Lost photo of UFO found

Hmm interesting, havent gone through all the replies beyond page 3 so someone might have already mentioned it.

To me the Object is either in front of or equal distance when compared to the foreground tree on the right given the levels of focus the two of them share.

Im a little skeptical about the lack of resolution on the OP's sons scanner. My scanner from over 12 years ago could do well over 6+ times in size what they showed on page 2... and as such this claim makes me a little weary (and my scanners ability to scan was only hobbled by the lack of grunt of my computer in general) so i dont see why their sons scanner wouldnt be able to give us at least something 3 times as big as that initial scan... which is suspicious sorry.

Of note however in my mind is the reflections in the flange on the object... with a really big resolution scan we might be able to make out what they are off. Although looking at them at first glance they show various sparse trees and a large corpse of them to the right. We might even be able to tell some distance if we can spot the tree on the right in the reflection (if we cant then its possible the object is even closer to the picture taker than the tree on the right which in my mind would immediately make it more likely a model on a string.

We might even be able to spot the picture taker in the reflection which could make or break the image in my opinion.

It does have an odd Meier feel to it unfortunately. Doesnt mean its fake, just a little suspect. It was taken in the 70's after all... and that decade was ripe with Meieresque style images.

Looks like something decent in the UFO forums finally.

reply to post by rogerstigers


I understand that konica 100 was printed on the rear of the photo , not written
Also it would seem a little strange to me to have a photo of a ufo and then wait 18 years to print it , also we have been told the negatives do not exist now , or are not in op possesion , how old was the op in 1987 may i ask?

also i have heard of cubic transfer film but not cubic paper , any references?

Originally posted by BigfootNZ
Hmm interesting, havent gone through all the replies beyond page 3 so someone might have already mentioned it.

To me the Object is either in front of or equal distance when compared to the foreground tree on the right given the levels of focus the two of them share.

Im a little skeptical about the lack of resolution on the OP's sons scanner. My scanner from over 12 years ago could do well over 6+ times in size what they showed on page 2... and as such this claim makes me a little weary (and my scanners ability to scan was only hobbled by the lack of grunt of my computer in general) so i dont see why their sons scanner wouldnt be able to give us at least something 3 times as big as that initial scan... which is suspicious sorry.

Of note however in my mind is the reflections in the flange on the object... with a really big resolution scan we might be able to make out what they are off. Although looking at them at first glance they show various sparse trees and a large corpse of them to the right. We might even be able to tell some distance if we can spot the tree on the right in the reflection (if we cant then its possible the object is even closer to the picture taker than the tree on the right which in my mind would immediately make it more likely a model on a string.

We might even be able to spot the picture taker in the reflection

which could make or break the image in my opinion.

It does have an odd Meier feel to it unfortunately. Doesnt mean its fake, just a little suspect. It was taken in the 70's after all... and that decade was ripe with Meieresque style images.

Looks like something decent in the UFO forums finally.

My son used our HP DESKTOP 1055 for the first actual scan...But the others were done for me at Kinkos on their scanner at their highest resolution.

reply to post by IAMTAT


Hi there , would it be possible to tell us your age in 1987?

The "Lost UFO photograph," appears to be constructed in a partial non-aerodynamic shape. I believe that a true "flying saucer" has to be constructed into a perfect aerodynamic shape; so as to have perfect stability thru an atmosphere as well as its performance in underwater hydrodynamics.

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

Hi there , would it be possible to tell us your age in 1987?

MY Age? okay. I was born in 1957.

who wrote Circa 1970 on the back of the photo?

I've been playing around with these photos in gimp for a minute, I can't refine the pics enough to find anymore of the "string" as it goes up. There are a bunch of photo artifacts up there though that look similar but aren't positioned and aligned like a string would be.

I noticed this earlier, but it doesn't appear to be linear with the string that phantom found, unless they are both two different strings or one (or both) are artifacts. There are actually quite a few artifacts that could be taken as a string, but have no apparent business being where they are:



The top and the bottom string artifacts do not appear to connect:



I said I wasn't going to dabble with this anymore, but I lied.

reply to post by IAMTAT


thank you op , can you think of any time this was or could have been developed in 1987, and what may of happened to the negs after that time, the paper did not exist untill 87 so the circa 70 written on the back seems suspect in a way

Originally posted by maintainright
who wrote Circa 1970 on the back of the photo?

As mentioned earlier in this thread...I assume it was the person who took the photo and gave/sent it to dad.Sorry...I think I've answered this a few times already.

reply to post by franspeakfree


that is why I think it may be possible that this was not a "by chance" photograph but that person who took the photo did so knowing the object would be there. maybe he wasn't supposed to take any pictures but did so in secret.

like this could be a military craft and they were there observing. This is why I had asked earlier what the OP's father did for work and I know that it's none of my business but if he was in the military or had friends that were, it might shed light on who took the picture.

Because yea its as if the UFO just posed for the cameraman.

I think its legit until proven otherwise and my theory is its one of our craft.

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

thank you op , can you think of any time this was or could have been developed in 1987, and what may of happened to the negs after that time, the paper did not exist untill 87 so the circa 70 written on the back seems suspect in a way

I don't know the photos developmental history...only that my dad must've had it a long time before I found it.

Originally posted by Erno86
The "Lost UFO photograph," appears to be constructed in a partial non-aerodynamic shape. I believe that a true "flying saucer" has to be constructed into a perfect aerodynamic shape; so as to have perfect stability thru an atmosphere as well as its performance in underwater hydrodynamics.

Why?

You dont need aerodynamics to fly through space, which, would have been the longest and most critical phase of the ship transporting from where ever it came from.

A cube ala the "Borg" will fly just as well as a saucer, ala the "Jupiter 7" type craft we all have come to know and love.

Also, if an alien craft has the ability to get here in the first place, I doubt very much that it lacks the technology to compensate for atmospheric type travel.

reply to post by TXRabbit


Nice work. I think you also came up with a really kick-ass image while you were at it!

reply to post by IAMTAT


you see, the photopaper it is printed on did not exist until 1987....so it must of been sent your dad in 87 or after , so why write circa 1970 on it?

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

you see, the photopaper it is printed on did not exist until 1987....so it must of been sent your dad in 87 or after , so why write circa 1970 on it?

Can you show us how you came to that conclusion ?

Nice photo OP, I can't help but feel I have seen it before or something similar,

That's because you have, if you've seen the movie "Flight of the Navigator" back in the 80's...

Looks like the chromed UFO in that movie, in high speed flight mode. Even has the scalloping in the front, bottom that the ship had....

Photo-chop? (Great movie by the way, if you've never seen it, other than the use of the Pee Wee like voice, but it was the 80's, and he was big at the time)...

Hard to tell from a photo of a photo. Impossible really. The OP may even be truthful, and someone could have duped him/her, for all we know.

This enhancement though:

i30.photobucket.com...

Does make it look a bit more unique, still the same kind of scalloping on the bottom, but the top is more reminiscent of Lazar's "Sport Model" UFO. Intriguing at least, even if some of the facts are a bit on the iffy side...at least a good discussion.

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

you see, the photopaper it is printed on did not exist until 1987....so it must of been sent your dad in 87 or after , so why write circa 1970 on it?

It came up earlier in this thread that in addition to KONICA and 100...the word 'Long' or 'Longs' appears very faintly on the paper. Anther member assumed this to represent Long's Pharmacies...where the photographer may have taken it to be developed.

reply to post by gortex


already have chap, konica did not exist as a brand untill 87, read my previous post in this thread , includes link to the history of konica... and what it was previously called


"The name Konishiroku was taken from the abbreviation of their names, Konishi Rokuemon.
Konishiroku released their "Konica I" type camera in 1948, after which they would name their own company in 1987."

"Originally Konica film and paper was sold under the brand name of "Sakura" meaning Cherry Blossom in English."

en.wikipedia.org...

www.konicaminolta.com...

Well this entire thread was most enjoyable. Thank you OP for sharing that pic. And to all the ATS members who participated - I salute you! THIS is how it should be done. Most everyone showed great respect, kept open minds, and provided skills and resources to help evaluate the Situation. If only all the Alien/UFO/unknown threads could go this way.

As for the picture itself: I say it was very well done. If its a model, government craft, or an actual other world craft cannot be proven from this lack of data. BUT it Is an Unidentified Flying Object. The results are still not 100% clear either. Again, I say a very well done photo.

I hope everyone who participated in this had fun, I did!