The Hannah McRoberts UFO photograph - Canada, 1981.

Interesting UFO photograph taken by Hannah McRoberts over Kelsey bay, Vancouver Island on October 8th, 1981:

Photograph:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07ef4b59da11.jpg[/atsimg]

The Hannah McRoberts photograph.

On October 8, 1981 at about 11:00 A.M., Hannah Mc Roberts is with her husband and their daughter on a service area close to Kelsey Bay, on the East coast of the Vancouver Island. During their pause they notice a cloud which passes on the top of a mountainous peak and makes the impression of an erupting volcano in eruption spitting a huge vaporblast. They find the scene rather amusing and worth a picture.

Several days afterwards, when the photographs were developed, they noticed on one of the photographs a discoidal object in the sky. They were surprised as they do not remember noticing anything in the sky at the time when they shot the photograph.

They contacted David Dodge, director of the of Vancouver planetarium. He examined the picture and remains disturbed by this singular photograph. He contacts Ufologist, David Powell, who analyzes the pictures and cannot find any evidence of tampering.

Richard F. Haines, a retired NASA scientist who became a famous Ufologist, gets interested in the Vancouver case. He carries out a thorough analysis of the negative and cannot discover any tampering either. His analysis is inserted in the scientific report of the Sturrock Panel.


REFERENCES:

Science et Vie #976, January 1999.
Jacques Dumont, "Ovnis, un demi-siècle de recherches", Rebis editor, 2001
Analysis by Richard F. Haines on the web site of the Journal of Scientific Exploration

Link

Links:

Scientific Analysis of Image (pdf)

Scientific report from Sturrock Panel 1997 (pdf)


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Starred and flagged from me.
Thats a pretty clear shot.
If its real its a good one.
I don't have much to add so all I can do is s&f you.

reply to post by DrumsRfun


I can say one thing for sure - it wasn't photoshopped! However, I do think it looks like a chrome hubcap thrown into the air.

These are people who like to take pics of clouds that make a mountain look like it is erupting like a volcano? ie. they enjoyed optical effects.

Anyone do any research into the car they drive?

If I remember correctly, I think its been said to be a hubcap somewhere else as well. I'll try to find it.

quote]Originally posted by karl 12
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07ef4b59da11.jpg[/atsimg]

October 8, 1981, 11:00 AM - Kelsey Bay, Vancouver Island, (British Columbia) Canada:

The Hannah McRoberts photograph, Canada, 1981

Interesting and pretty good photograph karl 12, , I never saw it before, so thanks for posting it.
Here I found one with a higher resolution, which I asume you already had seen but maybe interesting for others.

Photo 2: Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, October 8,1981
Analysis by Richard F. Haines (PDF file)
150 dpi resolution photo - 300 dpi resolution photo
Copyright: Hannah McRoberts
McRoberts/Fortean Picture Library.

www.disclosureproject.org...

And this one of a triangular possible “Extraterrestrial Spacecraft” from Belgium.

Photo 1: Computer Enhancement of photo of 800' diameter
triangular Extraterrestrial Spacecraft - Belgium - 1989-1991
150 dpi resolution photo - 300 dpi resolution photo
Source: SOBEPS, Ave Paul Janson 74, 1070 Bruxelles, Belgium.

www.disclosureproject.org...


[edit on 30/9/09 by spacevisitor]

why does the zoomed in ufo look different to the zoomed out one? or is that an optical illusion?

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
why does the zoomed in ufo look different to the zoomed out one? or is that an optical illusion?

You are right TiM3LoRd, I had the same thought, but I can't explain it.

In the original photo it appears you are looking at the bottom of the craft. In the zoomed pic it looks like the top....whats the deal?

This is an interesting site (the OP link) that says the following:

Nevertheless, he says that he finds nothing dubious or suspicious about the picture, though he does warn us that, if the picture is indeed genuine, then the disc must have been of enormous size - several hundreds of feet wide - to have shown up so large at such a distance!

The picture was ruled possibly genuine based on the good reputation of the photographer!

Generally I feel that the best test of authenticity is in the good reputation of the photographer, insofar as it is impossible to prove a negative - in this case that there is no possibility of a fraud.

www.ufoevidence.org...



[edit on 30/9/2009 by deltaalphanovember]

Originally posted by Remixtup
In the original photo it appears you are looking at the bottom of the craft. In the zoomed pic it looks like the top....whats the deal?

It's no deal, it’s just a logic observation.

I am not a sceptic - I believe because I have seen with my own eyes. However this pic just seems odd to me.

Also, why do a lot of UFO pics show UFO's that simply cannot seem to maintain a perfectly horizontal hover or flight?

They always seem to be listing over at some weird and uncomfortable angle. Doesn't make sense to me.

Where is the image in the OP from?
The zoomed in version isn't even from the same image as the UFO in the photograph.

Why would someone fake the zoomed in image in such an obvious way?

reply to post by deltaalphanovember



The uncomfortable angle is maybe because it could be an object thrown up in the air like a frisbee while a 2nd person takes a pic and not an actual ufo.

reply to post by qwiksilva


That's always been my theory as well ... not sure why people don't point it out more often.

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
This is an interesting site (the OP link) that says the following:

Nevertheless, he says that he finds nothing dubious or suspicious about the picture, though he does warn us that, if the picture is indeed genuine, then the disc must have been of enormous size - several hundreds of feet wide - to have shown up so large at such a distance!

That is a rather dubious judgment. Though the object appears to somewhere above the mountain, this could just be a matter of perspective. There is nothing in the photo to tell us the distance from the photographer to the object or from the object to the mountain. We don't know whether it is in front of or behind the mountain. Based on that it would seem impossible to judge its size.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by DoomsdayRex]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Though the object appears to somewhere above the mountain, this could just be a matter of perspective. There is nothing in the photo to tell us the distance from the photographer to the object or from the object to the mountain. We don't know whether it is in front of or behind the mountain. Based on that it would seem impossible to judge its size.

Thanks for the replies -NASA scientist Richard Haines makes some interesting comments at the link below about hyperfocal distance, density calibration and linear/angular image measurements:

Link (pdf)

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by spacevisitor


yeah i would have thought more people would have picked up on this fact. hmm oh well.

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
why does the zoomed in ufo look different to the zoomed out one? or is that an optical illusion?

Hi TiM3LoRd -found this explanation on another site which attempts to address your question:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fe74011caf91.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/543086006119.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/add5c315c1b9.jpg[/atsimg]

They are the same pictures. Pick out the upper bright reflection and the lower less bright reflection. Now imagine the two darker areas as shaded like the enlargment.

The larger pix looks like it does because it is pixelated. The original would have better definition.

The darker areas lose all shading towards the light and become all dark.
This is a result of the compression scheme converting it from a higher resolution to a lower one.

If you scan an image at around 300 dpi it will print about the same size and look like the original. If you want to blow it up and get more detail then a higher resolution is required.

Theres also some interesting reading below about the verdict on the photograph from another scientist, Dr James Harder:

In view of the obviously very great interest which this photo will evoke, I take the liberty of quoting in full Dr. Harder's opinion as given in APRO Bulletin Vol. 30, No. 12 -

"Generally I feel that the best test of authenticity is in the good reputation of the photographer, insofar as it is impossible to prove a negative - in this case that there is no possibility of a fraud. However, some of the indicators of an authentic photograph can help establish likelihood of an authentic photo. These are -


1. That the negative involved is one of a sequence of outdoor pictures and that the frame in question is not an isolated one. One way of producing a hoax is to re-photograph a positive print onto which has pasted an addition. To do a good job of hoaxing then one would have to re-photograph an entire roll of negative film.


2. That there are no inconsistencies in the lighting of the strange object and the rest of he scene. In the subject photo, I note that the shadows in the lower left of the scene indicate a Sun position nearly behind the camera. There is a reflection on the forward face of the UFO that is consistent with this Sun position. There also seems to be a bright spot under the UFO not connected with external lighting - maybe a light on the UFO.


3. With the right equipment, it is possible to make certain measurements of negative density of the UFO image and of other images of objects at estimated distances from the lens. Here the object is to show that the unknown is not nearby - and thus not a hubcap or other such object thrown into the air. The idea is to measure, from the image of the object at a known distance, the atmospheric 'extinction coefficient'. On a clear day, with a low value, contrasts between dark shadowed areas and brightly lit areas retain their distinction over greater distances. On hazy days, the light and dark areas blend towards a mid-range shade, giving the appearance that distant mountains have of being one shade of grey. Nearby shadows can show their true darkness, as opposed to the lighter shade of distant shadows. But in this picture there are no nearby shadows to serve as a standard, only shadows of trees in the lower left bottom.


Conclusion:

"All this considered, the photo presented here appears to be an excellent and probably genuine photo of a classical disc photographed in daylight. Although unlikely, if further information and clarification is available, it will be presented in a future issue of the Bulletin

Link

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Well on initial inspection it seems the inset and the picture saucers are at different angles with respect to the photographer.

After reading a couple posts above mine though I can see how I would be confused.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Loki]

Although it does look suspiciously like a UTO (Unidentified Tossed Object) the angular distance from the bottom of the frame, taken with the angular distance to the top of the mountain, suggests that it was tossed extremely high... difficult if it were a hubcap. Not exactly a smoking gun, but if it is a hoax it is a very good one.