It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vancouver 1937 UFO Pic

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   
This one is interesting,

The image was snapped in Vancouver and the interesting thing is the comparison to an extremely old painting.......hmmmm, obviously if this has been discussed before please ignore..

www.ufodigest.com...




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
There was no computers back then, so it's impossible to doctor the picture. Evidence is out there--it's just whether you want to believe it or not.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Does this craft from the "The Crucifixion" look anything like that UFO?




JbT

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I have many questions for this, but not the time to look them up.

1) Did these two guys give this to the media at the time (1930's)? Or did this come up after the fact?

2) To me, in my limited experience with cameras, it looks like it may be a watermark or some sort of printing defect. But their story would make you think else.

3) Did any other people see this event?




Unfortunately, the negative has disappeared over the ensuring decades. Both Leonard and his brother Wilfred have also passed.


Its funny, when you need to see negatives of your grandmothers pansies that bloomed last summer; there is never a problem. But... as soon as a Bigfoot, UFO, or Conspiracy comes into play the negatives go missing, or the camera doesn’t zoom proper, est., est., est.....

Either there is a mass conspiracy involving removing all evidence of things "et" -or- there is just a bunch of people on earth with way too much time on their hands and using their minds for useless endeavors.

Anyways. The pic intrigued me enough to post this, but forgive me if I’m getting a little tired of the "oh the negatives were ate by the dog" stories, or the shaky camera - blurred camera UFO/Bigfoot sighting.

Ill tell you right now, give me a #ing camera and put a UFO there, or a Bigfoot/Ogopogo and Ill #ing keep that camera from shaking. Ill also take those negitives and stick them in a safty deposite box for when they are needed. I guess this outburst isnt directed at just this picture or case, but the mass of bull# (disinfo) on this internetz.... and for some reason this one, with the bottom of that link talking all that "anitchrist" who-done-it, spaceship, acid trip bull# just shot out to me as some sort of UFO disgrace like so many other sites on the net.

~Medivh

[edit on 14-9-2006 by JbT]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Amen,

This happens too much, it has never been a clear cut "Here's the picture, negatives, don't know what it is but i'm keeping it safe in case it's important".

It just seems there is a very fine line between WANTING to believe something you are looking at and thinking it's absolute BS. It annoys me too my friend.....there is nothing out there proof wise that is clear cut.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by sanjj
There was no computers back then, so it's impossible to doctor the picture. Evidence is out there--it's just whether you want to believe it or not.


This picture dates from 1937. The motion picture King Kong was made in 1933.

Do you think that this picture is a real giant ape? The ability to manufacture images for film wasn't born with the advent of Photoshop.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I hear what your saying Implosion, it could well have been doctored using other methods or it could simply be due to a picture error, processing etc etc.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sanjj
There was no computers back then, so it's impossible to doctor the picture.


Unfortunately, the negative has disappeared over the ensuring decades.


This is a UFO: Uninteresting Folded Object.

Somewhere along the line, probably during printing, some clumsy lab technician managed to fold either the negative or the print, creating that symmetrical chemical splotch along with the straight lines that run through it.

As for it resembling an earlier painting of a comet, it actually more closely resembles some of Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings, with all that implies.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sanjj
There was no computers back then, so it's impossible to doctor the picture. Evidence is out there--it's just whether you want to believe it or not.
Say what - Trick photography has existed since as long as the camera has been around. One wouldn't need computers for multple exposures on one frame or splicing negatives in the dark room. Take a look through history and there is countles examples of photo and film manipulaton.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   
I'm going to agree with nullster on this one, for my project in my physics degree I had to mess around with cameras and I noticed that you can get some pretty interesting things if you leave the exposure on long enough; and then theres double exposures...

Either way, the more probable explanation with this original pic is that someone 'fiddled' with the negative, hence the missing negatives scenario comes in. Perhaps scratching the negative appropriatley, heck you can do anything with a negative. I mean, in Star Wars (the original trilogy) for the repulsor lifts on the landspeeders, George Lucas just used a salve and smeared it on the negative to removed the wheels and created a pretty neat effect to boot! So, I guess what I'm saying is that the picture is a fake, sorry.

Plus, I hear you JbT; we all have the same gripes about shaky hands with cameras... has anyone heard of a tripod? or even perhaps a convienient wall or tree stump. I find these things kind of handy when it comes to taking a photo



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join