Alien photographed in the 1930's.

Originally posted by Remirah
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

It was faked today,the modern days.

I'm usually pretty open minded,but when somebody post a pic about UFO's,first impression counts a lot to me.And my first impression was fake.that alien is out of place.its body,its clarity,i don't know.My guess is that picture is a hoax.

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

Actually, it's come up right here on ATS before...hence the de ja vu for some.

Given that this is Alaska, has anyone pondered the simple notion of someone in a snowsuit? As a former resident of Kodiak, Alaska, I can certainly remember them. Remember that scene from A Christmas Story? My brother looked just like that kid when mom bundled him up, LOL.... "I can't move my arms!"

Given the lack of quality in the pic and/or image, there are certainly other more plausible explanations here, than the immediate leap to extraterrestrial being....

Any one who says it looks to clear is only saying that because they don’t either believe history or understand it. I’m not saying its real or isn’t im not debating that here. I have seen tons of old photos for ex. civil war photos with 10 times better clarity than this photo and they all pre-date this picture and this camera tech the public did have back then. There are millions more from WWI the titanic and a million other things are they fake because of there clarity.

Give a justifiable reasoning when trying to disprove something

mid 1800 this must be a fake huh




[edit on 18-5-2007 by twistingtree]

if i "analyze" the text provided with the pic i say there is something wrong and so... suspicious : "i got this picture last week,my grandfather died the next day"

hmm allright buddy we're all with you

my first impression was "it's a fake" ....now go figure if it is

Originally posted by twistingtree
Any one who says it looks to clear is only saying that because they don’t either believe history or understand it. I’m not saying its real or isn’t im not debating that here. I have seen tons of old photos for ex. civil war photos with 10 times better clarity than this photo and they all pre-date this picture and this camera tech the public did have back then. There are millions more from WWI the titanic and a million other things are they fake because of there clarity.

Give a justifiable reasoning when trying to disprove something

mid 1800 this must be a fake huh

[edit on 18-5-2007 by twistingtree]

Whoa, hold on there guy. I just said that I expected a photo labeled from the 1930's to look older. The people here have provided examples and details that prove my thought was wrong. Your picture from the Civil War is very clear and made me understand my assumption was wrong.

Now stating that we (I) don't believe/understand history because of the initial impression the photo had on us (me) makes zero sense to me. You're probably right that I do not undertand or necessarily believe all history. Actually I'd be surprised if one single person believes/understands all that encompasses "history" (whatever that means?).

I am hear on ATS to expand my horizons, so to speak, not talk down or make ignorant statements (i.e. "Any one who says it looks to clear is only saying that because they don’t either believe history or understand it."). One thing that I am beginning to "believe" is that people that go out of their way to make erroneous statements that generalize a topic or group of people are more part of the problem and not the solution. By the way thanks again for your "help" sir.

when looking at the first photograph with the text at the bottom, one thing didn't swing me the right way. when he was talkin about chasing the alien until that certain point and he "made" the picture. i haven't heard of anybody ever saying "hey lets make a pictuer." you say "lets take a picture" does this bother anybody else? something isn't right.

oh and also i might be ignorant on picture developing in the 30s... but since when does it take 3 months to develope a photo.. .even in the 30s... strange

[edit on 18-5-2007 by Jeffery2102]

I'm leaning towards hoax. Simple dodge/burn. Horrible image quality and as stated previously an image from 1930 doesn't have to equal bad quality.

Here I gave it a pal in 20 seconds with dodge/burn in PS. Should I spend 5 minutes I'd make it look better.


Here is what that looks like when you adjust the levels. See the how very much bright they both are although me lowering the black tone level, you'd think that if that was an object on location, the levels would be somewhat similar


Bah. That shadow is not what it seems like. Light isn't falling in that direction.
This is simplified and not correct (prolly more to the right), but more correct that what that shadow would imply. The sun is pretty high, evident by the shadows on the trees.


There are two stark dark spots in the image, I'm guessing one of them is supposed to come off as a shadow from a tree? It looks added in, but whatever it is it's not from a tree.


More notes:


Well it's either disturbed (sloppy dodge) or the dude has some form of halo. And gosh, to get an 'alien baby' from this mumble of pixels one really have to get creative, which someone surely did with some sort of filter (which doesn't add clarity but degrades and alters)


..my vote is not on an halo

The aliens shadow has a different angle than the trees, it is too dark seeing as the creature is nearer to the light source than some background trees.

And it looks unshapely imo.

neverthless interesting stuff.

The photo is a fake.

Here's the dead give away. The pixelization is too uniform. It's a standard photoshop filter that they use to make things grainy, or make it look old. There are photos of ABRAHAM LINCOLN taken in 1865 that are better quality than this photo. Take a look at Ansel Adam's work and you'll see phenomenal photography from that time.

To say that photos from the 1930's should look grainy and crappy, is pure idiocy. If anything, they're better than today's Digital photography in a lot of ways.

It's a fake, a fraud, a sham, nothing more.

Some things do not look right in that photo, most of them were already talked about.

One other thing is the size of the photo, it would be a big coincidence if someone scanned a photo and got a perfect 640 pixels wide image. It could have been cropped or resized after, but I think that is another suspicious thing about that photo, that and the uniformity of the light, something that could be done easily in the 30s with a professional camera but not with a "consumer level" portable camera, what makes cameras pricey is the lens, the rest is just a box.

Example of the non uniformity of the light on a photo taken with a not so good camera.




PS: any photography student knows that a camera is just a box, one thing that they all make is a box-camera with just a pin hole as the lens, and it takes good enough photos if the hole is perfectly round and the photo-paper used as film is perfectly parallel to the surface where the hole is.

This picture is simply stupid looking. Terrible quality cheesy story. The alien was wandering around in the woods? Hell we had technology back then to call someone and say "give me a ride". But and alien? Why would the alien just let you chase him around the woods lol. Then after all that chasing you get a fuzzy picture of a husky looking midget alien.

Nude grey aliens in Alaska.

I wonder, why is it that hoaxers never put a space suit on their alien hoaxes?

Originally posted by Orion437
Nude grey aliens in Alaska.

I wonder, why is it that hoaxers never put a space suit on their alien hoaxes?

Its obvious due to the evidence shown in this thread that the answer to your question is that this particular Alien has no genitalia to hide. Thus no spacesuit.

Seeing is definitely believing.

I've seen this before. I don't buy it. I'd like to believe it isn't a fake, but it just looks too ridiculous.

I've come across this one before, and I think it's a fake. In my opinion, I don't see how the photographer could take this picture unless the 'alien' stopped and posed for the photo. Which I guess is possible, but I really, really doubt it.

Cameras in the 1930s were not the nifty, fit-in-your-shirt-pocket, one button snap shot cameras we have today. They were big, required time to set up and focus etc.

EDIT: Spelling

[edit on 5/21/2007 by DCFusion]

Originally posted by DCFusion
Cameras in the 1930s were not the nifty, fit-in-your-shirt-pocket, one button snap shot cameras we have today. They were big, required time to set up and focus etc.

EDIT: Spelling

[edit on 5/21/2007 by DCFusion]

I'm afraid you are wrong about the size of cameras available in the 1930's.
A quick search on Google found these.

www.digicamhistory.com...

Originally posted by Jibbs
I'm afraid you are wrong about the size of cameras available in the 1930's.
A quick search on Google found these.
www.digicamhistory.com...

I stand corrected. Consumer friendly 35mm film came about earlier than I thought... Thanks for the link by the way. Some interesting info there...

[edit on 5/22/2007 by DCFusion]