Alien captured on film in 1930's Alaska

It's an interesting photo. This is all I have on that case to date:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'll do some digging if I have time tonight

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
It's an interesting photo. This is all I have on that case to date:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'll do some digging if I have time tonight

-WFA

Hey, thanks for that W! Good luck on the digging. I looked for quite a bit and didn't really find anything. I was hoping to find an upload of the original. Nowhere to be found......yet. The inversion on the link you provided does give the image a little more cred and shows some areas in detail that are not otherwise seen in the original one. Nice work.

Cheers,

Erik

reply to post by redwoodjedi


I did a contrast analysis, to see if any further detail could be gleaned from the image...




Not sure if it helped much...

-WFA

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


Sure it helped and here is how. It shows that the object in question appears to have been photographed in those woods instead of placed there surreptitiously after the fact via digital augmentation. Now, in my mind the impossible has to be confirmed. Was the object photographed actually an organic fleshie or a doll/statue of some sort. Hell that thing may only be 2 feet tall for all we know. It looks smallish but that may be because the objects around it are overtly large. No true scale for size and no way to question the witness. Frustrating!

Thanks again for your efforts. Nice job.

Cheers,

Erik

Originally posted by AngelHeart
Didn't know the Michelin Man was that old.

Was it the Michelin man or the Pillsberry douge boy?

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
No true scale for size and no way to question the witness. Frustrating!

Frustrating indeed...

Here is a link to how to find the height of a tree, with a known height marked (which we don't have...)

www.geocities.com...

Sure would be nice if we could determine the height of the knobs on the tree in the left of the image...

Or perhaps the diameter of the road in the image...

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
No true scale for size and no way to question the witness. Frustrating!

Frustrating indeed...

Here is a link to how to find the height of a tree, with a known height marked (which we don't have...)

www.geocities.com...

Sure would be nice if we could determine the height of the knobs on the tree in the left of the image...

Or perhaps the diameter of the road in the image...

-WFA

The other thing that kinda bothers me with this photo is that it is black and white. I may be showing my ignorance here of photo tech history but a photo from the 30's would be more of a Sepia Print or Tone would it not? Has something to do with the emulsion process I believe. I have a lot of older photos of my family from this era and they appear as sepia or light umber in color. Not shades of grey. Am I incorrect in this stance?

Cheers,

Erik

Not really, most Images from the 1930's are normal black and white. Also very good quality.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by VitalOverdose]

I thought a little background about cameras might be relevant to this thread:

[Well, the camera was invented in 1827. It hit the production lines in 1839.
"In 1839, ...sold the rights for the daguerreotype (prototype Camera) to the French government and published a booklet describing the process."
inventors.about.com...

Therefore there can be no photographic evidence of EBEs before this date...]

-WFA - www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by AngelHeart


I shouldn't be answering an off-topic post (that's the best way of having my post removed ), but the "Michelin Man" (its "real" name is "Bibendum") is older than that, it was created in the end of 19th century.

I suppose you didn't thought that you could learn something with your post.

Originally posted by ArMaP
I shouldn't be answering an off-topic post (that's the best way of having my post removed

), but the "Michelin Man" (its "real" name is "Bibendum") is older than that, it was created in the end of 19th century.

Well it's only been recently the Michelin man has lost enough weight to look like that photo:

bibendum-in-museums.michelin.com...

In the ‘80s, the Michelin Man was again widely used in adverts.For his centenary in 1998 a new, slimmer and more dynamic look was created for him.

But as that site shows, back in the 1930s, Bibendum was way fatter so he definitely can't be the creature photographed!

reply to post by ArMaP


I thought I would inject some humor in an attempt to show the the OP that this is going to be a never ending discussion about one photograph that clearly spells HOAX. Without any further evidence besides a diminutive State Puff Marshmallow man in the woods, there is no way a conclusion can to be reached in this thread.

This is the highest res version i can find.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2fe660ef49f8.png[/atsimg]

Data revealed in the images header confirm.
1 - The image is 8bit (256 colors) so this is a low res scan.
2 - The image has not be edited in its PNG format.

The image width of 640 is a typical max size for web display so the chances are it is a resized version of the original.

The only pics i can find that have pixilation like that from the 1930's are images printed in newspapers.

What we need to know is how and when the text was added to the image. Also it should be possible for the person claiming its real to produce a high res scan for proper analysis.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by VitalOverdose]

reply to post by VitalOverdose


Hey! Great job, V.O.! I trust your word as I poked about a bit on what you do and produce graphically with your vast knowledge on various and sundry programs and even to the point of making some graphics software yourself. Nicely done. Also nice artwork by the way.

I think between you and WFA, we've about milked this thing as far as it can go until an original rears it's head. Fat chance of that, I think. But one never knows. I will see if I can get a hold of this guy and maybe we can put this one to bed once and for all.

Cheers,

Erik

I don't scan to often.....
But doesn't scanning the pic into digital format give it pix?
I just noticced that it was in the OP that he scanned it, ???

Long story short I second RWJ

Originally posted by Doc Holiday
I don't scan to often.....
But doesn't scanning the pic into digital format give it pix?
I just noticced that it was in the OP that he scanned it, ???

Long story short I second RWJ

Hey, Doc!

Yeah, I don't think we can go any further with this without the original. Negatives would be even better, but I doubt Gramps kept those.

What I do think is that there is an object there in the woods. I am skeptical however, of the authenticity of what the object is purported to be. Plus, you really don't find any descriptors matching greys until about the Betty and Barney Hill case. If so, not much earlier. So if this is authentic, then we have something that not only obviously extends those descriptors further back in history, but would indeed give a little more cred to the Hill case itself as well as a few others of that era.

I don't count the Roswell Incident entity descriptors as those did not come out until well into the 80's and that info is still highly suspect considering the source (Richard Doty).

Cheers,

Erik

reply to post by Doc Holiday

For the scan to look like this it would have been an extremely bad scanning job, I have been using low and high end scanners for some 15 years and they never give such a result.

Also, the photo has only 230 shades of grey, showing that it doesn't have the whole 256 possible, and, once more, making me doubt that this image was only scanned and posted in digital format.

As the image is too small it's really possible to say if for sure, but scanning photos will leave common scanner problems, like small dust particles and fibres that appear on the scanned image (and are the source of many "anomalies" in NASA photos), so a photo scanned at home should show that too.

The format is also suspicious, that's not a common camera format, and if the guy scanned the photo he should have posted it in a way to show that it was really a photo, showing its margins.

reply to post by ArMaP

The format is also suspicious, that's not a common camera format, and if the guy scanned the photo he should have posted it in a way to show that it was really a photo, showing its margins.

I wouldn't really expect the image to be in a common camera format if it was scanned. The PNG format produces the smallest image (in bytes) without compression ( compression causes loss of quality ) . JPG loses quality every time it is saved so is a very bad format for displaying 'evidence' type pics. If i had a picture of something strange i would be displaying it in PNG format on the web.

But i agree that the PNG isnt a common format and might indicate that the person who produced the image has a better than average understanding of GFX processing.

A negative of the image shows that whatever was there was made from some kind of reflected material.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df8b419d37cd.png[/atsimg]


[edit on 29-9-2009 by VitalOverdose]

Interesting Picture. My only question relates to the camera technology of the era. The camera style of the masses throughout the 20's and 30's was the box camera. More particularly the Kodak Brownie or the Kodak Hawk Eye. There were folding versions but those were bulky as well.

Neither camera is very portable for a fisherman in Alaska and the older Hawk Eyes from the early twenties used film packs rather than roll film. These cameras don't like to get dirty.

Who knows? Just a thought.

reply to post by VitalOverdose

Just to make it clear(er), I was talking about the physical format of the photo, not the file format.

While computers have been using the 4x3 format for their screens and because of that for the images, photos usually have a different format, closer to a square.