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.

 

Alien captured on film in 1930's Alaska

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I found another purportedly rare and old encounter story taking place in Alaska in the 1930's as the thread title implies. However, although the claimant says the photos were given to him a week before his grandfather (photographer of images) died, These photos have a case posting date 14AUG2003. I question the authenticity of the entity captured in the pics. I could be wrong. Without further adieu, here you go:



UFO CASE REPORT

Alien captured on film in 1930's Alaska

Date
, 1930 Location
Alaska, United States




Summary: 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.






Type of Case/Report: RawReport
Hynek Classification:
Number of Witnesses: Single
Special Features/Characteristics: Alien Photograph, Humanoid/Occupant


Full Report / Article

Source: UFOCasebook.com (B.J. Booth, editor)
Original Source

Letter from 'witness' to UFOCasebook.com:

Subj: Photograph taken by my grandfather
Date: 8/14/2003

Dear Sir,

The included picture was taken by my grandfather in the early 1930s. I scanned the image immediately after he gave it to me last week. I wish to remain anonymous since I don't want anything to do with any research or whatever on this.

I know it looks like an alien or a Bigfoot and I know my grandfather was telling me the truth about him taking this picture. That's why I think it should be in the right hands. You are the only one I'm sending this to, so please respect my privacy and don't contact me about this.

Thanks in advance,

Yours,

(Name withheld)

---------------------------------------------------------------

From UFOCasebook.com editor B. J. Booth:

The only additional information is contained on the bottom of the full size image, which tells us the following:

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.


Case ID: 1109


Source


A little sketchy to me. Have fun ripping it apart!


Cheers,

Erik




posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Here is a source link to bigger photos of the entity.

Source

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Didn't know the Michelin Man was that old.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
that looks faked..the alien doesnt even get shade from the trees...



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by platipus
that looks faked..the alien doesnt even get shade from the trees...


It is a bit fishy to me as well. Being generally unknown, however, getting more info on it from someone on this site that might have it could be difficult.

I'm looking for an educated and objective analysis. If it's faked, how? PhotoShop?

I dunno. I'm not the expert. I learn from what others in the know tell me, that way I can pass on either valid info or tell them it is crap.

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Well, "Grandfather" dying next day after he got that photo.... How sad,and how convenient. I think that he should give the original, not scan. If he is afraid - he should hire lawyers. Then sell it to Sun or other yellow media and get a load of money. Nope. Scan... 3 months developing.... No way to back up the story....
I have one simple question - if you were an astronaut on some foreign planet with orders to be as descrete as possible , would you let some huge hairy local with claws ,holding some kind of unknown primitive apparatus, chase you?



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 





I know it looks like an alien or a Bigfoot...


Yeah, because aliens and Bigfoot looks SOOOOO much alike!!!




posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
God.I seen this photo years ago and of course its a fake.It was never taken in the 1930's.Some people



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I dont know.. I haven't really had any time to really look and/or analyze the photo, but my first impression is that the 'entity' doesn't quite match with the surrounding area gamma wise. Also if the ambient light was strong enough to cast a shadow on the 'entity', why is not doing likewise on the trees that are exposed nearest the open area (by the road). and I believe I've seen and or read about this particular scenario awhile back but it had a different story associated with it.. but here are my basic thoughts on this 'current rendition..

We do see what appears to maybe be a shadow or two on two trees, but even then, the shadows direction doesn't quite match the direction of the 'entity'.

The photo to me seems to be purposely pixelated so as to 'possibly' hide and misconstrue the view (which may have shown detail of a cut and paste job).

The above is of course nothing more than conjecture and supposition on my part, but one would think that if indeed one had a daylight photo (shot with a film camera from the 30's) that there would be more detail. It's also a format that would require the object to be scanned into digital form and for there to be so many pixelazation and artifacts, it leads me to believe that this was intentional.

If you had a photograph of a possible alien.. would you not want it to be as sharp and clean as possible?

Edit to fix typos


[edit on 9/26/2009 by JohnnyAnonymous]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Im skeptical about this one

The main reason being the shadow of the EBE doesnt match up with the shadow of the trees. Also, im sure Ive seen the image of the alien in another picture....the exact same image....I just cant remember where


Another thing, the alien is a little clearer than the surrounding area. Its appears as though the image has been hazed up a bit...then the entity added later

[edit on 26/9/2009 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Whatever, the little guy/girl is a ringer for the Turkish UFO video crew, or at least the head is.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
There is no reason for the source image to be that grainy. Ive just googled for images from the 1930's and i cant find any that look as bad as that.

I did a couple of tests and found the 'space man' contains 3 light pixels (reflections) that are not found anywhere else in the pic except the sky. This could mean the object was really there (whatever it was).



[edit on 26-9-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyAnonymous
The photo to me seems to be purposely pixelated so as to 'possibly' hide and misconstrue the view (which may have shown detail of a cut and paste job).


I agree the pixellation is too extreme to make a good analysis. I'm sure the photo has better resolution than this. A proper scan of the photo would reveal a lot more grain structure than we see in these pixellated images.

So, unless we can get better quality scan of the photo, it's probably not worth the effort to make conjectures from this pixellated version. (both sources posted seem to be equally pixellated)



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Who really knows - except the dead grandfather.

Could it be an Alien, yes of course it could be or perhaps just a half melted snowman, but we'll never know because the scan of the picture is of such low resolution and the original picture is just a poor quality photo.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I cleaned the image up a bit



I would be more inclined the think this is a modern fake. The object looks like it might have been there to me. IMO the bad pixelation is probably an amateur attempt to make the image look older than it is.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by platipus
that looks faked..the alien doesnt even get shade from the trees...


Heh ive always liked this photo, sure its a little odd, but given its timeframe (if it really is from the 30's) its compelling.

As to the shade comment... umm where in the photo is any trees shadow crossing the being (the beings shadow is going in teh same direction as all the other shadows in the picture) ?... and your expecting tree shade from a area of trees that is THAT sparse?

When trying to debunk at least use some visual common sense please.

Also like to note that the slight off angle of the beings shadow compared to the trees shadows behind it would be due to the fact its standing to my eyes on a slightly sloped patch of ground, with the sloping going down to the right and up to the left of it, that would distort the beings shadow slightly.

I also wouldnt bash the pixeled appearance to much since we have no idea about what form the source was from. It could have been a poorly compressed image file (256 grey gif say) emailed to the people or the images on the site and the blow up s where done without any sort of resampling done when resizing. or the original poster did a poor greyscale scan of the physical photo that was sent to them.

As to the gama difference between subject and background... could be anything, reflective material say. Comparing the subject to the area and ground around it and road id say its brightness isnt really an issue.

Not saying its geniune, just saying its an interesting unknown, also of note im sure ive seen this photo far earlier than 2003. Heck im sure ive seen it before I moved house 8 years ago at the latest 2001.

[edit on 26-9-2009 by BigfootNZ]



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Looks like gumby to me

but fair play to the op

it gets s&f good luck suckers



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by gemineye
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 





I know it looks like an alien or a Bigfoot...


Yeah, because aliens and Bigfoot looks SOOOOO much alike!!!



Actually I think that looks more like a Littlefoot but it also looks like an inflatable alien doll.
What a poser.

I figure little aliens wouldn't be so chunky travelling through space. Traveling at light speed one second and SLAMMING on the brakes the next, this overweight alien probably got projected through the windows of his own ship.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 


Thread misnamed and miscategorized. There is nothing in the photo nor in the report alluding that this is an alien or that it came from a UFO or that a UFO was sighted. It is an interesting photo of an unknow figure. A bigger photo is necessary and that bigger photo should be embossed to give the figure some texture.



posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
reply to post by redwoodjedi
 


Thread misnamed and miscategorized. There is nothing in the photo nor in the report alluding that this is an alien or that it came from a UFO or that a UFO was sighted. It is an interesting photo of an unknow figure. A bigger photo is necessary and that bigger photo should be embossed to give the figure some texture.


Nope! Neither. Found it. Copied it. Pasted it. Tada! Just like everybody else. Next!

Now I know why it bothers me. I think the object is really there. However I also think the object is not a "fleshie" or organic. A doll or statue of some sort perhaps. But Grampa says he was chasing this thing. Chasing? Does that little sucker look like he was sprinting to you? Me neither. Manufactured. Placed and posed. *click* Controversy. It's the hoaxer's way. That's my best guess and I am sticking to it.

Thanks for the lesson in photo discern Y'all. Johnny Anonymous' spec is the one I'm leaning towards as well as a little of Vital's. Well done.


Cheers,

Erik



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join