oldest UFO photo or oldest hoax?

Originally posted by Nohup
I think the first thing you might want to do is to decide whether or not you're going to be a gullible believer or a close-minded skeptic. That will determine how you approach all the UFO information from now on.

Nohup, excellent analysis. For the most part I would agree, this technique is a great one.

I'd like to offer further advice, if I may.

Take BOTH sides. If you approach each individual case with an open mind, and progress through the evidence with rational analysis and the scientific method, chances are the truth will begin to reveal itself.

Personally, I've seen some things with my own eyes that put me squarely into the 'proponent' category, but not every case is real. Allowing for the possibility that some cases are real is not only healthy, it's scientific (not allowing a bias to influence your tests), and it's fun. Not only fun if you find something unexplainable, but also fun to explain the explainable stuff

As always Nohup, it's nice to have those like you who are more skeptical, it helps keep everyone grounded in reality, provided skeptics are also not completely close minded. You always find a nice balance somewhere in the middle, and IMHO that's the best way to examine evidence.

I wanted to help Azzllin and others out. Azzllin, your secound pic is a proven hoax. Refer this thread and be inlightined.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes second photo a hoax but all the others.....pretty amazing!

Originally posted by Glorious_Ruler
Why isn't the picture centered on him?

Fishy...

maybe the image has been cropped?

The object looks like the imprint of the the tongs used during the photo development process.

that's a stereoscopic image, so wouldn't the mark need to be in the same spot on two separate negatives? i'm not sure but i don't think it's a developing artifact.

whatever it is was there . . . just a matter of what it is and where it is, in the sky or on the side of that mountain.

Here's my thoughts.

1. The picture is off centre because the object top right is part of the picture and the whole composition allows some perspective analysis to be made i.e. the photographer knew what he/she was doing.

2. It is not a street light suspended from a cable: where is the cable attached to ? The top of the trees?

3. There is some odd darkening above the object suggesting something is suspending it, two ties by the looks of it.

4. This is a VERY early photograph taken many years before UFO's even "existed" in the publics mind. Therefore a UFO hoax it most certainly is not.

This leads me to two conclusions:

1. It is a UFO and the photo is framed to show its size and position.
2. The object is suspended from something and was used to artistically frame the whole picture (as you would with an overhanging branch of a tree) however the narrowness of poles, beams and ties failed to resolve.

Originally posted by Incarnated

Originally posted by Nohup

It's a well recorded fact that small towns use to string cables across buildings on main street for decorations. It's used in several movies. That's all that is going on in that picture. You crack me up.

if you look to the rigth of the photograph you can actually see the cable running across the building. Our Right over there >>>>>>>

[edit on 11-3-2008 by Incarnated]

That looks like a floating Jamiroquai logo.

Originally posted by xweaponx

Originally posted by saturnsrings
reply to post by Cowboy Clint

 

Hi,

If you are refering to the Madonna painting, look closely, there is a man pointing up at it, so this was no blob.

Exactly.

Remember many theorys have said the greys have visited our planet thousands of years ago...The little man pointing up at the "object" is clearly a slap on the hands, Its something "not from this world"

There are many more paintings like this..

Just bumping this. Maybe people have skipped over it.

reply to post by xweaponx


great find x-weapon. those are some familiar figures too that may be linked to modern sightings.

one sample of "UFO/Lampost" debunked.

original photo

enlargement

debunk

reply to post by jritzmann


If divinity is personified as a disc shaped UFO like object I don't see how that discounts these paintings as evidence of UFOs, it adds to the credence of some claims that UFOs and God go hand in hand, whether one is the other or not who knows... I can't believe they tried to discount the Crucifixion painting:










There is no way, under any circumstances, that those are anything but UFOs, they have pilots, one has an insignia on it and what looks exactly like a cockpit, I just don't see any other way to interpret that... the art site tried to say it was a personification of the sun and moon as humans, even if that were true they had to have the idea to paint them like that from somewhere, the sun and the moon look nothing like that so... UFOs

As for the original post and original photo, I can see how it might be a street light, but it could be a UFO, there's no reason for them to hoax such a thing back then, don't think we'll ever know the truth...

I've been reading the posts in this forum section for many years....
It almost seems like the same information and claims are made over and over again. There are skeptics that refute that evidece or try and find ways to disbelieve and prove it as hoax; such as people claiming the UFO in the Madonna painting is a hole or blur. Why do people make these claims and post them before even taking the time to correctly analyze the picture which clearly as others have already stated is not a mistake or damage.

This forum is great and still provides various good information but it seems like the overflow of redundent counter-productive posting is overbearing... This causes the informed community to have to constantly repost evidence and claims that have already been covered in many other posts... If people simply made use of the sites search engine or google they would find awnsers to their redundent questions before they spam the boards with them.

No offence is meant; just an observation from a senior member.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
There is no way, under any circumstances, that those are anything but UFOs, they have pilots, one has an insignia on it and what looks exactly like a cockpit, I just don't see any other way to interpret that...

Hey, it could very well be that somebody, the artist perhaps, saw a couple little transparent UFOs fly by with little people dressed in medieval clothes all crunched up inside them working the controls. (Hey, if we're going to get literal with the images, let's go all the way!)

On the other hand, maybe they used a little thing called their "imagination." You may have heard of it. I've seen the imagination used to depict all kinds of odd things like flying boats and people with big wings and animal heads.

Unless there is some other corroborating evidence to show that the artists were actually attempting some kind of photorealistic representation of a real event, I tend to lean toward the imagination thing. My mind remains open. Just show me the supporting evidence. Something other than the picture. Any time.

Originally posted by Scott
I've been reading the posts in this forum section for many years....
It almost seems like the same information and claims are made over and over again. There are skeptics that refute that evidece or try and find ways to disbelieve and prove it as hoax; such as people claiming the UFO in the Madonna painting is a hole or blur. Why do people make these claims and post them before even taking the time to correctly analyze the picture which clearly as others have already stated is not a mistake or damage.

This forum is great and still provides various good information but it seems like the overflow of redundent counter-productive posting is overbearing... This causes the informed community to have to constantly repost evidence and claims that have already been covered in many other posts... If people simply made use of the sites search engine or google they would find awnsers to their redundent questions before they spam the boards with them.

No offence is meant; just an observation from a senior member.

I agree. People need to analyze before the just to conclusions so fast.

reply to post by Nohup


I see your point Nohup, but it sure seems odd for them to imagine something so similar to what we would see as an aircraft or spacecraft, basically like medieval man drawing a computer or a car and skeptics would say "its them depicting God"... I guess its open to interpretation to others, but for me that painting will always be the clincher that convinced me that UFOs are not isolated to post the 1947 world (along with other ancient sitings and paintings) by themselves each piece of evidence can be explained away, but when a volume of anomalies is collected a paradigm shift is inevitable...

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Well, Jules Verne pretty Much laid out the the Apollo mission, De Vinci designed a helicopter that, while it wouldn't work, is still recognizable as a helicopter. Further back the Chinese had ideas for a rocket driven chair. Again, didn't work, but the ideas were there. Besides, it's also possible that a prophet or something saw what these things looked likebefore hand.

the oldest ufo picture was taken in china around 1914. Next time I visit my parents house I can try and dig up the book to scan it in for you guys.

I do love the paintings, I have viewed them before, you guys think they can really count without the artist's thoughts? Its seems too easy for a historian to write them off as something else.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by jetflock]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I see your point Nohup, but it sure seems odd for them to imagine something so similar to what we would see as an aircraft or spacecraft, basically like medieval man drawing a computer or a car and skeptics would say "its them depicting God".

It would be awesome if it was something as obvious as a computer with a mouse and a keyboard, or a 2002 Chevy Camaro with leather interior and custom wheels, and all the other details associated with it. I haven't seen anything like that. None of the level of detail that would absolutely identify the thing hands down, without a doubt.

Like so much other visual "evidence," whether it's of ancient astronaut UFOs or castles on the Moon, it's all just vauge shapes that sorta kinda look like something we're familiar with. A car or bulldozer, computer screen or hot dog machine.

That nice chunk of evidence that absolutely connects the dots from our modern idea to the shape in the painting to the artist's intent is just never there. It would be nice if it was, and it's tempting to just accept a flying shield as a flying saucer, but really... come on.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by Nohup]

yes.. I've seen that pic as well. However, unitl you have a personal experience i.e.Close encounter of the 2nd kind, you'll always be somewhat of a skeptic.

Hence, you'll always be a skeptic UNTIL you have a personal experience! ALWAYS.

Can tell me what military/aviation equipment the US had back in 1977-78 that could hover 2 stories above the ground and only make the sound of the 'Hoth' drone in Star Wars?

If not, I arrest my case. welcome to the Matrix ....

Originally posted by beastamerica

After spending some time searching here at ATS and other websites. I think this might be the oldest UFO photo. this is a photograph of Mr. George Sutton, taken May 1932 at Paris, Ohio.

Do you have photos older than this? i'm really interested in ufology. show me where to start...

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
There is no way, under any circumstances, that those are anything but UFOs, they have pilots, one has an insignia on it and what looks exactly like a cockpit, I just don't see any other way to interpret that...

Hey, it could very well be that somebody, the artist perhaps, saw a couple little transparent UFOs fly by with little people dressed in medieval clothes all crunched up inside them working the controls. (Hey, if we're going to get literal with the images, let's go all the way!)

Well Nohup, I'm pretty sure you know me well enough by now to know that I'm not presenting the following data as absolute evidence of anything, BUT with due respect a case can be made for flying vehicles in the ancient skies.

For example, here are two mysterious depictions from ancient Egypt,
a model depicting an airplane:


and the infamous 'helicopter and spaceship' hieroglyphs:


Couple these pictures with stories from the same region of 'flying vimanas', and I believe that a case can be made for ancient flying vehicles. Now as to whether they were man made ancient technology or Alien, that's a different question altogether.

We also see this sort of evidence arising from EVERY culture, the world over, even in South America on the other side of the world.

In addition, if you want to take the analogy 'all the way', lets. I'm not personally invested in this case, so I'll be happy to play devil's advocate.

This picture:


Doesn't seem to me to present a 'transparent UFO', moreso it resembles a solid craft with a clear cockpit, similar to our modern planes and fighter planes (or spaceship one for that matter).

Thoughts?

-WFA