Lost photo of UFO found

Have not had time to read through this entire thread since page three. Has it been asked of the OP HOW he found the photo? And, how strange it is that the date is penned in as "circa"?

If someone had taken a photo, and had this come up, how wouldn't you know the EXACT date. . .or YEAR it was taken? Circa? Who writes that?

Originally posted by RomanticWildFire

Get yourself some night vision goggles, I am not sure what the best are for viewing as I am not that technical with them. Whoever sells them, reputable store, will know which ones you need. Take them wherever you travel. You will witness the most amazing activity overhead and quantity of traffic of UFOs which in this instance would only be lights. The behavior of these lights is amazing.....some wobble as they travel through space, some chase each other and zap each other, some just cruise in two's, others just cross the night sky. Oh yeah, I am talking night sky, clear night. The less city light, the better and if its a new moon, that is better. I plan to get some in 2012. Who they are, no clue. My friends tease me because I find them without the goggles. All I have to do is look up at the night sky and I almost always notice a UFO doing something that a typical jet CANNOT do. My last UFO Safari yielded 100 UFOs in a 2 hour period.

Here on Earth, we call those things birds...

I spent some time looking for the picture I saw of what I previously described, but failed to find it on one of the many forums I belong to. Here is what I was looking at in my reference, however the one I was reffering to was shorter and squatter. Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to link sucessfully to ATS.

"There are two ways to slide through life. You can believe everything or doubt everything. Both ways prevent us from thinking."

Originally posted by amongus
Have not had time to read through this entire thread since page three. Has it been asked of the OP HOW he found the photo? And, how strange it is that the date is penned in as "circa"?

If someone had taken a photo, and had this come up, how wouldn't you know the EXACT date. . .or YEAR it was taken? Circa? Who writes that?

I for one use the word Circa ... I dont think it is unreasonable to use that word, especially 40 years ago when the english language was a lot more conservative in nature.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ArMaP

 

I thought most people are ambidextrous when it comes to holding a photo? In IAMTAT's case I don't think he had much choice if they don't make cameras for lefties, he had to use his right hand to take the picture and his left hand to hold the photo, right? So it wouldn't matter which hand was dominant. But I'd argue that even 30 years ago or whenever the picture was new the dominant hand wouldn't matter too much, as the photo can easily be held with a non--dominant hand.

But it seemed like this could be more than a coincidence when you compare the location of the thumb with the location of the discoloration:

Originally posted by kdog1982
Very cool photo.

Originally posted by kdog1982
Yes,much better

I'm not saying it's from IAMTAT's thumbprint though...if it's fingerprint related, it's from someone holding it similarly a long time ago.

IAMTAT do you see any extra cracking of the glossy finish in the lower left corner or anything like that which might contribute to the light discoloration perhaps resulting from a fingerprint? Or does the light discoloration appear to be part of the original image? Or can you tell?

LOL...Actually, I AM a southpaw...but in THIS case I held the photo up for my wife to take the picture.
On the corner in question, on the original photo, there really is not any additional cracking or scratching that I can see, nor is there any smudging on the glossy finish.

reply to post by TXRabbit

TXRabbit - follow my steps @ www.abovetopsecret.com... by tweaking highlights to 100% in photoshop - I think you'll see the thin line.
I also noticed the vertical line/s but saw that as part of the age of the photo tbh.
edit - using the .tif image and not the original page 1 image.

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by amongus
Have not had time to read through this entire thread since page three. Has it been asked of the OP HOW he found the photo? And, how strange it is that the date is penned in as "circa"?

If someone had taken a photo, and had this come up, how wouldn't you know the EXACT date. . .or YEAR it was taken? Circa? Who writes that?

I for one use the word Circa ... I dont think it is unreasonable to use that word, especially 40 years ago when the english language was a lot more conservative in nature.

yh I use it as well, perhaps whomever wrote it couldn't quite remember the year when they wrote on the copy a number of years later. Either that or they didn't want to identify the year for some specific reason.

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by NebulaZero

 

The antenna would be disproportionate to its size, the more I am looking at this the more I am seeing the line from the top mid centre to the sky. However, if this is the case the trees are very high up, how is it done?

Well, it would be all about perspective. A fishing pole with the thing dangling about 5 feet in front of the camera could seem that it is further up in the sky than what it really is....

And why would a space craft need an "antenna" to begin with? I mean, if they could travel at the speed of light, at unmeasurable distances, surely they have the technology to embed the antenna in a less than a 1950's type look, no?

You allmost had it there if you had carried on, what you sould have added "and why would it be visible to us anyway, they would have the techknowhow to make there craft invisible "

and that gentelmen blows the whole of the alien ufo debate out of the water
If they could travlel massive distances ect making a craft invisible would be a walk in the park

Originally posted by amongus
Have not had time to read through this entire thread since page three. Has it been asked of the OP HOW he found the photo? And, how strange it is that the date is penned in as "circa"?

If someone had taken a photo, and had this come up, how wouldn't you know the EXACT date. . .or YEAR it was taken? Circa? Who writes that?

I've been thinking about this as well. Yes, I do believe that many people will still use (and have used) the word "circa"...however, I agree that if I was hiking in the mountains....saw this amazing thing fly by on a specific date in 1970...and caught it on camera...I would've written down the specific time and date in addition to the specific place.

I ALSO would have ran to the nearest pharmacy and had that sucker developed ASAP!...
Now, IF I had just seen this; taken it's photo...developed the film...and wanted to immediately send it off to show to a childhood friend or someone I knew from the same area...you can bet that it would have the EXACT date on the back (or even the message: photographed "yesterday" or "last week").

This leads me to believe that the person who took this photo probably took many (certainly more than one)because if I saw this thing, unless I had only one shot left in my camera, I would've shot an entire roll of it...saying to myself "screw the lovely flora and fauna of the picturesque Allegheny Mountains!; THIS IS AMAZING"!).

If at some later late, I decided to send one of these to show a friend...I certainly wouldn't send them the original...I'd make a copy or send one of the lesser in the series....telling them the general time (Circa) and place...as in this case.

Lastly, I really do not think this is a hoax because, honestly...something this good would be something that the hoaxer would have been very proud of and would've circulated it, thus ending up in the record...in other words, if a hoax, we would be able to find this photograph elsewhere by now...

UNLESS, it truely is REAL and the person who actually saw it and snapped it's photo was afraid of ridicule...or unlike an experienced hoaxer...didn't know how to exploit it. In that case...he or she would've kept the photo(s) to themselves...along with the personal experience of seeing this craft...only possibly venturing to show it to friends and family.

Just my thoughts...by WHY HAVEN'T we seen this same photo anywhere else?

Originally posted by IAMTAT
I've been thinking about this as well. Yes, I do believe that many people will still use (and have used) the word "circa"...however, I agree that if I was hiking in the mountains....saw this amazing thing fly by on a specific date in 1970...and caught it on camera...I would've written down the specific time and date in addition to the specific place.

I ALSO would have ran to the nearest pharmacy and had that sucker developed ASAP!...
Now, IF I had just seen this; taken it's photo...developed the film...and wanted to immediately send it off to show to a childhood friend or someone I knew from the same area...you can bet that it would have the EXACT date on the back (or even the message: photographed "yesterday" or "last week").

This leads me to believe that the person who took this photo probably took many (certainly more than one)because if I saw this thing, unless I had only one shot left in my camera, I would've shot an entire roll of it...saying to myself "screw the lovely flora and fauna of the picturesque Allegheny Mountains!; THIS IS AMAZING"!).

If at some later late, I decided to send one of these to show a friend...I certainly wouldn't send them the original...I'd make a copy or send one of the lesser in the series....telling them the general time (Circa) and place...as in this case.

Lastly, I really do not think this is a hoax because, honestly...something this good would be something that the hoaxer would have been very proud of and would've circulated it, thus ending up in the record...in other words, if a hoax, we would be able to find this photograph elsewhere by now...

UNLESS, it truely is REAL and the person who actually saw it and snapped it's photo was afraid of ridicule...or unlike an experienced hoaxer...didn't know how to exploit it. In that case...he or she would've kept the photo(s) to themselves...along with the personal experience of seeing this craft...only possibly venturing to show it to friends and family.

Just my thoughts...by WHY HAVEN'T we seen this same photo anywhere else?

Some interesting questions there. It is feasible that the photo was shared as a joke, i.e the prank may have been brought up in conversation and someone said 'hey remember that time we faked a ufo, you still got any pictures of that' or on the flip side the experience was that profound that it was kept a family secret.

I have an absolutely amazing ghost photo, it would blow the socks off people but because I got it via a family friend they don't want me to re-produce it and I'll honour that. Believe me I've asked on lots of occasions and every time it's been a definite "No!" sometimes people worry about the repercussions associated with these subjects. That photo isn't anywhere on the internet and it's genuine, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if authentic images are not on the Internet but sitting secretly in people's personal archives.

I find it interesting that you don't believe the name (from the rear of the photo) bears no relevance to the story, if I were you I'd be asking family members about them and trying to piece an important part of the puzzle together. I think we've exhausted the image analysis so the back story is the next avenue to explore imo.

Turn upside down. Cook it first, let cool and tie a string to the bottom, take pic, reheat and eat.

I had to get at least one post in here LOL.
OP great picture .
Has anyone determined yet whether this photo was taken on a 110 camera or 35 mill.. ?
God I use to hate 110 , the negatives were smaller than your pinkie nail , and the quality sucked bad.

Originally posted by digitalf

Originally posted by IAMTAT

I find it interesting that you don't believe the name (from the rear of the photo) bears no relevance to the story, if I were you I'd be asking family members about them and trying to piece an important part of the puzzle together. I think we've exhausted the image analysis so the back story is the next avenue to explore imo.

edit on 29-11-2011 by digitalf because: (no reason given)

I understand what you're saying...and maybe I should try a call to this number...it's just that I know that my dad scribbled notes on whatever he had handy at the time. It was also scribbled at an unnatural angle as if dad grabbed it to write down a number someone was reading over the phone to him.

In black ink...and dad's hand is a hastily-scrawled phone number (There is no area code...and the last number is unclear)

Next to it, in parenthesis, is what I am guessing is an extention number (3892)

...followed by the name Sandy W- Before...(illegible)

Seriously, I would be open to sending this photo to some serious UFO reseacher or group if I could be certain it would be protected and returned. I just don't know who to trust with something like this.

reply to post by IAMTAT


Start here with Mufon. Send them a link to the photo and explain the story. They have a team of photo analysis experts.

www.mufon.com...

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

Start here with Mufon. Send them a link to the photo and explain the story. They have a team of photo analysis experts.

www.mufon.com...

Thank you. I've just emailed them.

reply to post by digitalf


I'm always curious about ghost picture's. Can you please describe the features of the ghost in the photograph?

Do you think that the ghost in the picture, could possibly be an interdimensional space alien creature?

I won't be upset, if you do not reply.

Thanks,

Erno86

Originally posted by TheAlmo
Wow... looks like my father's UFO pic!!!

hint: mine is fake... I just made it... hushhhhhhh

No kidding, and as opposed to the other photo, my brain immediately screamed FAKE to me. Plus you have no original glossy do you photo shop failure.