UFO Photographed In 1937 Flying Above City Hall In Vancouver, Canada

Astonished this has made the first page.

I have hundreds of photos from the 80s showing similar marks.

originally posted by: and14263
Astonished this has made the first page.

I have hundreds of photos from the 80s showing similar marks.

Send them all to MUFON!

Can't rule out image smear in old photos, evidenced by the horizontal lines in this one , 'ahead of' the 'artifact'.



Like I said, have to rule that out, first. How can that horizontal line extend to the right of the image across the photo? Because it occurred during developing (imo).

Looks like the same shape as the top window thing..could it be some sort of simple lens flare perhaps?

originally posted by: intrptr
Like I said, have to rule that out, first. How can that horizontal line extend to the right of the image across the photo? Because it occurred during developing (imo).

Yeah, that's problematic.

In fact, the whole photo seems to have very odd areas of contrast.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: intrptr
Like I said, have to rule that out, first. How can that horizontal line extend to the right of the image across the photo? Because it occurred during developing (imo).

Yeah, that's problematic.

In fact, the whole photo seems to have very odd areas of contrast.

Especially your star trek enterprise 'enhancement'.

originally posted by: intrptr
Especially your star trek enterprise 'enhancement'.

Heh. That's just the way it turned out by fiddling with the contrast and brightness. I didn't even try to "sharpen." Funny how the whole left half of the image is so dark. And it looks like you can see some possible writing or watermark in the lighter portions. I wonder if the witness developed it himself.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Some were sloppy, a drop of emulsion landing on photo paper will 'bloom', then fix in place and become part of the image.

If you feel like it, Try enhancing the image to highlight the two horizontal streaks across the page. One goes right thru the artifact, another is below it a bit. Theres also what 'looks to be' a thumbprint on the left side, middle.

originally posted by: intrptr
If you feel like it, Try enhancing the image to highlight the two horizontal streaks across the page. One goes right thru the artifact, another is below it a bit. Theres also what 'looks to be' a thumbprint on the left side, middle.

There's also a kind of darker "shadow" of the object in question slightly to the right about 2 o'clock. It's very dim. Here's an inverted image to bring out the horizontal lines a little better to the right (in front) of the object:

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: FamCore

"It looks like the Norwegian spiral and other "rockets" we've seen"

Which all reality-based people realize WERE rockets.

So, if I don't automatically just suddenly REALIZE something is a rocket, I cannot be classified as a reality based person? Crap. I better get off to rocket school so I can be a reality based person. I'll get a shirt with a rocket on it, maybe splurge for the hat...
Get a rocket bumper sticker
rocket coffee cup...
Posters about rockets
Make videos about
Teach others what i learned about rockets
Basically just become "Mr. Rocket" (Rocket Man was taken...)


After looking at and thinking about rockets my whole entire life... i bet Everything will start looking like rockets to me!!


Oh, wait... I guess that would make me a pretty lousy observer of aerial phenomena.

You know, when the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer...every problem begins to look like a nail?

So, then what happens when the only tool in your toolbox is a Factory That Robotically Builds Rockets Automatically, like an assembly line where the robot arms add on a new part as the product under construction passes through on a type of conveyer belt. No matter how you turn the dials or change the variables, when you crank up that trusty old workhorse of a machine, you Know what is going to come out the other end. A rocket.
Every.
Single.
Time.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: intrptr
If you feel like it, Try enhancing the image to highlight the two horizontal streaks across the page. One goes right thru the artifact, another is below it a bit. Theres also what 'looks to be' a thumbprint on the left side, middle.

There's also a kind of darker "shadow" of the object in question slightly to the right about 2 o'clock. It's very dim. Here's an inverted image to bring out the horizontal lines a little better to the right (in front) of the object:

Coool. Other 'drops' of emulsion became visible too. The streaks are from handling. Overall the whole picture is very poorly rendered. Look at the fogginess, the contrasts of the original. Its a washout.

originally posted by: 3n19m470
After looking at and thinking about rockets my whole entire life... i bet Everything will start looking like rockets to me!!

Fair comment -- and of course, the other side of the same coin is if all you've thought about is UFOs, everything you see is a UFO. [grin]

Let's get specific -- tell me which specific event I've tried to explain as a rocket you think was NOT a rocket, and why.

One example, please.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
Are there any photographers on ATS, who can offer an explanation for this picture?

I've developed a lot of film and a lot of different types of film and have never seen a mark such as this. So to say it's a defect/consequence of the developing process and to have it repeated on more than one frame in nearly the same spot would be almost impossible.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Where have we seen this before ?

Maybe here.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
Are there any photographers on ATS, who can offer an explanation for this picture?

I've developed a lot of film and a lot of different types of film and have never seen a mark such as this. So to say it's a defect/consequence of the developing process and to have it repeated on more than one frame in nearly the same spot would be almost impossible.

I missed the part where the image was repeated on another frame, please show me.

originally posted by: GovernmentSauce
As for the image being a concern because of a lack of others in the sequence, though, I'm not as sceptical. It's the millenial generation who pioneered the proliferation of endless day-to-day photography, not the generations before. Photographic film and development costs were expensive, unlike the modern ephemeral digital medium. Members of the general public were likely to be more spartan in their photographic habits than professionals of the day, or of the public today, principally because of the cost factor.

That is a very true point. My Grandmother's camera took roll film and you only got 8 exposures from it. I'm sure she portioned out those 8 shots very sparingly. I remember myself using up frames sparingly such as when I photographed the bus drivers for my senior yearbook back in 1978 and took only one shot. They asked why I only took one and I said because I got the shot. Back then Tri-X only had 20 frames, not that many, really. That famous shot of Che Guevera? The photographer had two frames left on the roll and decided to just rap off a couple shots of Che to finish the roll. Only two frames with Che in them? Che was probably just a very explainable rocket.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: GovernmentSauce
As for the image being a concern because of a lack of others in the sequence, though, I'm not as sceptical. It's the millenial generation who pioneered the proliferation of endless day-to-day photography, not the generations before. Photographic film and development costs were expensive, unlike the modern ephemeral digital medium. Members of the general public were likely to be more spartan in their photographic habits than professionals of the day, or of the public today, principally because of the cost factor.

That is a very true point. My Grandmother's camera took roll film and you only got 8 exposures from it. I'm sure she portioned out those 8 shots very sparingly. I remember myself using up frames sparingly such as when I photographed the bus drivers for my senior yearbook back in 1978 and took only one shot. They asked why I only took one and I said because I got the shot. Back then Tri-X only had 20 frames, not that many, really. That famous shot of Che Guevera? The photographer had two frames left on the roll and decided to just rap off a couple shots of Che to finish the roll. Only two frames with Che in them? Che was probably just a very explainable rocket.

Good point, but aren't you just imagining stuff you WISH were true about THIS picture? I think you've backed yourself into a corner with that theory, because IF we accept the years-later family lore of the photographer actually seeing the object first and THEN grabbing a perfectly-centered shot of the building, do we then have to assume he took no further shots because he didn't want to waste film? And accepting the claim he went downtown to get a picture of the building's decorations, can we accept that it was purely by accident the object lined itself up to provide the perfect background shot the photographer originally intended?.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: intrptr
If you feel like it, Try enhancing the image to highlight the two horizontal streaks across the page. One goes right thru the artifact, another is below it a bit. Theres also what 'looks to be' a thumbprint on the left side, middle.

There's also a kind of darker "shadow" of the object in question slightly to the right about 2 o'clock. It's very dim. Here's an inverted image to bring out the horizontal lines a little better to the right (in front) of the object:

Coool. Other 'drops' of emulsion became visible too. The streaks are from handling. Overall the whole picture is very poorly rendered. Look at the fogginess, the contrasts of the original. Its a washout.

I left in the whole quoted statement along with the reply. You people who are trying to "interpret" this picture are making the same mistake others are making when they "interpret" the picture as being a UFO. Is the picture the OP posted the original photograph that was printed out from the negative? Or is it a copy, possibly from a magazine or newspaper, with all the potential inherent anomalies that go along with their printing methods? Without the original negative or original print to study, not much can be said about the antecedents of this (OP's image) based upon fact. We just have to look at this image and take it as it is.

And by the way, what would you skeptics of the UFO phenomenon accept as valid proof? It seems to me, you can "disprove" anything. Put it down in black and white so we have some common ground to work with.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
Are there any photographers on ATS, who can offer an explanation for this picture?

I've developed a lot of film and a lot of different types of film and have never seen a mark such as this. So to say it's a defect/consequence of the developing process and to have it repeated on more than one frame in nearly the same spot would be almost impossible.

I missed the part where the image was repeated on another frame, please show me.

I thought the uppermost two frames were two different images. They had different dimensions, so that's what made me think so. After I got to looking at them closer, the second one looks "squished" down and that's what made it look like a totally different image to me. I am totally color blind, so I go by shapes and dimensions a lot.

originally posted by: JimOberg
I think you've backed yourself into a corner with that theory, because IF we accept the years-later family lore of the photographer actually seeing the object first and THEN grabbing a perfectly-centered shot of the building, do we then have to assume he took no further shots because he didn't want to waste film? And accepting the claim he went downtown to get a picture of the building's decorations, can we accept that it was purely by accident the object lined itself up to provide the perfect background shot the photographer originally intended?.

About 12 years ago, I was out in the country taking nighttime shots of the starry sky. In one frame, I just happened to catch a Russian satellite as it burned out upon reentry. And it was perfectly centered. And I only got one shot of it because it was there for such a short relative time. I had no clue it was going to re-enter Earth's atmosphere when I took the shot - it was just by chance. Chance happens, believe it or not.