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

The Suppression of UFO Technologies and Extraterrestrial Contact 363
Madeleine left, one of the two friends with her was allegedly told that it
was "a very important piece of film" and that the craft was twenty-seven
feet in diameter (the figure calculated independently by Bill Sherwood).
Unfortunately, I have been unable to confirm this.
In reply to my queries, NASA scientist Paul D. Lowman Jr., of the
Geophysics Branch at Goddard, stated that according to one of those present,
Herbert A. Tiedemann, everyone considered the Silver Spring film to
be fake. Dr. Lowman, who had helped set up the meeting but was unable
to attend, offered the following comments on the color photos from the
film that I sent him:
First, it is not possible to make any precise determination of the object's
size from the relationship (which is basically correct) quoted by Mr.
Sherwood. Given any three of these quantities, one can calculate the
fourth. The focal length and image size are obviously known, but not the
distance, which can only be roughly estimated. The equation can be no
better than its most inexact quantity, and one might as well just estimate
the size of the object directly. My own strong impression is that these
frames show a small object, perhaps up to 2 or 3 feet across, a short
distance from the camera. Judging from the photo of Mrs. Rodeffer's
house, a 27 foot UFO would have occupied most of the cleared area in
the front yard, and from such a short distance would have been a very
large photographic object.
Although Bill Sherwood readily concedes that his estimate of the precise
distance from the camera is arbitrary, he is sure that it is reasonably
accurate, and my own tests at the site show that, with the camera lens set
on wide angle (as it was at the time), an object of this approximate size
and distance would appear exactly as it does on the film. That either
Adamski or Madeleine (or both) could have faked the film using a small
model, and then have the audacity to show it at NASA, seems far-fetched
in the extreme. Moreover, to produce the distortion effects as well as the
lowering and retracting of one of the pods with a small model, is out of
the question as far as I am concerned. As a semi-professional photographer
I can speak with some authority on the matter myself.
Following the death of Adamski, Madeleine Rodeffer experienced a
great deal of ridicule and harassment, and nearly all copies of the "faked"
film have been stolen—in the United States and elsewhere.
Two photographs of an identical craft were taken by young Stephen
Darbishire in the presence of his cousin Adrian Myers in Coniston,
England, in February 1954. For the benefit of those who contend that
Darbiahire had faked the pictures and recanted later, the following statement
from a letter he wrote to me in 1986 is illuminating: