Can anyone validate/debunk these UFO photos?

The first two photos of the rectagular UFO with four lights. Information
courtesy of Col. Wendelle Stevens.

Photos taken on Federal Heigts, Colorado. On an unrecorded day in
August 1987, Joe Clower was out driving with his camera in his car
when he spotted a most unusual flying object in the twilight sky. It
was a dark flying rectangle having lights in all four corners. It flew
over silently as he prepared his camera and got this picture of it above.
When that film was finally developed and he saw the image, he could
no longer accurately remember the date. A friend was with him during
this photographic event.

The second set of photos posted are just of the big advertisement hot air
balloon made in the UK and presented in the U.F.O. documentary by the
Learning Channel in 1994 as well as other documentaries by the
Discovery Channel. This saucer shaped hot air ballon has confused many
people through the years.

Firstly in reply to free spirit can you provide any links or info to back up the claim it's a hot air balloon.

Secondly, and this is not directed to free spirit, but what a ridiculous argument others have used in this thread that as all photo's can be altered there is no point discussing them. If a photo is entered as evidence in a court of law it's veracity is examined and a conclusion arrived at as to the likelihood of it's authenticity. Why on earth would not the same apply to these pictures ?

Thirdly, I don't believe the Maslin beach photo's have been shown to be an ashtray at all.

In my opinion, taking into account the circumstances around their being taken (I remember reading an article - can't link to it at the moment but if anyone is interested and a quick search doesn't throw it up I'll look for it), those photos may be the most impressive of any taken of the phenomena.

Why is it I seem to kill threads - can anyone throw any light on this ?

you could print out the photos and then photocopy them. photocopy the photocopies. then photocopy those clones. on and on. the further generations of copies of copies of the photos should reveal seams, crop marks, rough spots if the photos are a cut and paste collage manipulation or even a photoshop manipulation. if you want to spend about three minutes at a photocopy machine you should be able to tell right away if they are fakes. for an example, take the famous magazine cover of Lee Harvey Oswald holding his rifle. clone it on a copy machine, then copy the clone.....you'll end up with a line across his chin where his face was pasted on a photograph of someone else's body. i mean, you can use the method of cloning to reveal all kinds of fake stuff, even makeup on a human photographic portrait.

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by AGENT51

 

The one from Venezuela, has been examined by Dr. Maccabee (Optical Physicist, US Navy), which he commented on when he talked with the Paracast some months ago. I don't believe he dismissed it.

Thank you very much for the expert knowledge. I would love to see some of the images of UFO's which you consider to be the most genuine. That Venezuela set of pics is quite remarkable. Even the Navy Optical Physicist didn't dismiss it? Seems possibly legit and could be the best UFO photo ever taken? Bump for more people to see.

Originally posted by Smell The Roses

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by AGENT51

 

The one from Venezuela, has been examined by Dr. Maccabee (Optical Physicist, US Navy), which he commented on when he talked with the Paracast some months ago. I don't believe he dismissed it.

Thank you very much for the expert knowledge. I would love to see some of the images of UFO's which you consider to be the most genuine. That Venezuela set of pics is quite remarkable. Even the Navy Optical Physicist didn't dismiss it? Seems possibly legit and could be the best UFO photo ever taken? Bump for more people to see.

Seems possibly legit? You didn't see the post a few posts up by Free Spirit that it's a hot air balloon in a documentary that was on the Learning Channel? That optical physicist makes detailed reports which are great, but you can't trust his conclusions on what's genuine.

Thanks but I did catch that. Problem is that there is no such video that I can find anywhere. I would love to see said documentary. I also figured the Navy Optical Physicist, and the ATS Image Analyst would have caught on to that part before posting. I am still not sure on this, but if the documentary can be found, that can provide some real closure.

I live in Adelaide near maslin beach and was alerted to the maslin photos by a friend some time ago. We visited the site and found where I am certain they were taken. We crouched in the positions that the photographer would have done, in relation to position, sunrise and what we imagined would have taken place, and found that the grasslines in the photos are consistent with what is portrayed in the photo set and where he would have crouched.
I would bank on what I have found, that these were taken where the person said they were taken, and find it strange that he would have gone to the trouble to fake them in such a manner. Also I had a professional photo developer take a copy from the original set and he stated to me that they appeared to be legitimate.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by leeking007]

Originally posted by leeking007
I would bank on what I have found, that these were taken where the person said they were taken, and find it strange that he would have gone to the trouble to fake them in such a manner. Also I had a professional photo developer take a copy from the original set and he stated to me that they appeared to be legitimate.

I find ALL the UFO hoaxes strange? Don't people have better things to do with their time?

If he really photographed something extraordinary, why did he wait two months to tell anyone? I'd be so excited if I saw a real flying saucer, especially one with as much structure as those photos show, that I couldn't wait to tell anyone. Also, have you looked at the object closely? I mean, REALLY closely?:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/02348d7508a9.jpg[/atsimg]The difference between the blue and yellow lines is the angle by which that "window" or whatever it is (Cutout?) is off from the overall object and other "windows". So whatever it is, it's of very poor and inconsistent construction. My guess is, a poorly constructed model.

I'm guessing others agree because this case doesn't seem to get the attention by photo analysts that more realistic photos get, and I suspect that's because it looks so fake.

!st ufo= leaving a trail? like a jet blast?
2nd pic same object= different colored lights? unnecessary angle for effect?

2nd ufo= Excellent flames from the bottom. But what is that thing hanging down from it on the top pic? open bottom? probably open top too- refer to 4th ufo opinion for that.

3rd ufo- Venezuela= WOW this could stop my debunking. The beam is off to the left some degrees as the zoomed in pic is slightly tilted right? the camera seems to be in focus on the ufo, as the trees fore and aft are out of focus as expected. There should be more shots of this ufo as it was hovering- do you have a source?

The 4th ufo= I can totally see right through it. I have a R/C hover that I could fit a body onto that could replicate that one. I cannot turn (it goes with the wind) but I can climb and hover, no prob. With a stronger battery it could easily function with a shell- providing there is an opening in the top and bottom for the airflow.

But seriously I would like to see more of the Venezuela ufo

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by AGENT51

 

The rest, who knows. Not even remotely enough to go on. I got a pile of photos/video sent to me anonymously over the years that are actually a lot more compelling then those.

I am really interested in the Venezuela ufo, and I hope I can get the source.
You said you have some goodies. Pics that are actually compelling.
Can you post 3 or 4 for a skeptic ?