Are These UFO images real or Fake???

a reply to: Phillyated

if its figu its fake - a simple metric

a reply to: Phillyated

Picture 2 that's exactly what i've seen couple years ago. They are mostly spotted in woods.

originally posted by: UNKNOWNPURPLE
a reply to: Phillyated

Picture 2 that's exactly what i've seen couple years ago. They are mostly spotted in woods.

Would that be the trashcan lid, or the lantern piece?

a reply to: Phillyated

I've always found these hard to put an opinion on because I once watched a documentary that featured pictures like these and some people would create small models and tie thin string to the top, then dangle them in front of the camera, but because of the size it would look far away. Don't forget the lack of picture quality and DOF on cameras back then. This would make it easier to manipulate distance.

Saying that some don't look like they fit that explanation. They are interesting to look at though, thanks for the post.

a reply to: admirethedistance

flying disk ..

a reply to: Phillyated

This is the image that proves these are fake...everything in the image is relatively clear except the UFO, meaning it is extremely close to the camera in an attempt to make its relation to the vehicle and trees appear huge. Couple that with the fact that the diameter of that thing, if it were above the vehicle, would cause it to hit the trees, and it's not touching them or casting any type of diffused shadow at all on anything.

a reply to: mtnshredder

Uh, I do not thing these are real, but CGI did not exist when these photos were taken LOL. CGI did not become a thing really until the 90's.

CGI in the 70's would look like Space Invaders.

a reply to: Phillyated


The pictures are REAL it's the ufo's that are fake

How did you get to start a thread with only nine posts?

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: mtnshredder

Uh, I do not thing these are real, but CGI did not exist when these photos were taken LOL. CGI did not become a thing really until the 90's.

CGI in the 70's would look like Space Invaders.

Ok thank's. I kinda figured as much after giving it some thought. I was using the term a little loosely. Would the correct term used back in the day be an 'overlay'?

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
How did you get to start a thread with only nine posts?

New members only need 5 posts to start a thread now....I'm not thrilled about it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The story says the original images were polaroids and if someone wanted to analyze this imagery the first thing to do would be to make some decent scans of the polaroids.

Unfortunately the theme of this episode was witnesses who wait several years(sometimes 20 or 30 years) before reporting an incident out of fear of ridicule so guessing they decided to post the 2 best scans. But who knows, its just been like MUFON to waist time on the less interesting cases.

From the description of the craft making clunking noises and screeching and spewing smoke, it apparently sounded like it would have trouble making it to the nearest town, so I don't see how it could make it to another solar system.

If Roswell and Shag harbor are true, their equipment isnt immune to malfunction. Or this could be an early attempt by the USG to back engineer their technology. Regardless, i think it is a dead end, I see no history of this in their database, guessing it is still resides only in graphite and paper.

originally posted by: mtnshredder
Ok thank's. I kinda figured as much after giving it some thought. I was using the term a little loosely. Would the correct term used back in the day be an 'overlay'?

Professionals did airbrushing among other things, for ecample the 1942 "Battle of Los Angeles" famous UFO photo was modified by the newspaper, I think using airbrushing or something like it. Amateurs used things like double exposures, or in the case of Meier stopping the camera, removing or placing objects, then starting the camera again. Some of his photographs used no trick photography, he would just hang models from a string and play with perspective, and in other cases the entire scene was apparently a miniature model.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
If Roswell and Shag harbor are true, their equipment isnt immune to malfunction.

Marcel's description of the Roswell debris field was a perfect match for a Mogul balloon, even his claim that it was no weather balloon would be correct as Mogul was maybe 100x larger. Only his characterization of the debris as "not from Earth" suggested otherwise but none of the actual description matched that conclusion.

Flexy's post 2 posts before yours pretty much sums up Shag Harbor, probably a satellite crash.

If that photo from the old MUFON case turned out to not be a fake it would be very interesting, but all the photos similar to it appear to be faked in some way, so I'd hate to spend a lot of time and money tracking down the original Polaroid (if it even exists) to make a better scan, only to find out it's another fake.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Marcel's description of the Roswell debris field was a perfect match for a Mogul balloon, even his claim that it was no weather balloon would be correct as Mogul was maybe 100x larger.

Perhaps more than one object crashed on the ranch, but there are other holes in the case as well. However if the USG really wanted to put this story to bed, they would give an explanation for the memory metal , simply produce an example of it or at least explain how it was made.

Like so many other cases with missing evidence , the govt is holding all the cards, if they wanted to show us whats what, they could, if things are simply as mundane as they would have us believe.

Flexy's post 2 posts before yours pretty much sums up Shag Harbor, probably a satellite crash.

Im not sure a satellite crash explains the yellow foam reported at the crash location by search parties. But I agree, the case isnt much good as proof case, it is marginal. More interesting if you already in the believer camp.

Back on topic though, what did you think of the shag harbor image posted in the same thread?

a reply to: 111DPKING111
I've seen yellowish foam before when there was no UFO around, so I'm not sure why the UFO needs to explain that.

If you've ever taken time exposures, you'd know that 5 seconds is an eternity unless the camera is mounted on a telescope with an equatorial mount or something, and trying to photograph a falling object with 5 second exposure I'd expect so see even more streaking than we see though there is a little bit in the second photo. Anyway it's glowing and satellites glow when they re-enter the atmosphere so even if the photo is genuine (and I'm not sure it is and I'm not sure if the 5 second exposure story is credible or consistent with the images) I don't see how it rules out a satellite re-entry.