Alien photographed in the 1930's.

Alien captured on film in Alaska.

The picture was taken in the early 1930s by the sender's grandfather, who lived in Alaska. The entitiy was first seen when the grandfather was on his way to a lake. He chased the entity until he got close enough to take this one picture. It was some four months before the photograph was developed, being in in a remote, sparsely populated area. The sender received the picture from his grandfather only last week. His grandfather died the day after giving him the photo, and relating his story.

Interesting, but the quality of the photo very poor.

As I looked through several of the cutouts I had made, I thought maybe I saw something...something else. The entity's right lower arm/hand region seemed to be obscured; but by what? So I went back to the original scan, and starting working on that particular area. What I finally saw, or thought I saw was a second, even smaller entity. Is it possible that we had a female with her child? I had done what I could, and the results were inconclusive.

www.ufoevidence.org...

www.ufocasebook.com...

maybe it's just me, but the quality of the photo actually looks TOO GOOD to be from 1930. It looks like a newer photo that's been manipulated to look old.

Originally posted by sensfan
maybe it's just me, but the quality of the photo actually looks TOO GOOD to be from 1930. It looks like a newer photo that's been manipulated to look old.

The first one definitely seems a bit clean, not to mention why hasn't anyone seen this before?

Originally posted by sensfan
maybe it's just me, but the quality of the photo actually looks TOO GOOD to be from 1930. It looks like a newer photo that's been manipulated to look old.

I was actually just thinking the same thing. When I read the post and it said something to the effect "sorry the picture is poor quality" I was thinking "here we go again". But actually I was surprised to see how good it was, if it is actually from the 1930's.

On the other hand, I have no idea what they are talking about when they say there may be a smaller being in the picture as well. I did not see squat besides that alien dude. Even when they outlined it I did not see it. Interesting pic though, I always like seeing the new(old) stuff. That alien does look kinda out of place though but I can't put my finger on it. Good find.

Mo out

I've seen this before, it has come up in one of the UFO documentaries somewhere along the line.

Fairly sure it was proven to be a fairly modern hoax... can't be 100% on that though.

it could be but it is grainy like older cameras......i couldnt see a smaller entity either there is a possibility it could be real but it looks like it had the contrast brought up a little bit and the saturation brought all the way down judging by the way certain things look in the skyline....but it might be real and im kinda leaning towards its real.....but what do i know anyway

I remember this somewhere else on the internet a long time ago, I don't remember exactly.

It does look a little off, the alien does look like it was added in, and the part about "My grandfather died the next day." makes it seem a little made up.

[edit on 5/17/2007 by Kacen]

"Too good" a photo for the 1930's doesn't factor in here. I have retrieved 2x2 photos from 1914 and enlarged them to 8x10 from a copy neg and gotten better resolution than we have here. BxW emulsion is a wonderful fine-grained medium...and that's speaking from my limited experience.

Is the picture real? Hell...beats me.

just wondering though why would it be wandering around in the middle of alaska in the woods.....

I don't believe its authentic. The picture itself is actually consistent in terms of quality with the photos I've seen that my grandparents have in the same era. That's not the problem I have with, although it may be a product of processing or imaging conditions (A 15-30 sec grayscale exposure from a digital camera at night will look somewhat similar, for example). That's not really my problem with it, however.

I'm highly skeptical of the road. At the very least, its a really nice, smooth, well-maintained gravel road. I would expect wagon ruts in that era (yes, horse and cart were still widely used in the rural US at the time). I'd also expect to see a lot more grass growing in the middle of it. Of course, judging from the ridge at the edge of the road in the right side of the image, I think there's a possibility that we're actually looking at a paved road here, which I'm highly skeptical of in that location in that era. I'm sure there were a few paved roads in Alaska at the time, but I'd imagine they were few and far between, and virtually non-existent in rural areas as this appears to be.

The other problem I have? The eyes on that 'alien' are just a little to well-defined based upon the clarity of the rest of the image. The rest of its body, as well as the surrounding terrain, is significantly less detailed.

IMO, its a fake.

Looking at them more closely, why does the shadow line extend past his left foot, when the shadow is clearly pulling the opposite direction?

looks kind of like a hobbit in an alien costume!!!! NO, THE INVASION OF ALIENS FROM MIDDLE EARTH HAS BEGUN!!!

this picture is actually below the quality of almost all 1930's photos I have found online. I am not saying its real, just that the picture quality being used to try to date it is impossible.

Picture from 1931



[edit on 17-5-2007 by Tiloke]

Originally posted by Tiloke


Picture from 1931



[edit on 17-5-2007 by Tiloke]

Dude... that boy is creepy... like Damien 666 creepy...

Uhhhh.....is it just me? Or does that "alien" look like it was photoshopped into the picture or super-imposed?

My hoax radar just had a blip.....


-Droops

Looking at the picture posted for comparison, it seems to me that there is too much grain in the Alaska photo. Perhaps a different, cheaper film-stock: sure, but it looks remarkably uniform to me. Like an 'add noise' filter was used in photoshop to disguise any evidence of superimposition.

Perhaps someone with better knowledge of photography and particularly the cameras and film-stocks used back then can comment on this, but the level of grain was the first thing that stood out to me.

Actually older photos could be better than some modern ones due to longer exposures and large film sizes. The photo is a bit grainy and what I would expect from a typical brownie type camera etc with poor lense.

It looks like a Gray alien to me, look for the eyes and you can see them and the shape of the head. Otherwise there is not much detail here for the body. I haven't blow up the photo but I have doubts about extracting any more details.

The body doesn't look very proportional. Looking at its neck, it looks almost too thin to hold up a head that large. Not to mention that its waist looks even thinner.

Hey every one i work at a photo development lab part time and the first photo is really good quality, i aint sure it should be that good, but then again if it was 10x worse i could restore it in 30 mins, so maybe its a copy of the original.


Take Care, Vix

I like it. I think it takes balls to put a pic of something like this on ATS with some of the people on here and what they say.

I would just like to ask 1 question,

If this is a fake, where did they get the idea of what a "grey" looks like in the 1930's?

Remirah