Another lost UFO photo found

Come on....... Another i heard this from someone who told me this, with three degrees of separation and 40 years in between.

Next please relay how the third anonymous party gained some secret knowledge. Looks like another pie pan in the air.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


While it's certainly true that the owner of a photography shop would have access to tools and techniques useful in faking UFO photos, isn't also true that, while developing thousands of customer photos, he'd have unusual access to unfiltered photos, as well?
Do you think all UFO photos are faked?
I know they are not. Not belief, fact.

some closeups with brightness/colour/ contrast/filter tweaks.

reply to post by LastStarfighter


"Pie pan in the air"..really? Doesn't look like any pie pan to me...more like a hubcap, if I was trying to come up with fake sources.
But you have a point...the multiple separation concept. If we presume the original source was an analog(i.e., film photo) image, it had to be digitized(and thus potentially subjected to any and all sorts of digital image manipulation) to show up on this site. That's where any "image analysis" by any site members should probably have stopped, as they weren't dealing with the source material.
We sure have become cynical, haven't we? Talking about possible UFOs being "above the trees"(where the hell else do you think they'd be?) as if that were evidence of image manipulation seems a stretch.
Are you saying that NO UFO photos are real?

Photographing a moving object?

What will be blurred? The object OR the trees/stationary object.

One of them will be blurred.

If youre a decent photographer and moving with the object the trees will blur and the object will not. If you're caught flat footed the object will be blurred and the trees will not.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
This disc was of the design most assumed aliens flew in back in those days. Of course they have modern designs now because, well, there are new energy efficient models in the showroom nowadays aren't there? I mean no self respecting aliens would be seen in one of those old 1970 models these days aye!

edit on 17-3-2013 by pacifier2012 because: (no reason given)

An interesting point. UFOs photographs from the time when they first gained popularity generally seemed to depict some cumbersome type of craft. Our advancements in aerodynamics seems to have been mirrored in more recent UFO photography. Coincidence?

reply to post by elevenaugust
thank you to your grandfather, you cant fake this stuff, thats what i love about these old photographs, legit and also you can see the evoulution of old time ufos to the modern day ones we see that ARE authentic, its like looking at man kinds evoulution of aviation but instead extraterestrial.

reply to post by flexy123


not so fast man..


if the object in question was hovering slowly its not that hard to get it centered in the picture...thats y you have a view finder no ?

i was leaning towards something thrown in the sky..but now that you made me think about it...this thing seems to be or moving slow..or not moving at all to be so perfectly captured

we still though have the computer image manipulation option

Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by flexy123

 

Firstly we don’t know whether the photo has been cropped to put the object in the middle.

The OP looks like a scan of an old, original photo to me. If this IS an original photo, I would say this is highly suspect. I mean, the UFO is literally in the middle up to the pixel. What are the chances of that?

reply to post by flexy123


The chances of that are exactly equal to the chance of it being anywhere else in the picture. So, in itself it proves nothing at all that the object is in the middle of the picture. One might just as well say that the location of the object is proof of it's genuity, as people who take pictures of something tend to point their camera at it - and so it is only natural that it is in the middle of the picture.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg
reply to post by flexy123

 

The chances of that are exactly equal to the chance of it being anywhere else in the picture. So, in itself it proves nothing at all that the object is in the middle of the picture. One might just as well say that the location of the object is proof of it's genuity, as people who take pictures of something tend to point their camera at it - and so it is only natural that it is in the middle of the picture.

nicely put me thinks

reply to post by elevenaugust


Interesting photo, I'm not saying that a 'spacecraft'? would be symmetrical but if you zoom in on the 'artifact' it is rather irregular a bit like a bird side on...

be interesting to see the other pictures in the sequence.

Are there Banana trees in France?

this looks like an old WWII photo taken in the Philippines.

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
Are there Banana trees in France?

this looks like an old WWII photo taken in the Philippines.

edit on 19-3-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

While I'm French, it's not me who own the photo, but the guy from this blog who lives in São Paulo - Brazil.

Anyway, I haven't received any reply from him yet.

Originally posted by elevenaugust

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
Are there Banana trees in France?

this looks like an old WWII photo taken in the Philippines.

edit on 19-3-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

While I'm French, it's not me who own the photo, but the guy from this blog who lives in São Paulo - Brazil.

Anyway, I haven't received any reply from him yet.

Banana trees of Sao Paulo

Lots of people think this is a hoax, based on this one photograph, and they may be correct. I was a photographer for a while and had a darkroom. I could have easily faked something like this, but that doesn't mean this is a hoax.

If there is another photograph on that roll with the UFO in the same spot in the sky, an easy way to settle this would be to create a Side-By-Side image or an Anaglyph which would show distance as well as height.

The only thing you need is two photographs taken with the only a few inches of hoizontal space between them.

reply to post by elevenaugust


Thanks for posting this! It's interesting we don't get shots like this anymore. They are usually lights in the sky sort of things these days.... and if we DO get pictures like this they are considered fakes. But if they are black and white etc, they have more credibility..

Maybe it's just me.... but i'll stay tuned

reply to post by CMJ23

I was thinking that maybe the trees are blurred and the UFO is not because it was a windy day. The object may have been stationary and the wind was moving the trees causing motion blur. I still haven't fully decided the if the photo is fake or real though.

Me neither. Maybe the trees are blurry and the object focused because it was moving and he whipped his camera up and snapped a hurried picture without steadying the frame? That would lend to realism as any sighting is enough to fangle your bandango.

I know.

reply to post by RoScoLaz

Thanks for doing the work there...

One question. How do we account for the "image artifacts" surrounding the blue colored image? Is this is normal for older camera film?

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by RoScoLaz

 

Thanks for doing the work there...

One question. How do we account for the "image artifacts" surrounding the blue colored image? Is this is normal for older camera film?

edit on 19-3-2013 by intrptr because: changed

JPEG Compression Artifact