3 Vintage UFO pictures - best ever

For me some of the best older photos are the ones of "real" craft.I have looked at hundreds of UFO pics and to me it's obvious that many can be explained away as smaller objects thrown into view or birds, clouds,ext.
Some however could be advanced military aircraft or alien craft- what ever blows your hair back.

Case in point.
The Rhodes Photo, July 7, 1947, Phoenix, Arizona




Although the US Navy canceled the XF5U-1 contract by the Navy in March 1947.The XF5U-1 prototype was supposedly scrapped, the V-173 prototype was saved and was given to the Smithsonian.
Who to say the XF5U-1 was not shipped off to Arizona proving grounds.




1957-Edwards Air Force Base, CA. Taken by a test pilot in September of '57.




Could this be the Northrop YB-49.




Any of these could be mistaken for UFO's.Past and future.



I'm not trying debunk anything here I just believe there could be a logical explanation for some of these sightings.
I also believe that it's convenient for the military to allow people to run with the idea of UFO's then to let us know about their secret projects.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
The black dot said to be a true UFO is apparently a blast of light from the ship.

If it was light shouldn't it be white?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
The black dot said to be a true UFO is apparently a blast of light from the ship.

If it was light shouldn't it be white?

An over load perhaps if that is possible to the photography people, from a very bright light.
Since the air is producing the light according to one theory by banging up against the hull
of the ship there are many possible radiations including black light.
I don't know if you take a picture of black radiation it come out black but that or some
similar reason is causing 'black bumps' on various videos that were analyzed at JPL
that was posted on ATS.
Some sort of light or waves are originating from the ship, of course one theory is it runs
on wavers. Thus waves powerful enough to cause local radiation to at least cause
odd photo results.
One estimate of florescent lighting is that most of the energy released was black light,
thus easy to make a black light fixture, so florescent material is coated to shine under
the black light radiation.
I'm not sure of any UV involved, I might have seen something on UV emissions because
of the air being excited.

reply to post by flyingfish


Unknowns that stand out are the oval type that Lonnie Zamora saw in New Mexico.
Rex Heflin saw a flat saucer of course.
Walton saw oval and flat saucers but details seem lacking other than a quick one time
mention perhaps.
Actual sightings up close with details are very rare.
The Hudson Valley had a giant flying wing such as Arnold once sighted as a small plane.
And just one good photo of a triangle ship even though the flight were over a long time.
A witnesses recreation was done by unsolved mysteries that give details on the flight.
Most would say experimental ships except for no visible means of propulsion.
No reason to go along with alien ships suggested for years.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Although many have suggested for years these ships could ours, it is not as popular or profitable as aliens.
This profit lure of alien craft "in my eye" clouds any real accounts that may be out there.
I know for a fact before the F-117 was unveiled there were many accounts and even photos of the jet being passed off as alien technology. Same goes for the B-2.
What the military is testing today could very well be in someones archive as alien tech.
I mean heck, even RC aircraft mistaken for UFO's
Just saying.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


In "traditional" (chemical, not electronic) photography, the film reacts to light (and other energy sources, like X-ray, for example), so for something to appear completely black it would mean that no light (or any other type of energy to which the film was sensitive to) reached the film on that spot.

Love those old UFO pics. The kind that used to grace the pages of UFO books I read as a kid.
Cheers for the gallery link, some easily debunked, some truely unexplainable, but they bring back memories of reading about UFO sightings and then sitting out on the roof of my parent's house watching the sky...
Nice one anubisone

People faked ufo fotos without CGI and photoshop. Good old craftmansship.

reply to post by ArMaP


So no light or negative energy made the black dot.
Sure the electric vector of light going away from the camera.
This would only happen in longitudinal energy which is what Tesla used.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Sure the electric vector of light going away from the camera.

Could you please explain what you mean by that?

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Sure the electric vector of light going away from the camera.

Could you please explain what you mean by that?

Thanks in advance.

Not hearing about the transverse electric and magnetic vector of light might be difficult.
Light is the so called EM transverse wave.
waves
Tesla said poppycock, light and radio and his waves are longitudinal.
Because a wave needs a medium to travel.
Science says no, Tesla says yes cause he used it more than anyone and you do not
get to be an inventor in the wave business without knowing something over the next
person.
Electrical voltage waves becomes pressure waves at the speed of light.
Also can make light from atomic origins.
So waves having alternating pressures a black light or black dot might appear in
so called UFO photos. It seems to happen quite often. Like in photos that
show no 'reflections' of the Sun.

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".

That photo looked identical to the same type Adamski used, often called the "incubator" UFOs, as it was thought to be a model of egg incubator (with a 1937 canister vacuum lid over it), used to make the UFO model used in the photos.

Here's one of Adamski's....compare it to the first photo on page 1....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dc92a6714a45.jpg[/atsimg]

First UFO pic on page 1



And here's the 1937 canister vacuum lid with a chicken egg incubator underneath....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/41b5aaf090f7.jpg[/atsimg]

BUSTED?

Originally posted by Gazrok
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/41b5aaf090f7.jpg[/atsimg]

BUSTED?

Great post!

I'd say it's a pretty good match for the incubator, though I can see why some people think it resembles this:



Which makes me wonder if that design was also inspired from an incubator!

Just kidding.

I'm not 100% sure but I'm leaning toward busted.

The Hannebu and Vril are pipedreams on paper.

There's nothing to substantiate they were ever produced. If Hitler had such craft, the US would have faced German bombardments...as he would have been salivating at the mouth to do so. The Allies also had the scientists who would have worked on such projects.

Not to say they weren't working towards it...but they couldn't have had a working prototype. At the very least, we would have seen derivatives of the technology incorporated into later Allied aircraft, and yet we never have, even though the Allies had the same folks who would have been doing this.

Originally posted by Gazrok
The Hannebu and Vril are pipedreams on paper.

You mean on photographs?

Because there are a lot of photographs available.

Are they all faked? IDK.

I have never seen a single so called "Nazi UFO photo" debunked, ever. I am open to any ones explanations though, so let me know what you think makes them obvious fakes.

I never gave the Nazi UFO theory any credibility until after I saw literally over a hundred black and white, seemingly authentic photographs. Most of these photos appear to be taken on a military airbase as the craft were literally on runways.

I would love to see all of these vintage photographs debunked.

Showing the source of this information is questionable is fine but I need more.
I need to be shown how these photographs are all faked.

They are over 60 years old, cmon someone can replicate them or show how it was faked right??

So thats why I take the Nazi UFO stuff a lot more serious nowadays. There is almost no debunking at all, people just laugh it off without giving it any consideration.

There are no known physical laws that prevent it from being true. That the Nazis had some type of primitive working flying saucer concept. It could be possible, so who knows?

I have seen a flying saucer in real life with my own eyes, I know they exist in reality, it's a cold hard fact.

So that begs the question, who is flying them? Is it the US Military? Aliens? Or left-over Nazis?

All of these possibilities stand. I wonder which one it is??

Also I will bring back up the reasoning behind my insistence on investigating the Nazi possibilities.

The flying saucer I saw in real life with my own eyes, looked JUST LIKE a VRIL model.

How is that even possible?

The only actual photograph I have ever seen that even closely resembled the real life saucer I saw, was a VRIL black and white old time photograph.

That speaks huge volumes to me, about what is going on here.

Something uber messed up is going on here, and I am determined to figure it out.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Do you know when the first of these photos was found?

Was it only in recent times, when people have access to computers, or was it before?

I ask because I have only seen digital copies and I have never seen any reference to the physical photos.

Ernst Zundel

From what I heard he published books that might have had those Nazi saucer photos.
His source was Freedom of Information Requests.
So was the source Nazi or FBI CIA and Disney.

More info in Pentagon Aliens on Ernst Zundel

under INTRODUCTION

The main person attempting to spread the idea of a “German origin” for the flying saucer, is an unabashed ‘Naziphile’ named Ernst Zundel, who owns Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He began his publishings at least as early as 1976, and like me, underwent intense judicial harassment, but was misled to believe the harassment was because he is a German “holocaust revisionist’ or ‘denier’, while the apparent reason is because his flying saucer material is “too close” to the truth.

Not so much the flying saucer being from Hitler but what Bill Lyne says lead to a WWII ending
stalemate:

Despite Zundel’s controversial view, he was almost correct about Hitler’s planned last-ditch stand against America, using flying saucers and other ‘wonder weapons’, along with several other ‘Wunderwaffen’ which were not mentioned as such in Zundel’s material, but which I identified for the first time, as the basis not only for one of Hitler’s brilliant alternate plans—according to the judgment of the best Russian military analysts who later studied it—but for another even more brilliant plan for which the first plan-evidence of which was conveniently left for the Russians to find in the Berlin Fuehrerbunker—was a mere cover, and which was actually consummated by the coercion of a secret amnesty and partnership agreement between the U.S. and Germany, buttressed by the exodus, under Operation Paperclip, of Nazi saucer R&D, over 400 top scientists, and over 15,000 scientific and technical “slaves”, to the U.S. government and the IllumiNazi corporations and banking interests.

So the mere photos of Nazi saucers was not the problem but the entanglements at the end
of WWII might have been coming clear to Zundel and he had to be dealt with.
So most people say the photos have no backing except to mislead an ex Nazi that became too
popular and might have seen how Tesla technology was being use in a power game he thought
was totally Nazi origin.

ED: The Flat saucer type photographed by Rex Heflin was also in photos take in Ohio.
The closest to saucers are from Mexico video and even Meier clam shells are illuminations
surrounding the ship and the hull can not be seen unless at low altitude and slow speed.
Oval shape and wing and triangle shape are known but the classic saucer might be only
the old time Nazi type when taken for an occasional ride now days and I have not seen any
modern photo of the classic saucer.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I would love to see all of these vintage photographs debunked.

I think it would be interesting to see just one of them verified. All the ones I've seen are far too blurry or indistinct or obviously fake to really be held up as proof. I find this particularly interesting since the German Nazis were very good at detailing pretty much everything they did, and their photography was top notch. Like most stories dealing with UFOs, there's always that knotty problem of actual, verifiable proof of claims. And people always seem to make conclusions about blurry photos and drawings of unknown provenance based on other blurry photos and drawings of equally unknown provenance.

reply to post by muzzleflash


VRIL type is mentioned in Pentagon Aliens on page 209 giving reference to three sightings
of which one was near Pecos, New Mexico.

There is also a mention of a slot around the center or between the top and bottom half of the saucer.

ED: The Hannebu, even though it is the result of an artist must have had direction from
an actual ship designer for consider the three inflatable landing pads which the Triangle
and other ships might have.