Bright lights of Salem, 1952

​In 1952, Shell R. Alpert, US Coast Guard photographer, shot this formation of four bright lights through the window of his photo lab in Salem MA, in the middle of the 2-week “Washington flap”.

It’s hailed as a classic UFO photo. It was in all the papers!

Was it a genuine UFO? A misunderstanding? Or a hoax?

Articles about the UFO sighting

​USAF analyzed the photo and determined it was a double exposure of an exterior light, i.e. a hoax. (By then the story was already in the papers.) 

The central point in question is the apparent brightness of the 4 objects coupled with the total absence of any corresponding highlights or reflections of these objects from the automobiles in the picture…
It is therefore concluded that the authenticity of the picture, taken by the Coast Guard photographer, is open to serious doubt.
USAF analysis, Aug 1952

This explanation doesn’t identify exactly what was double-exposed, nor how Alpert’s witness was fooled.

One of the USAF's recreations to prove how easy the UFO would have been to hoax: a street lamp was shot at night, then the film was double exposed to place the lights in the sky over rooftops.

 A 1963 analysis for the Blue Book proposed the UFO was an accidental reflection of an interior light that Alpert somehow failed to notice.

As the witness approached the window the objects dimmed, as he returned to his point of initial observation and at the second observation as he re-entered the room the lights were again brilliant…
It is believed that the photos represent light reflections from an interior source (probably the ceiling lights) on the window through which the photo was taken.
Blue Book analysis, Oct 1963

This analysis fails to account for Alpert’s claim that the photo was shot through the wire screen of an open window, making such a reflection impossible.

Note that the building had sash windows with small framed panes of glass (see photo R). The UFO photo was taken from a rear window.

An uncropped version of the UFO photo shows what appears to be the edge of a horizontal bar, probably the bottom of the open sash window frame (below, L). If the window was closed, at least one vertical bar would be visible (below, R).

USCG Winter Island Barracks Building, Salem MA, showing sash windows with small panes. The building was occupied by USCG from 1935 to 1970, after which it became derelict.

The very edge of a horizontal bar appears to be visible at top left of the photo, possibly the lower edge of the open sash window.

Approximate location of a vertical bar if the window was completely closed.

Let’s recreate the moment:

• Alpert sees brilliant lights outside.
• He thinks his camera may have no film loaded so does not take a shot.
• Runs to fetch a friend.
• Takes the shot with the witness. (There was film in the camera, yay!)
• Develops the photo and shows the world!

​

​But wait, what’s this? His buddy Flaherty says he did not see the four lights (or anything special).

Yet Alpert saw 4 lights moments earlier, and the photo shows 4 super-bright lights!

What’s going on?

​The crucial pieces of the puzzle may not be what you think. I think it’s the camera. And the performance.
 
When a UFO photo is analyzed, it’s best to have the negative and all the connected negatives on the roll of film. We need to know if the photographer took some failed shots.
 
But Alpert’s camera used cut film (individual negatives, individually loaded) and he developed the film himself. We’ll never know if he took failed shots.
 
I think that he probably did. 
 
I think his final photo that the world knows… was prepared earlier.

Shell R. Alpert with his photograph and the camera, a 4/5 Busch Pressman which was loaded with 4/5 Super XX cut film.

What really happened? Here's my theory that accounts for the fact that nobody else saw the lights – not the other witness in the room or anyone else in or around the building – and therefore the lights were not outside.

It’s the middle of a 2-week UFO flap in the area. Alpert wants in on the action.

He takes some practice shots to create a UFO effect. This was most likely achieved with a double exposure – photographing the exterior scene and the lights (four lamps in some other location) on the same negative.
He develops the shots, throws out the failures, and picks the best one

Adjusting brightness and contrast reveals what appears to be sharp lines running parallel to the lights, possibly part of whatever object was used for the four lights.

Alpert thinks: “I have my UFO photo, but they’re just gonna say it’s a hoax. What I need… is a witness!”

Later (next day, next week, whatever), he excitedly fetches his friend to see the lights out of his window.

Excitedly being the key word:

I rushed out of the lab...
I dived for the camera...
[he] called me to hurry...

While his buddy is searching the sky in vain for the UFO, Alpert snaps the shutter.

Oh no, the UFO vanished! It all happened so fast, his buddy didn’t see anything – except for Alpert taking a photo.

Left alone, Alpert chucks out the shot he just took and digs out his prepared perfect UFO negative and photo.

And another UFO story gets its page in the history books.

---

See also: Another hoaxer who decided the best way to produce a credible UFO photo is to have a live witness who didn’t quite see the UFO but did see the photo being taken (or polaroid developing, in this case): The stupidest UFO photo in Australia.

​References

• Transcriptions of original reports and analyses at Saturday Night Uforia
• Excerpts of the same reports, and quotes from The Blue Book, are in The Hynek UFO Report (1977) (pp 231-3)
• Photo recreations from the 1952 USAF analysis

I amended this post after viewing historical images of the building and a full crop of the photo, showing the window is open and therefore this isn’t a reflection of interior lights but more likely a double exposure.

Many thanks to Jeff Knox for help with the research.