Выбрать главу

During the interview with Beam and Loedding, Rhodes mentioned that he did not believe that what he had seen was windblown debris. This is an obvious reference to Dr. Irving Langmuir's conclusion published in the "Project Grudge Report," that the object in the photographs could be "merely paper swept up by the winds."

In fact, that same Grudge Report noted, "In subsequent correspondence to the reporter of this incident, the observer refers to himself as Chief of Staff of Panoramic Research Laboratory, the letterhead of which lists photography among its specialties. Yet, the negative was carelessly cut and faultily developed. It is covered with streaks and over a period of six months, has faded very noticeably."

Then, in what must have horrified the Air Force investigators, "An OSI agent discovered that a letter by this observer was published by Amazing Stories magazine earlier this year. In this letter he stated that he had been interviewed by two Federal agents, had given them pictures of "flying discs' and that the pictures had not been returned. He requested the advice of the magazine as to how to sue the Government. This individual is aware of the whereabouts of these pictures, but has never requested their return."

It should be noted that nothing in the report was inaccurate. Rhodes had been interviewed by two federal agents, one from the FBI and one, in civilian clothing, from the counterintelligence corps. Documents in the file reveal that the CIC man had asked the FBI agent not to tell Rhodes about his Army connection. In other words, the CIC agent allowed the FBI agent to show credentials and allowed Rhodes to believe that both were FBI.

It should also be noted that Rhodes did surrender the pictures to the FBI and those were given to the Air Force. There is nothing in the file to suggest that Rhodes attempted to recover his pictures prior to the attempts he would make in 1952.

The AMC opinion in the Project Grudge report, which followed Langmuir's statement about the possibility of wind blown debris, was, "In view of the apparent character of the witness, the conclusion of Dr. Langmuir [that the photographs be discounted as paper swept up by the wind] seems entirely probably (sic)."

What we know from the case is that Rhodes did bill himself as the chief of staff of Panoramic Research Laboratory. We also know that he had supplied photographs and negatives to the military investigators. Had he not done so, how would they have known that they were badly cut or had faded over a period of months. More importantly, they acknowledge that he had given them photographs and negatives in correspondence available in the Project Blue Book files.

As we review the file, we learn that there was, in fact, correspondence between Rhodes and various governmental and military officials attempting to recover both his photographs and his negatives. Over two years after he took the pictures, Kenneth W. King, wrote to another military organization, "Enclosed are copies of the photographs now in the custody of the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, A-2, Intelligence, Hamilton AFB, California, under the subject of 'Investigation of Flying Discs.'" If we had nothing else, this would prove that Rhodes did surrender the pictures. But there is even more interesting documentation.

On June 5, 1952, now nearly five years after the pictures were taken, and before the massive publicity about UFOs was about to burst on the public consciousness, Colonel Arno H. Luehman, Deputy Director of Public Information wrote about "Declassifying Photographs of Unidentified Flying Objects." In the first paragraph of his letter, he wrote, "This office understands that two photographs were taken by Mr. William A. Rhodes of Phoenix, Arizona, and that these photographs were turned over to Fourth Air Force Intelligence in July of 1947. This office has been contacted by Mr. Rhodes who is requesting return of his original negatives."

The letter continued, "The two photographs were copied by the Photographic Records and Services Division of the Air Adjutant General's Office at this headquarters and are in a confidential file of Unidentified Missiles as A-34921AC and 34921AC."

Now we return to Rhodes and the summer of 1949. In a long "Report of Investigation," dated August 17, 1949 [over two years after the sighting] and written by Lynn C. Aldrich of DO #17, Kirtland AFB, we are again treated to a background check of Rhodes. More neighbors are interviewed with the same results. Rhodes is a good neighbor who appears to be somewhat high strung and full of himself. There are personal details about him including his height and weight in the summer of 1947, though I can't understand why these sort of statistics are gathered in this sort of an investigation. Maybe it was just routine information that the FBI agents supplied as they investigated all cases, even those related to flying saucers.

But the important part of the document comes at the end. Aldrich wrote, "…On the morning of August 30, 1947, when Mr. Rhodes called at the Phoenix office [of the FBI] to deliver the negatives, they were accepted only after he was advised that they were being given to Mr. FUGATE, a representative of the Army Air Force Intelligence, United States Army, and that here was little, if any chance of his getting the negatives back. Mr. Rhodes turned over to this office with the full understanding that they were being given to the Army and that he would not get them back."

So we learn that Rhodes did surrender his negatives just as he had said. We learn that the Army had this correspondence available to them. We learn that he gave the photographs and negatives to the FBI and was told that the Army would eventually be getting them. Yet, the AMC Opinion claims that, in 1949, Rhodes had made no requests for the return of his pictures and negatives.

On July 14, 1952, in still another letter, we learn that the pictures and negatives were turned over to Air Force intelligence representatives at Hamilton Field on August 30, 1947. In that document, they are attempting to trace the course of the pictures from Rhodes to the FBI to Army intelligence. What this suggests is that the Air Force wasn't sure of where the pictures and negatives were. They were attempting to shift the blame to others for the apparent loss of those pictures, including Rhodes himself.

That same July 14 document, written by Gilbert R. Levy, noted, "A background investigation was run on Rhodes, by OSI, for the benefit of AMC, which reflected Rhodes had created the name PANORAMIC RESEARCH LABORATORY, to impress people with his importance. He was reported to be a musician by trade, but had no steady job. Neighbors considered him to be an excellent neighbor, who caused no trouble, but judged him to be emotionally high strung, egotistical, and a genius in fundamentals of radio. He conducts no business through his "Laboratory," but reportedly devotes all his time to research."

What all this means is that Rhodes had surrendered his photographs and negatives to the government. And, although there is a suggestion that he knew where they were, that simply isn't borne out in the documents. Even the Air Force officers didn't know where the photographs were. That was why there were letters written from one office to another.

But, more importantly, there has been no real discussion about why the Air Force investigators labeled the case as a probable hoax. The discussion seemed to center around Rhodes' lifestyle. He didn't have a "real" job and had letterhead that labeled him as the chief of staff of his laboratory. None of that is a good reason for labeling the case a hoax. If that was all their evidence, then it is fairly weak.

There is, however, one page of analysis of the photographs offered by John A. Clinton. There is no clue, in the files, about Clinton. The analysis is not on a letterhead and there is nothing in the signature block to tell us anything about Clinton, his expertise, or why he was consulted about this particular case.

In the undated analysis of the photographs, Clinton wrote, "Preliminary analysis of the negative and prints leads me to doubt the story told by Mr. William A. Rhodes. Judging from the dimensions, the negative was exposed in a simple camera of the box type, which usually has a fixed focus (about ten feet), fixed shutter speed (about 1/25 of a second) and a simple lens of the Meniscus type. Because of the above mentioned facts, it is unreasonable to assume that sharp outlines such as appears on the negative, could be secured from an object at 2,000 feet, traveling 400 to 600 mph. Furthermore, according to the story the object (flying craft) was painted gray to blend in with the clouds. But, even if the object would be painted jet black, under the circumstances described, to obtain a contrast such as appears on the negative is also very doubtful. On all the prints, excepting the print marked "exhibit A", judging from the outlines, the object has a rotating motion (revolves around its center) instead of a forward motion, contracting the version stated by Mr. Rhodes."