3 Vintage UFO pictures - best ever

3 Vintage UFO pictures

Theres much talk today about CGI generated UFO stuff, blah, blah ...but we tend to forget that many, many good UFO pictures are coming from 50s - 60s era, the time when the photography was much less sophisticated and therefore it was much, much harder to fake UFO...

here are the 3 best UFO pics from that time



source unknown, taken 1964, United States




1967, Rhode Island, USA



1960, Cordoba, Argentina

also, heres an very good selection of Vintage UFOs

VINTAGE UFO GALLERY

these are very hard to debunk..in those times cameras were much rare tech than today..



thank you

I still think that the clunky saucers of the past were american/german. thats why we don't see them anymore

just my opinion

be good

reply to post by BadBoYeed


Regarding the first picture, I've seen this one many times, and I'd say the only thing that strikes me a little odd is the distance the person is from the UFO in suspect. Just feels like it this one showed up for the person taking the picture. Like it was hanging from the branch of a tall tree behind the camera man. Are there any other angles? I never did much research on this one, maybe I will.

Originally posted by BadBoYeed
I still think that the clunky saucers of the past were american/german. thats why we don't see them anymore

just my opinion

be good

listen..are you sure you know what your saying....how do you think it was ever possible for americans or germans to fly such shaped flying machine with their technology way back ww2 era...do you have an idea how much computer power is needed to keep a modern aircraft in the air ???...so basically if this was a nazi secret experiment for me its a stunner...so first we shall get clear the most critical point of all..is this picture true or false (referring to the first one posted by OP) than..what technolog was used??..i lean more towards hoax though

reply to post by BadBoYeed


The first one does indeed look like the "Nazi Bell" I thought the same thing when I saw it. *for u

1. UFO too dark compared to the surroundings - fake.

2. I could paint that and take a picture of it - I'll do it now with no editing gear if you want.

3. Just looks out of place, what is it supposed to be? Just looks like damaged film to me. Or purposely damaged film.

I do believe in UFOs - I've seen three FOs that don't fit in with today's "known" technology. But I'm sceptical of these.

Regards, D

Originally posted by anubisone
these are very hard to debunk..in those times cameras were much rare tech than today..

Yes, cameras were less common than today, but they were relatively common.

But even if they were not common, photography was already more than 100 years old, so all the techniques related to chemical photography were already known, including the ones to make fake photos.

And although chemical photography does not suffer from JPEG artefacts (only in digital versions of the original), it also has some known problems, specially with the developing of the negative and the printing of the positive, and the third photo you posted looks more like one of those problems than an UFO.

you know, just once id like to hear a story of some old redneck guy out in the swamps or in the desert shooting the hell out of a "ufo" with his ol' thuty-thuty. and then maybe offering his captive aliens some corn liquor while he walks them back to the shack at gunpoint for some good ol' fashioned redneck sodomy.

www.break.com...

"Now let's just see you drop them fancy alien pants...take off them little bitty panties, too!"

Not to be a picky arse, but i have been gawking at ufo pics for a long long time.several decades....
I am no expert camera person or self appointed judge either.
BBBut...
There are better pics in my opinion...
I would have to go with the Mcminville oregon pic as being a better bet, as well as the shot taken from northern Vancouver island in the 50/60
As well as another shot taken in 1937 over the Vancouver city hall/////my three for sure....
PS ill look em up and post them for you too....be right back....
www.rense.com...

www.ufodigest.com...

www.ufoevidence.org...
perhaps some kind soul could actually embed these as i am a novice at it thanks....

Claiming that these are the best ever is quite a stretch. In fact its kind of subjective, so if you think they are, then no offense to you meant at all.

The third pic you posted looks nothing more than some error in developing the film, or even some defect in the actual photo after it was developed. I had a hot water heater bust once and had some mildewy older pictures and alot looked very similar, but I doubt a ufo was hanging around in my grandparents living room on christmas morning.

Good find though
star and flsag

thak you all

first picture is often connected to NAZI WWII HAUNEBU II Dormfallen Stratospharen UFO - DoSTRA

HAUNEBU CRAFTS - UFOs OR NAZI TECH?

Originally posted by anubisone
Theres much talk today about CGI generated UFO stuff, blah, blah

...but we tend to forget that many, many good UFO pictures are coming from 50s - 60s era, the time when the photography was much less sophisticated and therefore it was much, much harder to fake UFO...

Not as hard to fake as you suggest, all you need is a model, a piece of string, and a place to hang it from like a pole or a tree branch. Interesting article here:

THE UFOS THAT NEVER WERE: CLASSIC PHOTOS NOW EXPOSED AS FAKES!

source unknown, taken 1964, United States

I found an object that looks nearly identical, here:

best-ufo-pictures.atspace.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aa1232f0754f.jpg[/atsimg]

1963-Albaquerque, New Mexico. This picture was taken on the 16th of June 1963. The photograph was taken by A P Villa, a man that took numerous spectacular daylight photos at the time. Villa was, in effect, a 1960s version of George Adamski, who gained a big following in the 1950s with his spectacular tales of spaceships and trips around the Milky Way.

I'm not familiar with this guy but I'm pretty sure Adamski was a liar, so if he's the modern Adamski that's not a good sign. Do you think the other photo that's unattributed may also be taken by AP Villa? I think there's a good chance but I'm not certain. The shape is unusual and too identical to be a coincidence IMO. My initial guess is it might be a fake if the photographer is a "contactee".

www.rense.com...

The first to declare the Villa photos a fraud was Project Blue Book analysis, but since then others have also verified the apparent hoax.

1967, Rhode Island, USA

I haven't found much on that one, so it seems rare but one thing I notice is the poor quality of the photo, see how shadowy even the leaves are? We can't see any detail in the leaves or the object due to excessive contrast, which might be bad photo processing, or bad exposure or something. So we can say it's shadowy but doesn't show much detail, none really. So I don't have much of an opinion on this one, it could be lots of things but it's too poor quality to tell what it is. It resembles a solar balloon, did they have solar balloons back then?

www.solar-balloons.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1af30395f100.jpg[/atsimg]

1960, Cordoba, Argentina

This is the most interesting of the 3 pics to me.

The source sounds way more credible than the possible source of the first pic:

1960-Yacanto, Cordoba, Argentina. July 3. This photograph was taken by Hugo F. Niotti, then a captain of the AAF. On July 3, 1960, Niotti was driving from Yacanto toward Cordoba. At approximately 4:30 PM, he was in the area of Villa General Belgrano, about 70 Km from the city of Cordoba. He suddenly noticed a rather close and unusual object hovering near the ground to the right of the road. He grabbed his camera and took this one picture. It was deemed authentic by Servicio de Informaciones de Aeronautica.

So it's probably a real photo and not a fake. What is it? I have no idea, it's a good mystery! It's got a round shape like a balloon but I can't explain the contrast, so I'm thinking probably not a balloon though I can't rule it out completely. Most balloons wouldn't have a contrast that high unless the entire balloon was completely black, and even then I'd expect less contrast if it's a distant object. The excessive contrast raises some questions, such as "Is the object closer, rather than at a great distance?".

reply to post by MMPI2


ha ha so funny, ahh deliverance a classic.
did you see the size of that shooter !
deffo a 10 bore.
gotta love them hill billie's

In the event that the first pic is legit, it's gotta be the Haunebu 2, as mentioned already in this thread.

Here is a link to a page on Haunebu with a lot of pics.

A lot of those pics are art and computer gfx, but some of them appear to be black and whites, and I have never seen some of them debunked yet. It could be authentic, but it's so hard to know without more conclusive evidence.

The UFO I saw in real life was a saucer shape, but it was a lot closer to the VRIL series models. Like a Vril 7 or Vril-Odin. But more of a mix. I only saw it from underneath so I don't know what the top looked like. It didn't have ball shaped sections under it like the Haunebu series has. It had flat panels at a slope, just like the Vril series does. That's why I compared them. Never seen anything like a Haunebu before, so I need to see it in real life to truly know it exists.

Just because these may be man-made Nazi designs, doesn't mean Nazis are flying them. Keep that in mind. Remember the US, UK, and Russia confiscated tons of Nazi tech after the war ended. It could be one of us flying it we really don't know.

These models do seem "clunky" so I would have to say this is an example of primitive human ufo tech. I would expect ET to have something a bit more refined, but my assumptions could be wrong so I won't commit to anything.

The only thing I know is my own sighting. These photos could have been faked I just don't know. Some of them do look very authentic however. Especially when compared with similar photos and material, there are distinct similarities between a lot of these ufo pics and the nazi ufo information.

Just be skeptical and toss that salt over your shoulder.

But I know deep down inside there is something to all of this. It relates to everything else, so its worth taking a look at.

Oh, lol, and google "Nazi cigar ufo" and you will find some crazy stuff on that as well.

There are even alleged "blueprints" of the supposed cigar shaped craft. It apparently was meant to be a carrier for the Haunebu, as there was like a hanger in the middle.

If you check the images filter, after you google "nazi cigar ufo" those blueprints should come up in the first set of pics. Easy to find them.

I am not saying it's true because I don't know. It's impossible to know IMO.

But I will share the information for anyone interested in doing research on the topics. It's a really fun topic.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Why you link to that article i will never know. They are some of the worst attempts at debunking ever managed. They are beyond lame at times and are the intellectual equivalent of kids sneering in the playground at the kid who is a bit different. The explanation of the Solway Firth picture throw the laws of physics right out of the window for one. Not only is it factually inaccurate, the point about *forgetting* the developers comments when the witness has mentioned them in just about every interview since to the ludicrous figure they manage to concoct that defies virtually every accepted known law of anatomy.

Just because some person throws in the words rational and prosaic doesn't make them or their explanations either. In fact it is often nothing more than a precursor to as big a load of BS as anything Greer has ever managed to invent.

The debunkers want it both ways and that has become wholly boring tot hose seeking some kind of genuine explanation.

"Oh it's too fuzzy could be anything why doesn't anyone ever manage a clear picture?"

"Oh it's obviously a fake or a model hanging off a piece of string as we know they don;t really exist"

Anyone who takes that blog seriously as *explanations" is lying to themselves as is the perpetrator, who really needs to learn some basic science before acting like they are such a know it all.

reply to post by FireMoon

Some of those are debatable (from your point of view), but the barber admitted he faked it so there should be no doubt about that one.

reply to post by anubisone


Here's a good site I found to add to your collection. It has ufos both old and contemporary as well as a menu of other interesting topics.

www.worldufophotos.org...

I added the site you linked to my favorites. Looks good, and I haven't seen it before. Thanks.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No, not from my point of view, from the facts point of view and that says it all. Whoever wrote that blog is either totally ignorant or just a plain liar pure and simple. it's classic debunk BS, find one where you don;t have to do any work yourself cos the person has already confessed it's a fake and then hang another half a dozen cases off that and try and tar them with the same brush. In other words, guilt by association. It's frankly, tired and boring way to attempt to explain things you really don't have the first clue about or can't be bothered to do any proper investigation into.

That page should be in the hoax section and banned from being linked on this forum.

reply to post by FireMoon
I had done a lot of research on the Helfin photos and pretty much concluded they were likely fakes before i ever read that article, so I did do independent research on that case in particular. The contrast is all wrong for a distant object like he claims it is. The air Force also concluded it was a hoax, but I'm not basing my conclusion on theirs, though I happen to agree with them.

I think the Cumberland is an odd photo instead of a hoax but the hoax is that it's promoted as something other than an odd photo, but we've already debated that one to death so I'm not going to do it again here.

I'm not all that familiar with the 4th case.