Lost photo of UFO found

reply to post by IAMTAT


Thanks IAMTAT, I should be able to figure something out for myself with that info alone. I don't live too far away, in the Appalachian Mountains of East Tennessee.... just don't tell anyone, it might blow my cover...

Really though, thanks for posting this, it has been a while since a good thread with a seemingly truthful/honourable author has come along with a scenario like this. I am used to skipping to the last page of a thread that moves this fast, to find everyone flaming the OP and the OP themselves not being back after the 2nd page....

I doubt that is the line , more likely the product of the photo itself given the chemical processes involved in making a film picture .
I would imagine that if (as I expect) it was hanging from a pole they would use fishing line , no point going to the effort of making the picture and then using string that may show up .

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by esteay812
Just curious if the OP or others might know.... was this picture taken anywhere near Kecksburg? Just looking for fire power to fuel my crazy, self indulgent imagination.

It just says "Allegheny Mountains Pennsylvania".

OP, you originally stated it was taken in Brownsville, PA...which, is close to Keksburg by about 75 miles or so, off the top of my geographically aligned brain tonight.

Correct me if I am wrong?

Originally posted by gortex
I doubt that is the line , more likely the product of the photo itself given the chemical processes involved in making a film picture .
I would imagine that if (as I expect) it was hanging from a pole they would use fishing line , no point going to the effort of making the picture and then using string that may show up .

I think by using the word "String" it was meant to be "fishing line" for at least that is how I used the word String to represent this.

It was just easier to say "String" at the moment.

Originally posted by charlyv
Prior to 1984, Konica Color Print Paper was manufactured as "SakuraColor PC Paper" (PC was a Konica process as is RC, which was a Kodak Process)

Konica Color long-life 100 print paper A2 was introduced after 1985, and only then was it marketed as "Konica Color Paper".

There is also a Konica 100 paper manufactured for ink jet printers.

Also, many papers used back then had watermarked emulsion numbers on the back, very light and small print, usually on the edge.

It is possible that this photo was re-printed from an original, if indeed the photo was circa 1970.
The photo needs to be examined by a professional.

edit on 28-11-2011 by charlyv because: for clarity

Great post and I agree with you this might well be a copy of a photograph taken ,not from the original negative, rather from the actual print itself. The colour washout and fade is wholly consistent with several photos I took as a kid around the same time of the house i grew up in. It being a copy of another photo would probably explain the annotation *circa 1970*.

That being so, the photo in itself is never going to be fully accepted as *legitimate evidence* simply because it is almost certainly a copy of another print. However the OP should not be dismayed as there is another line of inquiry that might prove to be fruitful.

I would speculate the following. Your father had no real interest in UFOs and yet, he was sufficiently interested to request that someone send him a copy of this particular photo. You need to try and unearth the reason behind that. I would, in your position, make it know to my father's remaining circle of friends that, the photo has been found and does anyone know why he has a copy and does anyone know who took the original.?

To me , the logical reason your father had a copy of the photo was that he was present when this occurred and that, down the years he chose to ignore it then, sometime in the 80s he felt a need to revisit the incident. Having done so privately without discussing it with the family he decided he personally knew enough and simply filed it away. I suspect he either forgot about the photo or secretly hoped it would be found at some point and it would be brought to public attention by default not by his own actions.

If the Op's mother is still alive and knows nothing of the photo it would suggest you need to either ask workmates or those he spent the majority of his free time with. I suspect there lies your original photographer. I would also suspect there was a mutual pact, either spoken or unspoken, to say nothing of it outside of the original witnesses. See by writing circa 1970 it retains the anonymity of the original photographer in that it makes it harder to place your father in a specific place at a given time back then.

my guess would be this, given i know nothing about the OPs father and his work. To be carrying a camera back then would suggest, unless the person's work required it, it was a holiday or some some leisure pursuit activity. Given the area, fishing or hunting, maybe they were doing so in an area of out of season hence, wanting to remain anonymous.

Please don't think I am trying to give you an actual explanation, I am merely suggesting how you should be, if you are interested in it anyway, approaching investigating where , when and who took the original photo.

Given the passage of time, it's probably along shot however, there is still a chance that the original photo and maybe even the negative commensurate with it is out there in the desk of one of your father's ex workmates or friends and just maybe the person(s) involved would be willing, if still alive, to give us the full story.

Until then, it's just an interesting photo of another photo, it could be so much more.

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by esteay812
Just curious if the OP or others might know.... was this picture taken anywhere near Kecksburg? Just looking for fire power to fuel my crazy, self indulgent imagination.

It just says "Allegheny Mountains Pennsylvania".

OP, you originally stated it was taken in Brownsville, PA...which, is close to Keksburg by about 75 miles or so, off the top of my geographically aligned brain tonight.

Correct me if I am wrong?

Close. I mentioned that my dad grew up in Brownsville/ Uniontown and that I assummed that it was sent from a childhood friend...since the photo says it was taken in that area.

reply to post by IAMTAT


Thanks for making that available.

If you stick a gun to my head, I'd have to say I see two hubcaps joined back to back. That frilly (for lack of a better term) part around the edges is the underside and looks exactly like what I think it is. The bottom also appears to be a common hubcap shape.

From the scan you won't be able to glean anymore detail from this. I pulled out a couple of photo's from that general time period and the degradation looks like it's been in the sun or the light a lot over the years. The color change is what I'd expect. I think the date holds up. You won't get anymore detail than what I see in the .tif.

GMC product hubcap shape is the same.

No way to know for sure but those waffles around the edge are pretty damning and indicative of the old stick two hubcaps together ploy.

The other issue is that after playing with curves until the line is almost gone from the dots (photoshoppers will know what I mean) I find that the object is slightly more in focus than the nearest tree. It's location as compared to the tree tells me that whatever it is, it is small. The occupants would have to be doll sized at best. Sorry.

All this is open to interpretation so all I can do is express my opinion. I think I'm right and I've seen perhaps two dozen photo's over the years, mostly from the 1960's that were in fact hubcaps and similar objects suspended from something. It was just too much fun for people to resist making a UFO picture for fun. people were all over the new (back then they were new) Instamatic or EE-Matic (konica) camera's that were point and shoot. Simply shoot from shade into sunlight and the camera did the rest.

Also the object was stationary when the photo was shot. That part is obvious. There is no hint at all of motion blurring so a wind free day also. These typically show a slight tilt as this one does as they were generally suspended from an eight to twelve foot stick of lumber and fishing line used as it does not show up in the photo's.

reply to post by Blaine91555


I should say here

THANK YOU!!

very much for your effort and sharing with us. Very appreciated. I hope I'm wrong, I always do.

reply to post by phantomjack


Yea I have been using "string" as a vague word to represent fishing line or some other type of # like that, my bad on this as well.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Good analysis, IMO more than likely that is the case.

Originally posted by FireMoon

Originally posted by charlyv
Prior to 1984, Konica Color Print Paper was manufactured as "SakuraColor PC Paper" (PC was a Konica process as is RC, which was a Kodak Process)

Konica Color long-life 100 print paper A2 was introduced after 1985, and only then was it marketed as "Konica Color Paper".

There is also a Konica 100 paper manufactured for ink jet printers.

Also, many papers used back then had watermarked emulsion numbers on the back, very light and small print, usually on the edge.

It is possible that this photo was re-printed from an original, if indeed the photo was circa 1970.
The photo needs to be examined by a professional.

edit on 28-11-2011 by charlyv because: for clarity

Great post and I agree with you this might well be a copy of a photograph taken ,not from the original negative, rather from the actual print itself. The colour washout and fade is wholly consistent with several photos I took as a kid around the same time of the house i grew up in. It being a copy of another photo would probably explain the annotation *circa 1970*.

That being so, the photo in itself is never going to be fully accepted as *legitimate evidence* simply because it is almost certainly a copy of another print. However the OP should not be dismayed as there is another line of inquiry that might prove to be fruitful.

I would speculate the following. Your father had no real interest in UFOs and yet, he was sufficiently interested to request that someone send him a copy of this particular photo. You need to try and unearth the reason behind that. I would, in your position, make it know to my father's remaining circle of friends that, the photo has been found and does anyone know why he has a copy and does anyone know who took the original.?

To me , the logical reason your father had a copy of the photo was that he was present when this occurred and that, down the years he chose to ignore it then, sometime in the 80s he felt a need to revisit the incident. Having done so privately without discussing it with the family he decided he personally knew enough and simply filed it away. I suspect he either forgot about the photo or secretly hoped it would be found at some point and it would be brought to public attention by default not by his own actions.

If the Op's mother is still alive and knows nothing of the photo it would suggest you need to either ask workmates or those he spent the majority of his free time with. I suspect there lies your original photographer. I would also suspect there was a mutual pact, either spoken or unspoken, to say nothing of it outside of the original witnesses. See by writing circa 1970 it retains the anonymity of the original photographer in that it makes it harder to place your father in a specific place at a given time back then.

my guess would be this, given i know nothing about the OPs father and his work. To be carrying a camera back then would suggest, unless the person's work required it, it was a holiday or some some leisure pursuit activity. Given the area, fishing or hunting, maybe they were doing so in an area of out of season hence, wanting to remain anonymous.

Please don't think I am trying to give you an actual explanation, I am merely suggesting how you should be, if you are interested in it anyway, approaching investigating where , when and who took the original photo.

Given the passage of time, it's probably along shot however, there is still a chance that the original photo and maybe even the negative commensurate with it is out there in the desk of one of your father's ex workmates or friends and just maybe the person(s) involved would be willing, if still alive, to give us the full story.

Until then, it's just an interesting photo of another photo, it could be so much more.

Neither mom nor dad ever told me they personally witnessed a UFO...or anything else that might be considered extraterrestrial, supernatural or paranomal. I

reply to post by IAMTAT


Sorry for asking ..but is it possible your father to keep hiding this secret photo from you all this years ?

reply to post by IAMTAT



See, the first thing that I would have noticed would have been the book it was found in. Le me give you an example. I'm a guy..so say I have a photo i don't want my partner to find I am probably going to stick it between the pages of a book on trains. Why? , because i know they are never likely to be thumbing through such a book an accidentally find it. It's the sort of thing people do half subconsciously and yet it can help shed light on the mindset of the person who hid it.


As i say, you make it plain he had no real interest and never claimed to have seen anything weird at all and yet you find this photo which was obviously placed where it was found with purpose. I'd want to know why he did that?

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

Don't be so disrespectful, show some manners and decorum, innocent until proven guilty. if this is a hoax then let the moderators deal with it. If you don't like it there are plenty of other threads you can get in to.

Back to the photo..................

The moderators are not some godly professional researchers to know what is hoax and what is not. I go for i with the 'no such close uf a ufo is real' meaning, there have been other ways to make a fake pictures, like placing an object on an already made photo, then photo them together again.

I think it looks like a flattened pine cone flying through the air.

Sorry I can't come up with any good explanation.

reply to post by Blaine91555


I see what you mean about the "waffles" around the edge. It could well be a dented old hub-cap but then again who the hell am i to know what markings or structure a craft of that sort might have if it is real!
The thought of some pranksters sticking an upside down Ricotta pot to the back of hubcap and frisbeeing it off in a trajectory away from the person taking a photograph does seem quite plausible... if not, amusing.

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Possible bad news folks. There appears to be a string/cable at the top of the "ship" as shown in this enhanced view in Photoshop.

I can see a vertical line, as well as some sort of mooring at the very center/top of the artifact. I have two BLUE lines pointing to it.

LINK

thing I love about the UFO threads is I'm always flipping one way and another.
had another dabble in photoshop and when applying the Shadows/Highlights adjustment with 100% highlight I get the same thin line artifact. Although my original thinking was the letter K (writing from the reverse) which still holds some weight there is no denying there is a thin line from the top centre.

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

Sorry for asking ..but is it possible your father to keep hiding this secret photo from you all this years ?

No....not really. Dad was kind of a pack rat. He kept room-loads of stuff.

Originally posted by digitalf

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Possible bad news folks. There appears to be a string/cable at the top of the "ship" as shown in this enhanced view in Photoshop.

I can see a vertical line, as well as some sort of mooring at the very center/top of the artifact. I have two BLUE lines pointing to it.

LINK

thing I love about the UFO threads is I'm always flipping one way and another.
had another dabble in photoshop and when applying the Shadows/Highlights adjustment with 100% highlight I get the same thin line artifact. Although my original thinking was the letter K (writing from the reverse) which still holds some weight there is no denying there is a thin line from the top centre.

edit on 28-11-2011 by digitalf because: (no reason given)

No way,

that looks clearly like an antenna to me.

And yes, Aliens can use antennas too....

this is the real deal. trolls and disinfo agents stay the hell away and keep your negative comments to yourself.

thank you for sharing this! there is n denying now, i wonder where it came from. and who is piloting it??

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

Sorry for asking ..but is it possible your father to keep hiding this secret photo from you all this years ?

No....not really. Dad was kind of a pack rat. He kept room-loads of stuff.

How was it kept? Was it just totally random or was there some rough method or was he totally OCD about it all? How many other photos did you find secreted away in the pages of a book?