Eisen-Suppressed-Inventions-and-other-Discoveries-True-Stories-of ...

The Suppression of UFO Technologies and Extraterrestrial Contact 361
was actually faked. Both my co-author Lou Zinsstag and I exposed as
many of the inconsistencies in Adamski's claims that were available to us
at the time of writing, but that short piece of film, taken a few months
before Adamski's death, remains authentic in my opinion at least.
Sometime between 3 and 4 P.M. on 26 February 1965 an unidentified
craft of the famous type photographed by Adamski in 1952 (and others
subsequently) described a series of manoeuvres over Madeleine's front
yard, retracting and lowering one of its three pods and making a gentle
humming and swishing sound as it did so. Adamski began filming the craft
with Madeleine's 8 mm camera. "It looked blackish-brown or grayishbrown
at times," Madeleine told me, "but when it came in close it looked
greenish and blueish, and it looked aluminium: it depended on which way
it was tilting. Then at one point it actually stood absolutely still between
the bottom of the steps and the driveway." The craft then disappeared from
view, but reappeared above the roof and described manoeuvres once more
before finally disappearing vertically. Madeleine told me that she could
make out human figures at the portholes, but details were obscured.
When the film was developed the following week something was obviously
wrong with many of the frames and it was apparent that it had been
interfered with. Obviously faked frames had been substituted by person or
persons unknown. "They took the original film," Madeleine believes, "and
what I think they did was rephotograph portions of the original... and then
fake some stuff. The film I got back is not the original film at all."
Fortunately enough frames showing the craft as they had remembered
it survived out of the twenty-five feet that had been taken, and these were
analyzed by William T. Sherwood, an optical physicist who was formerly
a senior project development engineer for the Eastman-Kodak Company
in Rochester, NY. I spent many hours discussing the film with Bill, and
in 1968 he provided me with a brief technical summary of his evaluations
as they related to the prints he made from the "original" film.
It's hard to capture the nuances of the original film. None of the movie
duplicates are good: too much contrast. The outlines look "peculiar" due
to distortions, I believe, caused by the "forcefield." The glow beneath the
flange is, I think, significant. Incidentally, the tree [near the top of which
the craft manoeuvred] is very high (90 ft). Roughly, the geometry of
imagery is this:
In 1977 Bill Sherwood sent me further details of his evaluations:
The camera was a Bell & Howell Animation Autoload Standard 8, Model