An in-depth review of the Cecconi Case Photos.

I've found so little English references to this case that I thought that I would be interesting to do an in-depth Internet investigation about it.

Indeed, there are only two sources that discuss the case in a serious way:
1- A well-written article on this blog with some good illustration refer to ATS as for the primary English-speaking source for the case and to the Brazilian INPU UFO site for the main primary source, that is only a reprinted and translated version of the original CISU Italian article.
2- The great article that was written here, on ATS, two years and half ago by member "Imagir", with lots of photos and comments as well.

You may ask me now: "Why the need to take again this old case?"
In fact, it begins by the read of a recent issue of the UFOCasebook Magazine that picked up my interest recently, as it shows this stunning photo:



... with, at first glance, all the needed characteristics for a "perfect" UFO case:

- More than 80 photos (82 to be precise!!)
- Radar recordings
- Visual confirmation by airport ground staff
- Behavior of the UFO that made up and down movements at 1,000 feet at a time, climbing up to 13,000 feet.

So, I thought that it worth a new investigation to try to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least from a photo analyst POV.

As usual, the first step for me was to try to find any original source for both investigations and photos.
I have to say that, while it was easy to find the original Italian CISU report written by Italian investigator Marco Orlandi, the search for the photos was a true assault course...
Indeed, and unfortunately, the original CISU report do not have anymore the photos attached to it (but the INPU paper still have, but with a BIG "INPU" logo on it), so I had to search all over the Net to try to find them, with the best resolution if possible.
To complicate things, our fellow ATS member "Imagir" that wrote this great article in 2010 forgot to gave the sources for the photos!

All the other investigative sources, whether they are written in Portuguese (INPU), in English or in Italian have for solely main source the CISU article. You'll find the complete list at the end of this presentation.

I have translated in English the full original CISU article, but in order not to make this article heavy, the whole translation can be found and downloaded here (translation in progress, I'll give the link later)

Now, the photos. The investigation states that that was no less than 82 photos that were taken by Cecconi, but only four of them were released. Yes, you read it well, only four!!
I'll not discuss what could be the reasons of what appears to be at least some cover-up, mistake, lie, or whatever as it was already extensively discussed everywhere, especially here, on ATS.
My goal is to try to determine whether there's any original photos or not, and if so, what and where they are.

- The first one was the most famous and have so much versions that it's hard to define which one is the original. Let's see the various versions and try anyway to back up the source.

1-
This one is taken from the UCB site and is, without any doubt, only a cropped version of the original.

2-
This version came from source [1] and source [2] (ATS Imagir's thread) and is another copied version of n°3 below, without the caption.

3-
This other version with the caption "la foto "originale" scattata dall' ex maresciallo Cecconi" translated as "the "original" photo taken from former Marshal Cecconi" is seen originally in source [3] with the following comments from forum member "Ufologo 555" (alias "Massimo Staccioli", see its bio in Italian here): " Note that I followed this real case for a long time. And I saw this same photo on the desk of the office of the former Wing Commander 3 rd Wing in Villafranca (VR). Because there were photo-interpretation ... And I heard from some officials some "start again'' stuff, fortunately, that happens sometimes ... (They were referring to different recurrent flights ...) If it was a joke, those photos would not be on that table...
The only real available photo is this one. The others were taken by the ministry of defense and, after several years, they have released some, but other various released Cecconi "UFO" photos are not the same that those made by Cecconi, but rather modified pictures to make them look as a simple solar balloon."

In spite of what was said in this forum by Mr Staccioli, I tend to believe that this photo wasn't the original at all. I'll explained why later.

4-
This version is quite different from the other in the sense that it does not have neither the same hue nor the same size. It can be seen in source [4], but a larger version with a caption exist in source [5]:



Like for the photo n°3, I have some good reasons to believe that this version is not the original one as well, but.....

5-
This B&W version can be found in various Spanish and Italian-speaking blogs in 2011, but the larger and older version came from another Italian forum (source [6]) with the caption "www.jjona.it" which is an Italian photos storage site, now closed.



Like the other above, this photo is very likely only a cropped version of the original.

6-
Now, it begins to be interesting with this photo, as it is only available from a primary source (see source [b ]). It wasn't reproduce anywhere and, like I already said, is even not anymore visible on the main source [a] (CISU). It is supposed to be an original.

However, a problem remains between photos n°4 and n°6 above, let's see it details.

At first glance, we could say that the photo n°4 is only a cropped version of the n°6, as it missed the rightmost portion and the lowest and highest portions as well (noted "1" in my drawing below).
But there's something wrong with the leftmost side (noted "2")



The red straight line is my reference (joining two landscape reference points in both photos) for properly rotating and resizing the photo n°4 to to fit onto the photo n°6 (52% smaller and 1% rotated to the left)

Conclusion 1: If the photo taken from sources [4] and [5] was only a cropped version of the one taken in the INPU site, then why this "missing" part in the "original" version?

This raise up two questions:
- Where the photo from sources [4] and [5] came from?
- Where is the real original photo (not from the INPU site...)?

Now, next photo....

- The second one

While it appears to be less impressive than the first, it is interesting nonetheless. There are three version of this photo, and each one can be found in only one Internet site:

7-

Taken from source [4], the photo have a size of 296 x 400.

8-

Taken from the main source [b ] (INPU), it's an horizontally B&W flipped version, with a size of 203 x 313.

9-

This last one is, from far, the best as it has a 462 x 593 size, and come from the source [5]

Which one could be an original?
Here are three comparisons, between two of them each time, using the "UFO" longer size as reference for resizing each photo at the same scale:

- Between n°7 and n°9:


Conclusion: n°9 is a cropped version of n°7

- Between n°8 and n°9:


Conclusion: n°9 is a cropped version of n°8.

- Between n°7 and n°8:


Conclusion: n°7 IS NOT a cropped version of n°8.

Conclusion 2: exactly like for the first photo, we might wondering where the photo of the source [4] came from and where is the real original photo, as it's not the one that can be seen on the INPU site.

- The third one

Let's use the same process I used for the two first photos.

There are only two versions of this one:

10-

Taken from source [4] with a size of 400 x 281

11-

Taken from main source [b ] with a size of 346 x 203

A quick overlay of the two photo shows that photo n°10 is a cropped version of n°11:



- The fourth one

Like the third one, there are only two version of this one:

12-

Taken from source [4] with a size of 400 x 339

13-

Taken from main source [b ] with a size of 346 x 276

A quick overlay of the two photo shows that photo n°12 is a cropped version of n°13:



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we learn from this?

It is said on the INPU site that photos 2, 3 and 4 came from a newspaper called "Epoca" that were published in 1985. While the poor B&W quality and the low resolution make me think that it's true, I showed that, at least for photo n°2 that it is not in any way an original and that another larger copy exist somewhere that was reprinted by source [4].

As for the first photo, INPU said that it came from the CISU. If true (and there's no way to directly confirm it, as the photos aren't on the CISU site anymore), then either the INPU or the CISU themselves cropped the full original photo in their width, as a larger version can be seen in sources [4] and [5].
That leads me to the first question: "why INPU/CISU cropped the original photo?"

Could it be possible that the only available versions today from all the sources of photos 1 and 2 only come from the newspaper "Epoca"?
A closer look at photos 1 and 2 taken from both sources shows interesting clues:







The red frame and caption and the "grainy" aspect of these three photos are typical of a newspaper presentation and filigrane.
I've asked for confirmation to "Jorge Fontana"; the owner of the blog "Misterio Del Planeta Azul" (source [5]) that exposed in his article two of these photos taken from the newspaper.

So, it's very possible that these photos come from the "Epoca" newspaper. While it's uncommon for any serious UFO site to cropped down any UFO photo (and seems like however what INPU have done
with the photos they got from "Epoca"), it's an usual practice for the newspaper to do so.
That's probably why the original photos obtained by "Epoca" were cropped down, at least in their vertical size.

That leads me to the second question: "where the "Epoca" photos version come from?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final conclusion

Neither the "Epoca" newspaper nor INPU/CISU site shows the original unmodified photos.
I've proven without any doubts that both have cropped down the Cecconi photos in their possession for unknown purpose.

Where are the original unmodified photos? Is there any objective reason why they aren't avalaible?

To try to answer these questions and maybe obtained the real untouched original photos, I've emailed both INPU and CISU, linking this thread on my mail.

I also try to get more infos about the release of the "Epoca" newspaper (in 1985, said INPU, but when exactly?) and see if I can get the original.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources

Main sources:
a- CISU
b- INU

Secondary sources:
1- What's all this, then?
2- Imagir's ATS thread
3- Ufoforum.it 2
4- Esos Misteriosos Objetos Celestes y sus Tripulantes
5- Misterio Del Planeta Azul
6- Ufoonline leonardo.it 1

Third sources:
- Digilander Libero
- Ufoforum.it 1
- Ufoonline leonardo.it 2
- Theparacast
- Fratellidiluce.it

Other ATS related threads:
- The Missing UFO Evidence Thread
- My very own 4th of July UFO sighting (Kandinsky's post)
- Cylindrical UFOs

The first photo appears to have been taken around or not far under 10,000ft

Just an observation. Nothing more to comment right now.

Excellent analysis. I'm looking forward to your correspondence with Epoca.

reply to post by elevenaugust
Very nice work and proof, if we needed it, that the road to certainty in ufology is paved with misdeeds. If it isn't one thing, it's another, but always, people will confuse the evidence and smudge it all to avoid conclusions.

The images intrigue me as that type of object/shape has a certain presence in UFO sightings reports over the years. Ballester-Olmos has taken the view that the object was indeed some guy with a balloon and labelled them as such in his extensive 'fotocat (xls).' I asked Mike Swords about Ballester-Olmos' certainty and wasn't so sure. As far as I can remember, there was a schoolteacher who wrote to a newspaper and claimed the object was a balloon he'd made from bin bags and sent up. Something like that, but the balloon wasn't seen and neither was it demonstrated iirc.

So now it appears that the available images have been dramatised and manipulated by UFO researchers. Will they ever learn? Nope!

I'll read the OP more carefully now...just wanted to say good work.

Thank you all!

I've sent emails to the main CISU site, to Paola Lucherini Covo, the owner of the INPU site and to "Jorge Fontana"; the owner of the blog "Misterio Del Planeta Azul" that could gives me more informations about the "Epoca" newspaper. (the exact date, the number, etc...)

Looks like a piece of log firewood was thrown out the airplane window and then a photo taken of it.

Doesn't look metallic for it to be a UFO.

It is always hard to tell, but the UFO object seems to be in focus and hence only looks say 3 meters away tops.
Which makes it very small


just my observation

WTF I have actually never heard of this case until now WOW and there are still disbelievers kinda looks like the apollo 20 alien ship..................I wonder if there is a connection?

Flying Saucer Review ran an article about the case in 1988. It was written by Antonio Chiumiento who was originally with the 'Italian National UFO Research Centre (C.U.N.)' and became the founder of C.I.S.U. It was thanks to Ballester-Olmos' spreadsheet that I could locate it. In the article is a rare comment by Cecconi:



This was in response to the official position that the object was a home-made balloon constructed of plastic bags. I've no argument with his description of the manoeuvres of this object - he was there and we weren't. At the same time, the object in the image doesn't look strikingly beyond the ability of 'any state on Earth' to construct. It looks rather beaten and lumpy to my eyes...



For some folk, this would be enough to push the case into the Identified Flying Object category and forget all about it. I'm pretty tempted too. Then I wonder why the rest of the images haven't seen the light of day? Why not release the rest?

Antonio Chiumiento, in FSR, alleges that the images they received were different and cropped from the one they originally saw and that hangars were apparent in the original that are now missing.

As ever, this leaves us with the choice between believing the Italian Ministry of Defence or the UFO researchers. A difficult choice! On the one side, an unexplained refusal to release the entire series of images. On the other, some UFO researchers are prepared to be dishonest in honour of 'the cause.'

reply to post by elevenaugust


Elevenaugust, a most excellent thread mate and thanks for providing the info you make some pertinent points about the images and will certainly go through the links when time allows -here's a relevant vid featuring newspaper articles and sketches about the case:





Cheers!

Excellent thread and some sterling work you put in on it OP. Thanks for taking the time to compile this all and posting it.

Thanks for osting this thread. I had not heard of this case, it made my hair stand up.
My first sighting was of a very similar object, It was around 1989-1991

Got here late, but very good work I must say. We need more like you. S&F&Bumpity.

Originally posted by The GUT
Got here late, but very good work I must say. We need more like you. S&F&Bumpity.

I'm with you.

Well, not the part where you were late because you were derailing your own thread but, yeah, SndF and all that jazz

Satellite Debris? Did it fall? I didn't read all as it is tl:dr.

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
Looks like a piece of log firewood was thrown out the airplane window and then a photo taken of it.

Doesn't look metallic for it to be a UFO.

Why does something always have to be "what I think"?? Why would something being "not metallic" not be a UFO??

It has to fit your "traditional" thoughts of what "YOU THINK" it has to be for it to be so??

For all anyone knows, if aliens are real, they could fly around in a hollowed out tree trunk......

Why does it have to be metallic to be true??

Who says this isn't metallic with crappy resolution?? It might not be reflecting light to the tune of a higher quality picture....

Sorry, rant over.......

Edit to add......Great job OP and great job presenting some good information here!

Originally posted by karl 12
Elevenaugust, a most excellent thread mate and thanks for providing the info

you make some pertinent points about the images and will certainly go through the links when time allows -here's a relevant vid featuring newspaper articles and sketches about the case:

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Then I wonder why the rest of the images haven't seen the light of day? Why not release the rest?

Antonio Chiumiento, in FSR, alleges that the images they received were different and cropped from the one they originally saw and that hangars were apparent in the original that are now missing.

Thank you to both of you.
You confirm that something is just not right with the photos.

Moreover, about these photos, there are interesting things that I haven't add to my main article and that add to the confusion (or not, see point n°3) and that can be read in the original CISU Article:

1- When ufologist Antonio Chiumiento investigates the case at the late 1979, Cecconi showed to him only the main/first photo.

Why only this photo?

2- The article in the magazine Epoca, on April 19, 1985, by Remo Guerrini, titled "UFO rapporto segreto" ("UFO secret report.") was just a tribute to the official explanation gave by the Defense Ministry (Solar Balloon) and was accompanied by "three exclusive photos of the object received from the same Ministry."

3- In reply, Chiumiento, on May 07, 1985, argued that the photo shown to him by Cecconi was much more interesting than those published by "Epoca"... Later, Chiumiento, on the basis of alleged inconsistencies between the picture seen by him and those published by "Epoca", stated that they could not belong to the series taken by the Cecconi..

Yes, that confirms that the photos were cropped for the article. However, I would like to know what were these "inconsistencies" noticed by Chiumento

4- A new investigation in September 1994 was scheduled by the CISU with Cecconi and, about the three other photos, investigators stated: "A very interesting element that emerged during our first meeting is that Marshal Cecconi recognized the three photos published by Epoca in 1985, when we showed them to him, as being part of the series he has taken in June 1979. This statement is important because these photos were at the center of a controversy, because it has been suggested that they were not part of the series taken by him."

5- During this same investigation, Cecconi stated that the main photo had been lost over the years, maybe stolen from some visitors who meanwhile had gone to visit him.

...but Cecconi, almost one year later, retrieved the original photo (see point n°8)

6- Journalist Remo Guerrini, until recently director of "Epoca" magazine in 1985 and author at the time of the article "UFO rapporto segreto", has allowed the CISU investigators to ascertain that he could see directly at the Defense Ministry thirty photographs belonging to the Cecconi series, and that he received a few to be published on Epoca. Unfortunately, Guerrini does not remember the final destination of those photographs he received, but assumed that at least some of them were archived at the newspaper.

If so, a search on these archives could help to retrieve them, but, as Mr Russo confirmed it to me (see below), such a search was unsuccessfully made in 1994.

7- An official "Italian FOIA" request made by CISU investigators back in September 1994 was unsuccessful, the Ministry stated that "the acts are not available".

8- In August 1995, contact was made again with Cecconi, and the original main photo was retrieved from Cecconi's archives. It was consigned by Antonio Chiumiento to make copies, but was misused by later sensationalist papers that made misleading claims about it....

I asked Mr Russo about these photos, possibly there are these that can be seen in the INPU site

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I received an email from Mr Edoardo Russo, that gently agreed to reply to my request and confirm all the above. All their tries to retrieve the photos either from the Defense Ministry or from the "Epoca" archives were unsuccessful.

I'll keep you informed of the future possible replies I'll received, either from Mr Russo, from the INPU or from Jorge Fontana, of course.

Hello everyone!

For those who are still interested about the follow-up of this story, I finally succeed in recovering the original unmodified photo.

Many thanks to Mr Edoardo Russo of the Italian CISU, for his help in this investigation.

Here's the ONLY original photo, scanned from the original "UFO" Italian magazine, Issue n°17 February 1996:



Resized to fit within the screen:



As incredible as it may seem, NONE of the hundreds of newspapers that took again this photo later kept intact this photo: it has been cropped, resized, modified, as I showed it prior in my first post above. In one word, it has been destroyed, prevent then anyone to further study it.

Anyway, this photo was taken at the date with a Vinten 70mm camera:



The photographic camera system is currently being upgraded to run 2 Vinten 70 mm frame reconnaissance cameras. This style of camera was designed for low-level military reconnaissace from jet fighter aircraft.

The photographic camera system is currently being upgraded to run 2 Vinten 70 mm frame reconnaissance cameras. This style of camera was designed for low-level military reconnaissace from jet fighter aircraft.

This camera system has several advantages over the current Nikon F250 system. The primary advantage is the change in film format from 24mm X 36mm to 70 mm X 70 mm, a three times larger film area. This increase in image format allows for fewer images to cover the same area. These cameras also have 100 foot (500 frame) vacuum-back film magazines and can take a number of different lens focal lengths (76mm, 100mm, 152mm, 300mm).
The photographic system is mounted in the front camera port of a Cessna T185C aircraft that has been modified for aerial survey.

Source

The optical system that this camera is equiped with is a 4 pouces (101 mm)/2,0 Taylor Hobson Anastigmat (2¼ pouces x 2¼ pouces = 6x6) close to f/16.

While it miss some millimeters in breadth in the photo, now that we have all the needed characteristics and the original photo, some measurements estimations can be made about the size of the object; I will present my work about it on a forthcoming post.

Very nice new info and good ol' stick-to-itiveness, 11-A! Since I first noticed this excellent post, I've had the chance to read Wonders in the Sky by Jacques Vallee and Chris Aubeck.

In that book, are a number of ancient accounts that breathe life into this sighting by way of description.

Sure it doesn't look "sci-fi" but what the heck do we understand about what we're dealing with anyway? If anomalous, it could be alive for all we know.

Anyways, thanks again for a really cool thread.