explanation (as Larry has)--probably unavailable at the time--that "explains" what we see in the picture. In short, the picture is not an impossible explanation of what people actually observed. Aside from some admitance of fraud (I know of none in this case), that's about as far as we are going to get. Unless, of course, Tony can produce the photographer and the original negative.

By Dominick, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Lance sent Mr. Bragalia a link to radio shows about or from Wanaque in 1966:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rm5cw71kiluksnn/6bxsnUwDhL

RR

By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Looking at the linked-to image, it looks like there are two beams of light. They appear to be more rectangular or lozenge shaped than circular. It gives a bit of depth and angle to it. The two beams are defined rather than diffuse at the margins. The part above the beams, the 'ship', is the most light saturated. The light is slightly off center. It diffuses but encounters an outline, not as strong as the beams' outline. I don't see a definite hotspot in the light. Whether the outline is just an artifact of the image degradation or in the image itself, I don't know.

Regards,

Don

By Don, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
And????

RR

By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
And we reach the limits of the information in the image.

Regards,

Don

By Don, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Really?

RR

By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Yes, that I can see. A better image should have more, but this is what we have.

In order to win the debate with Tony you will have to cut him off at the ET technology pass. That means you have to have evidence of a hoax or at least retouching by the newspaper. If not, you won't lose the argument unless an alien decides to resolve the issue for you. So, once again...

Regards,

Don

By Don, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
There are no other interpretations of the image?

My god, what an non-creative, unimaginative group gathers here.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Angels?

By Lance, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
It is your blog. Lead us out of the wilderness, Rich.

Regards,

Don

By Don, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Bruce gave it the good ol' college try at least.

He didn't despair that the original wasn't available or that the online copies are less than desirable for analysis.

Rudiak took a misshapen image of a paper in General Ramey's hand from a newspaper clipping and derived an imaginative, creative analysis of what he was seeing.

Setting aside the interpretation, Rudiak gets kudos for his approach.

He, at least, tried to provide a cogent thesis -- his effort is laudable, regardless of how one evaluates his conclusions.

Now I've placed a picture of a photo online, and Mr. Bragalia dug out an earlier presentation we had online.

We've been through this before: the image may not be technically suitable for analysis but there are things that can deduced from the image before us.

And Bruce Duensing provided some sensible deductions.

That supposed photography buffs can't do the same baffles me.

We used to call such inefficient attempts cop-outs.

Tony Bragalia knows my views, but I wanted him to hear views from others, either to cement my thoughts or to put my thoughts out of commission.

I'll provide my "analysis" in a new posting, with counter views by Tony.

It's sad that we can't engage the usual visitors here.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
"And Bruce Duensing provided some sensible deductions."

I'll bet Bruce thinks my comment agrees with his "The beam is too delineated without diffusion or focal distortion as typical of any night shot for that era,"

"That supposed photography buffs can't do the same baffles me.

I have made a sensible deduction: the image has all the detail of a crayon drawing.

"We used to call such inefficient attempts cop-outs."

I call it an absence of desire to play the ET/no-ET game.

Regards,

Don

By Don, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
ET need not be brought into the discussion, Don.

Perhaps there are other possibilities.

Mr. Bragalia may be leaning toward an ET interpretation but I don't think he's married to that explanation.

And I'm open to a unique view.

Something was seen at Wanaque Reservoir in 1966 -- something out of the ordinary.

A cop says he took a photo of it, the one displayed here.

I say the photo is contrived, a corny concoction of what one might think a flying saucer or UFO looked like and the actions of such a UFO.

The 1955 movie This Island Earth made much of beams being extruded from flying saucers.

But was something else responsible for the Wanaque sightings?

If Hynek were here he might not proffer "swamp gas" but I bet he'd come up with something equally goofy and imaginative.

But this blog seems to be suffused with comments less than creative, or thought provoking.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
I am working on one other avenue for this. May not be fruitful...will let you know.

Lance

By Lance, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Phew....thanks, Lance.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Professor Bragalia:

I can easy see, once again, from your well-reasoned and insightful replies, just why you were singled out as the perfect complement to the previously unimpeachable Roswell work products of Randle, Carey, and Schmitt.... Well Done, Sir!! BRAVO!!!

By Kurt Peters, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
My friend "Nablator" provided me (us) this link :
http://rr0.org/data/1/9/6/7/FlyingSaucerMenace/TheManyWeirdNightsAtWanaque/index.html

Extract: This photograph of a UFO beaming a ray of light down into a body of water was taken in Pennsylvania, in 1961. It has recently been erroneously associated with the UFO flap above the Wanaque Reservoir.
Source: Brad Steiger Flying Saucer Menace, pp. 22-26, 1967

The article picture zoomed: http://rr0.org/data/1/9/6/7/FlyingSaucerMenace/TheManyWeirdNightsAtWanaque/24.gif

What do you think about it? False association of another picture to the Wanaque story? Or?

Regards,

Gilles & Nablator

By Gilles Fernandez, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Merci, Gilles....

Tres interessant.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Rich: "But this blog seems to be suffused with comments less than creative, or thought provoking."

Suppose I said the object is a helicopter with searchlights snapped with a slow shutter, then the helicopter part was dodged in making the print. I can't prove it, but I assert it here. Then along comes the information that the photographer's diary has been found and indeed he hoaxed it exactly as I had said. Do you think I'd get a squirt of ego-enhancing endorphin because I was right?

I would not, because I know I guessed at it and got lucky. I hadn't proved it to myself. It is easy to be right, and easier still if its multiple choice, or 'either/or' (50-50 chance). The ego payoff for me is being right with all the i's dotted, all the t's crossed, not a lucky guess.

This image will be proved, not on any information in the image, but from outside the image, such as proof, in my example, there was a helicopter with searchlights over the reservoir at the time the photo was taken.

What are the odds any ufo photo will not be a common object made a 'ufo' by the conditions of the shot, or is a hoax? The skeptics have it easy, here.

The only photos I think are "real" are Rhodes', and I doubt the object is ET. The reason I think they are real is not anything to be seen in the photos, but because of the way the AF treated them. In other words, the proof is something outside the image, not the image, itself.

Personally, I do not think if a real ufo were photographed that it would appear as anything but a fake, anyway. Fakes can be proved in an image, but not a real ufo.

Regards,

Don

By Don, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
OK, confession time folks:

As Rich knows, I have already located and contacted the family of the patrolman believed to have taken the photo. Those of you who know my profession know that I dig deep and that I have unique means to find folks.

The story is so deep, the concern about saying anything publicly so great, that I can only say for now that I hope to one day openly say all that I know about this event and the beam photo. If you read both of my articles on Wanaque- clues to the cameraman are given. This cop did not lie. It is a real photo.

BTW, Gilles, I have already looked into the 1961 PA claim- not true. Steiger is completely wrong.I traced the story in its entirety-will try to dig up my notes on this.

AJB

By Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Don...

I understand your methodology and I applaud it, as you know.

But the point of my conjectural post here is too see who can conjure up material or theses that confirm my view (a hoaxed photo) or Tony Bragalia's (a real photo taken by a credible witness).

Tony's comment above gets to the heart of what he has discovered and why he believes the UFO photo to be authentic.

Tony says it's a "real photo" and that it is.

But a photo of what?

That's the question at hand.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Mr. Bragalia provides this link to a 1993 video on YouTube which duplicates the Wanaque event(s):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD9iOdk7WuU&feature=related

It's an interesting video.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Tony's closing of the gate while opening it by responding with that..."clues to the cameraman are given. This cop did not lie. It is a real photo." Nice to dream about but the alleged and anonymous second hand collaboration has no connection to material evidence, nor to "nano-photonics" What we have is a circular path leading back to the image which is so representative of why the ambiguity of any image that is backed with simply a paraphrasing of " the evidence is there but I cannot tell you. " Again a connection to unidentified sources that lead nowhere for any practical utility toward a solution to this ambiguity. So this "evidence" can be thrown out without regret. It is useless.
Back to the artifice of the image, which has all the hallmarks of also being useless as evidence.
Then we have the original observers who fall under the false critical assumption that they have been gifted with an assumed set of
1. Photographic skills of a professional.
2. The camera had "magical" qualities available at that time to refine the image under difficult conditions.
3 Could not have been fooled by environmental conditions and..
4. Did not fall into context of the "flying saucers" sociology of the time through their expectations / interpretation.
For pragmatic reasons alone, simply put, this image is evidence of nothing. Therefore if it represents nothing as material evidence, it can be thrown out as well.
Tony is left with belief alone while dismissing reasonable doubt. This alone weighs with Rich winning this contest. The rest is simply babble.

By Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
It have been done several "researches" concerning bibliography about the photo curse in ufologye in our forum (many extracts are in English, you will normaly fully understand). Register - sorry - to see pictures, but normaly all links are visible for visitors (not the ones directly inserted on the text however).
You can post in English if you want to participate of course, we will translate.

http://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t3744-la-photo-de-wanaque-1966#66677

Regards,

Gilles

By Gilles Fernandez, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
BTW, Gilles, I have already looked into the 1961 PA claim- not true. Steiger is completely wrong.I traced the story in its entirety-will try to dig up my notes on this.

Dunno Tony,

See the #10 reply in our forum (sorry, I'm not at home to summerize or to scheck more). Direct link of reply #10 : http://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t3744-la-photo-de-wanaque-1966#66673

By Gilles Fernandez, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Gilles-

The Wanaque Beam photo was said by the Morning Call (Patterson, NJ) newspaper to have been taken at Wanaque and the date of the paper is October 13, 1966.

You say it was taken in 1961. I defy you to show me any publication anywhere at any time between 1961 and October of 1966 that shows this same photograph. If you cannot, you have no case. I am backed by a 1966 newspaper and by August Roberts- where is your evidence? Beyond that, the testimony recorded in at least two newspapers speaks of a downward funnel beam emanating from the craft- precisely what the photo shows!

AJB

By Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
You say it was taken in 1961. I defy you to show me any publication anywhere at any time between 1961 and October of 1966 that shows this same photograph. If you cannot, you have no case.

It is hallucinating how you over react to anything from nothing excepting in your mind... Calm dow, man^^

What I say? I have say nothing concerning your " it was taken in 1961", I only shared some ressources done by others, as I use "?" here ie. in Rich blog, meaning to have the bloggers opinion about it or this, or your own.

If each time, a "skeptic" is sharing ressources and have no one special or real opinion, juste "investigating", you see it as a "mano a mano" or "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral", a "defy", allow me to say you have a strange view of the world...

I have only shared resources, have none real opinion about the picture. What are you making again it as a psychodrama?

It is hallucinating, amazing, astounding... Well, that's ufology.

By Gilles Fernandez, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Gilles makes a valid point.

We all, in the UFO community, are a little too thin-skinned; we over-react to comments that tink our egos.

Hypotheses are just that, suggestions.

They are not propositions of fiery belief; they're just thoughts to be considered....even when they are goofy.

Mr. Bragalia gets a little testy when someone questions his belief system: that ETs visited Wanaque, and Roswell, but not Socorro.

But he isn't really angry with you Gilles, or anyone else.

He's a moderate fellow, just trying to get at the truth of some UFO things.

RR

By RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Glad to see at least this the issue and footnote in history to be finally resolved to everyone's relief around our campfire in the cosmos without a great deal of histrionics over theories and now we can be assured that none of us have the definitive answer to much of anything of any import. Thank heavens for common sense.

By Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Lance Moody has provided this:

Bob Zanotti was a young man very interested in UFO's during the time. He had the Coffee Klatsch show WFMU and often interviewed UFO personalities.

Bob and Augie went up to the Wanaque reservoir a few days after the UFO reports and interviewed all of the principals.

The fresh testimony on that show sounds different from the way the story was later told. I have not yet been able to document all the differences but...

A photo is mentioned. But it was taken by two reporters The reporters who got the photo were from the Patterson Call….NOT a policeman as Tony has concocted.

I asked Bob's his thoughts on the photo. He replied:

"To your question: That photo is either an outright fraud, or perhaps, to be kinder, only a depiction of what had been reported, made perhaps by a local newspaper. That was common in those days. I agree that it cannot be a real photograph. If Augie were alive, I suspect he might know about it."

Thanks, Lance...

RR

By RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Dear Mr Bragalia,

I followed with great interest your investigation about this case and would like to ask you a question, if you don't mind.

I'm sure you're pretty aware of the publications of the FSR 1972 Vol.18 n°4; the Flying Saucer UFO Report n°2, Dell Publications, NY, October 1967 pp58-59 and the publication inside "True Magazine".
These three papers are interesting in the sense that they show a set of five photos, including the well-known "Wanaque 1966 photo", object of your study.

My question is: "According to you, where were taken these five photos?
1- All were taken in Wanaque Reservoir in 1966 or
2- The first four were taken in Pocono Moutains (Pennsylvania) and the last one in Wanaque Reservoir.

Many thanks in advance for your reply.

By Elevenaugust, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Hi Elevenaugust-

Appreciate the comments.

Yes, all of them were taken at Wanaque.

There were actually two pieces that I did to this, Google: "Witness to Wanaque" was the first one but there was also "Returning to Wanaque: Silence Broken on a Significant UFO Sighting." Together give a more complete story.

AJB

By Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Mr. Bragalia's extensive reports on Wanaque appear at his blog and can be read via these links:

http://bragalia.blogspot.com/2011/06/witness-to-wanaque-greatest-mass-ufo.html

http://bragalia.blogspot.com/2011/08/returning-to-wanaque-silence-broken-on.html

RR

By RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Mr Bragalia,

Thank you for your reply.

So, have you any idea why these five photos were linked to the "B.C." sighting in Archbald, Pennsylvania, 1958 by Schwarz in the 1972 FSR issue?

Also, I find it strange that (according to the FSR paper), when "B.C." photos were shown to Roberts August, he recognized four of them to be "erroneously associated with the UFO flap over the Wanaque reservoir". Was Roberts wrong or was mistakenly confused about the photos source?

And it's much more confusing when you look at its book (written with Steiger) and the caption saying "This photograph of a UFO beaming a ray of light down into a body of water was taken in Pennsylvania, in 1961. (1958?) It has recently been erroneously associated with the UFO flap above the Wanaque Reservoir".

Any insight about this?

I also would like to know if you have some independent source to confirm that the five photo was effectively taken at Wanaque Reservoir? (Over than the FSR or the Flying Saucer UFO Report).

In fact, I would be interested to have a look (like many here, I guess) at the better primary source for the photo.

Many thanks again!

By Elevenaugust, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Howard Ball was the editor of the Patterson paper:

"Several of us were interviewed by the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena. A report was filed by that group, a copy of which I still have," Ball said. "It simply parrots what we said and makes no definitive statement. It does not rule out the fact that there might have been something unusual in the sky that night.

"As for the Air Force and its Project Blue Book, by which it was at the time keeping tabs on UFOs, to the best of my knowledge, there never was an Air Force official in the area and there never was a single question asked by the Air Force – with the exception of a questionnaire which I requested and filled out for the Air Force," said the editor.

More UFOs were seen over the reservoir between 1966-67, the most spectacular report of which came from Sgt. Robert Gordon of the Pompton Lakes Police Department, Ball said.

Ball said he and others were interviewed about the UFOs on CBS television and by writers of weirdness.

The story snowballed with rumors and hearsay over the years and was written about in magazines and books like "The Official Guide to UFOs" and "Invisible Residents." The Wanaque UFO affair as reported in those two books was reprinted in whole in Ball’s story.

He said it was a myth that the object had burned holes in the ice on the reservoir.

Ball dismissed illustrations in books of the Wanaque event that featured a well-defined saucer flying over the reservoir and shooting beams of light.

In the April 11, 2007 edition of Suburban Trends, reporter Tim Fox quoted a longtime Wanaque resident who was told by two laughing co-workers in 1971 that they created the UFOs by setting fire to bags of propane and launching them over the reservoir.

Above from Jersey Record 4/2012

By Lance, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
fluoroscopy during a medical procedure?

By Parakletos, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
Propane is heavier than air. Therefore, propane-filled bags won't float through the in the manner of helium balloons.

Maybe these buffoons suspended their burning propane bags from something else that flew them. But there's no information about that.

But the sighting being the result of nothing more sophisticated than flying bags of burning propane is a bogus explanation.

By purrlgurrl, at Thursday, February 21, 2013
"This photograph of a UFO beaming a ray of light down into a body of water was taken in Pennsylvania, in 1961. It has recently been erroneously associated with the UFO flap above the Wanaque Reservoir."

http://www.ufocasebook.com/wana2.gif

By Parakletos, at Friday, February 22, 2013
Parakletos-

There is not a shred of evidence that this photograph was ever published in any way anywhere at any time before 1966, in PA or anywhere else.

And I have been assured by an individual who was there that the background pictured in the beam photo corresponds to known scenery in the Wanaque area.

The beam UFO photo correlates directly to the Morning Call Paper of 1966 (cited previously) and is the earliest known publication of the photo. The complete series later was given to Dell without charge or request for attribution by researcher and photographer August C. Roberts of Wayne, NJ. He received them from a patrolman who did not want his name used. They were copies as the originals were handed over to government officials.

Sgt. Ben Thompson, a patrolman who is implicated by his own testimony in a transcribed interview (and by his former police partner, Sgt. Charles Theodora) was issued a camera. He said that he observed a beam-like structure emanating from a bright UFO above him. He is believed to have been forced to surrender his UFO photo to government personnel who said they were from the Air Force just as Theodora said he was made to surrender his photo to Air Force officers. My follow up article "Returning to Wanaque" details this episode. Thompson and Theodora's Chief of Police later reluctantly admitted that he too had himself witnessed a globular UFO with a massive, defined, funnel-like beam of light beaming down from it and illuminating the water and ice. This too is recounted in the second article on Wanaque.

Hope this helps.

AJB

By Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, February 22, 2013
AJB,

Have you considered tracking down whoever it was who captioned the photo alleging it to be 'erroneously associated' to Wanaque?

By Parakletos, at Friday, February 22, 2013
AJB,

I mentioned Fluoroscopy because it looks like medical tweezers to me. Where I believe that you see the light 'emitting', I see the grasping end of the tweezers...

As I understand it, Fluoroscopes were quite popular in those days. People were even using them to check how well a pair of shoes fit before buying them in shoe stores.

The main problem I see with it being a 'light beam' is quite simple. Light doesn't behave that way. If you shoot a light beam to the 'water', you're not going to get a glow between the craft and the water unless there are particulates between. The light has to hit something in order to then reflect at around 90 degrees to enter the camera lens. And even if we allowed for there being SOME particulate matter in the sky, it wouldn't give such an even pattern density.

By Parakletos, at Friday, February 22, 2013
Parakletos-

I am trying to locate my notes from several years ago researching this but I want to say that Brad Steiger (not a bastion of reliability) figures in.

This is not to of course to say that both PA and NJ were not both having these types of sightings- they were, and over long periods of time in the 1960s.

AJB

By Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, February 22, 2013
Rich,

I originally shared some of the 1966 Coffee Klatsch show related to the Wanaque sighting with Tony.

I wasn't sure if Bob Zanotti wanted me to share them publicly or not but he has now assured me that it is ok.

My link you posted earlier is no longer working (I wanted to get Bob's permission first).

But I have put them at this link:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u8pzoj5n892e4fc/ixv1-D3FY-

And will maintain them there for a while for anyone who is interested.

These artifacts do give us some contemporaneous accounts (which are different than the accounts told today) from the original witnesses.

Best,

Lance

By Lance, at Monday, February 25, 2013
Thanks Lance...

Tony is hanging tough with his view that the photo is authentic.

I'm operating and writing as if it isn't.

(I've spent some time trying to find the 1958 or 1961 copy that allegedly Steiger mentioned. Nothing so far.)

RR

By RRRGroup, at Monday, February 25, 2013

The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Wanaque: Bragalia vs Reynolds

61 Comments:

About

About Me

Previous