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.

 

The “Original” Foo Fighter Photo – Is It “Real”?

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Heliocentric
 



If you think about it, the picture frame is centered between two aircraft. The photographer therefore did not intend to photograph any of them. The photo is centered at the two bright spots in between the aircraft. You can therefore deduce that the photographer intentionally photographed them, and reduces the possibility that this is just some type of reflection that appeared while photographing the aircraft.


or that it was cropped and enlarged - as we do not have any origional negative or solid provenance for it

so using the " composition " of the currently availiable copies as ` evidence ` is IMHO worthless


Evidence of what? The only thing I've suggested is that the photo is genuine, meaning that I don't think the two bright spots have been added. Yeah, the photo could have been cropped, or the photographer could have lost his balance and missed the shot while taking it, then again there's no reason to assume so.


Originally posted by ignorant_ape
edit to add :

also as the author of the link you use is utterly inept at even the basics of aircraft identification [ its not a lysander , and no one fit to be left unsupervised would make such a fundamental error ] that i refuse to read his further musings on alleged UFOs

[edit on 8-8-2010 by ignorant_ape]


If you refer to UFO Evidence.com, I don't think they've even tried to identify the aircraft. It's not like they have the manpower to verify every airplane or building that occurs in a UFO photo. Somewhere along the line, probably decades ago, someone probably just assumed that the picture was taken over Europe, since many of the observations of Foo Fighters came from there, and early on the Foo Fighters were branded as a 'secret German weapon' (even though the Germans saw them too and thought they were an Allied weapon). The same person tried an identification of the aircraft, and from the airplane types present in the area at the time came to the conclusion they were Lysanders. This error has since travelled from source to source. It can happen you know, it happens in the press all the time, it happens at Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc.

It doesn't make the entire world press, Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica "Utterly inept" at what they're doing, and I suppose you won't stop visiting ATS even though there's plenty of erroneous info and disinformation present here...




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Conan The Usurper

If ball lightning is so rarely reported, could it account for the seemingly many reports of Foo Fighters?


"One theory may have had confirmation in 1943, when Allied bombers over Germany started spotting strange lights that would approach and track them. No larger than a basketball, the lights sometimes appeared to interfere with the aircraft’s electrical system but were otherwise harmless. Some have tried to claim that these lights – nicknamed ‘foo fighters’ – were some form of Nazi secret weapon. However, the descriptions of foo fighters (the size of a basketball, shimmery gold colour) match ball lightning very closely.

The timing is also significant, as they seem to have started appearing when the Germans deployed radar, and it is quite likely that they were caused by the interaction between German systems, or the combination of the German radar and the airborne H2S radars carried by allied aircraft."

Also, for now i don't remember where i read it or in which book, but i recall an experienced pilot testimony about foo-fighters that had been moving thru his airplane, following it then very tightly near the fuselage tip, and as he was trying evading maneuver the "ball" would just stick to the aircraft, and it suddenly disappeared for no apparent reason.

This in imho, has nothing to do with intelligent out of space aircraft but to an unknown electromagnetic phenomenon or ball-lightning theory.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


hi mmn, nick cook's book "the hunt for zero point" goes into quite a lot of detail about the foo fighters, its been a long time since ive read it and i can't remember it extremely well now but i think he uncovered a few documents that showed the nazi,s were working on some things which may have accounted for some foo fighters but im unsure how truthful his book is and im not sure if the designs in question actually flew, if i remember correctly it was some kind of early u.a.v type tech.

thanks

rich



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conan The Usurper
"Ball lightning is the most curious of unexplained phenomena. Witnessed by as many as five per cent of the population, it was dismissed as an optical illusion for many years. Then, after repeated sightings by accredited scientists, it gradually won acceptance as a real, if mysterious, effect. It appears as a glowing sphere, ranging in size from a tennis ball to a football. It floats around slowly, and after a period of several seconds it disappears, either silently or with a bang and a shower of sparks. Generally yellow or blue, it can leave a strange smell of ozone. It is often associated with thunder storms or electrical apparatus."



Originally posted by Conan The Usurper
This in imho, has nothing to do with intelligent out of space aircraft but to an unknown electromagnetic phenomenon or ball-lightning theory.


I'm glad you brought it up CTU. This is something I thought was worth making a thread about (one day).

Ball lightning is kind of a pet explanation for orbs among debunkers.

Then again, if you look closer at the ball lightning phenomenon, you realize that it's extremely rare, mysterious to science, and there exists no scientific proof or even a valid theory to explain ball lightning as a natural phenomenon.

There exists only rare observations - which has forced science to accept it as a phenomenon - and some scant laboratory experiments where something remotely similar to ball lightning can be produced, during a few seconds.

So, you could just as well use orbs to debunk ball lightning as a 'natural' phenomenon, as you can use ball lightning to debunk orbs as a 'supernatural' phenomenon.

Foo Fighter, orb or ball lightning... or is it all the same? :








[edit on 8-8-2010 by Heliocentric]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Conan The Usurper
 


Conan The Usurper.....


The timing is also significant, as they seem to have started appearing when the Germans deployed radar, and it is quite likely that they were caused by the interaction between German systems, or the combination of the German radar and the airborne H2S radars carried by allied aircraft."


That radar comment is interesting, if not far fetched.

Where is that comment from?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


Heliocentric.....

I think that "Concord UFO" is a camera stabilisation effect, as per my thread:

The “Concord UFO” Video

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND
 


RICH-ENGLAND.....

G'day me ol' mate!

Is that where Conan The Usurper's "radar" comments come from?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Kandinsky.....

I have quoted you again because I think your commentary sums up our situation very well.....


The problems seem to arise because the chain of evidence is long ago broken. So we have the accounts of 'foo fighters' and 'the light' straight from the mouths of aircrew witnesses. There's little doubt that they saw something unusual. Then we have the photos and we're stalled...

Some of the photos had been dog-eared and passed around through families and UFO researchers for years. Their origins have been lost. The negatives long gone. The pilots unknown and, as we've seen, the aircraft misidentified.


It's a very difficult job to figure this stuff out.....perhaps we never will.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric

If you think about it, the picture frame is centered between two aircraft. The photographer therefore did not intend to photograph any of them. The photo is centered at the two bright spots in between the aircraft. You can therefore deduce that the photographer intentionally photographed them, and reduces the possibility that this is just some type of reflection that appeared while photographing the aircraft.



You're making the assumption you are seeing the complete photograph.

You could be seeing a cropped picture, one where the uncropped version shows the "foo fighters" not to be the centre of focus.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Heliocentric.....

I think that "Concord UFO" is a camera stabilisation effect, as per my thread:

The “Concord UFO” Video

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


Hello again MMN

The camera stabilisation effect theory fails to impress me, so far.

I see no whatsoever convincing argument or demonstration for this theory in your thread, only a input by Internos where he presents the theory, but admits he has nothing to back it up with, only that this was the 'given explanation' by the people that made the Concorde documentary (from which the clip was taken). Then again it's first glance, I haven't had the time to go through all the videos in the thread.

I don't want to side-track this thread by delving into the Concorde UFO topic, but I believe this video has not been debunked, and the case is far from closed.


Originally posted by Motorhead

You're making the assumption you are seeing the complete photograph.

You could be seeing a cropped picture, one where the uncropped version shows the "foo fighters" not to be the centre of focus.


And had you checked the prior posts, you would have known that this has already been dealt with.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


Heliocentric.....

Thanks for your comments regarding the Concord UFO.


I would love to think it's not "case closed" on that one.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Conan The Usurper
 
Hiya Conan. The theory you presented ( from Fortean Times) makes a remark that they were possibly caused by interaction between German and Allied radars. He doesn't say how or why.



This in imho, has nothing to do with intelligent out of space aircraft but to an unknown electromagnetic phenomenon or ball-lightning theory.


Possibly, possibly. At the same time, it fails to accommodate various descriptions that the phenomena looked like copper or silver spheres. They were engaged and shot at without apparent success and have been described tracking and out manoeuvring aircraft. I'm not arguing that these things were necessarily alien in origin...just pointing out that 'unknown EM phenomena' doesn't begin to explain all these sightings.

New York Times '44


What's more, the majority of pilot sighting reports of UAP/UFO describe the same things today...

copyright@NARCAP



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Don't forget that if we're talking interaction between Allied airplanes and German radars, or allied radars with German radars, how do we explain the phenomenon in other parts of the world, such as with these now proven Japanese airplanes?

A description of an encounter with Foo Fighters:

www.unmuseum.org...

The balls suddenly leveled off and started following the plane. The pilot decided to try and lose them with evasive maneuvers. He put his plane into a steep dive. The objects immediately followed. Next he tried a sharply banked turn. The objects stayed with him. For several more minutes the pilot used his best tricks to lose his pursuers and failed. When he was about to give up suddenly the objects were gone, disappearing suddenly into the night. During he whole incident not a shot was fired.

So called 'ball lightning is only supposed to be able to exists during a few seconds max, according to science, not several minutes. And can they stalk planes?

So in theory, Foo Fighters as a phenomenon rule out radar hick-ups, or ball lightning.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND
 


RICH-ENGLAND.....

G'day me ol' mate!

Is that where Conan The Usurper's "radar" comments come from?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


hi mmn, yes it could well be, but like i said, it was a while ago that i read that book so im not certain, very interesting book though in my opinion and so are his documentaries although some things have been debunked he doesn't come across that he is trying to sell anything as fact and is quite objective about everything.

thanks

rich



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The objects in the original picture (OP) could be anything...flares, shellbursts, foo-fighters. Like others have pointed out, they could also be artifacts of processing or damaged film.
I agree, could be anything, however they look more like lights and not solid objects. If the lights are real and not from a hoax or bad processing, shellbursts is a possibility. In fact, lights in any of the wartime photos could be shellbursts.

And a photo without background information like witness testimony is nearly useless in an investigation.

But lights can come from other sources too, and appear to follow a plane. Here's a photo of some lights in the sky but I'm pretty sure there's no solid object there, even the photographer said it could be a reflection of some sort which is what it looks like to me:

1952 coast guard UFOs

The story linked to the OP photo talks about a plane flying right through some of these "discs" with no damage, and there's some doubt if that story is even true (the author suspects it's not) but if it were true it would seem to be further evidence that there was nothing solid really there.

I suspect some people really did see a variety of things they called "foo fighters" but when I tried to research them I found there almost no known photos of them, so it's hard to say what they really were. Personally I think there's evidence that even Kenneth Arnold's sighting was some kind of reflection, and the fact that other pilots could also see reflections they didn't understand is not surprising to me. With no good photos and nothing to really go on, I don't think we'll ever solve the mystery of what the foo fighters really were, but I don't think we can rule out some kinds of reflections for at least some portion of the "foo fighter" sightings, though perhaps not all of them.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur I don't think we can rule out some kinds of reflections for at least some portion of the "foo fighter" sightings, though perhaps not all of them.


As you said.

The Foo Fighter phenomenon was born mainly from eye witness observations by experienced war-time pilots and gunners who saw them with their own eyes outside the aircraft, and they (often) behaved in a guided manner (stalking the planes), which is why it was thought to be a new German weapon, not optical illusions.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
I tend to agree about the '52 coastguard image. Immediate impressions are it's taken through a diner window and the UFOs are simply overhead lights reflected in glass. The depth doesn't appear right and neither does the absence of reflection on the cars or shadow effects.

It's possible the lack of photos is a comment on the social and technological aspects of the early 40s. Portable cameras (Super 6 for example) were bulky and expensive, film could be difficult to come by, processing errors and wartime conditions could make it more trouble than they were worth? That may account for the lack of images from cockpits.

It's worth noting how few images were taken by the pilots of the Battle of Britain. There are some out there, but the best are clearly by commissioned War photographers. Cameras, prices, bulk, war and time may sum it up.

As for Arnold's sighting? We'll never know. One point about his sighting that stands out is it's singular nature. In all the decades before and since, how many reports describe that shape of craft? What can we deduce from that point? Not much! Menzel's great explanation was Arnold was looking at water drops on his windscreen...sigh.

There's a fairly old article you'd enjoy (Dr Dave Clarke)...The Foo Fighters - The RAF Experience. I much more enjoy reading about European encounters, particularly RAF, as they're less connected to the USAF or AFOSI meddling.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric
The Foo Fighter phenomenon was born mainly from eye witness observations by experienced war-time pilots and gunners who saw them with their own eyes outside the aircraft, and they (often) behaved in a guided manner (stalking the planes), which is why it was thought to be a new German weapon, not optical illusions.
That is exactly my point. For some reason people seem to think that optical illusions don't stalk or follow a plane, but in fact they can and do. So I think therein lies part of the reason people thought these things couldn't possibly be illusions or reflections because they didn't understand that those things can follow the plane.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
There's a fairly old article you'd enjoy (Dr Dave Clarke)...The Foo Fighters - The RAF Experience. I much more enjoy reading about European encounters, particularly RAF, as they're less connected to the USAF or AFOSI meddling.
Thanks, I read the first page so far and I'm looking forward to reading the rest later. That article mentioned something on the first page which reminded me of what I was saying about wondering if what they saw were lights rather than structured craft, so this part was interesting:


Squadron Leader P. Wells wrote in his flight log of a, ‘Screaming dog-fight with the “light”’. In a 1987 interview we asked Wells if he was aware the American’s were seeing similar phenomena and if he knew of the term ‘foo-fighter’. He replied, ‘...foo-fighters is a new name to me, we always called them “The Light” in the squadrons in which I served in 1943-44’.


Some lights can come from structured craft of course, but that's not always the case, which is why I like the NARCAP designation of UAP as more fitting of a broader array pf phenomena than "UFO" which implies there's an object when in fact there may not be an object. The UAP may or may not involve an object.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
Have a look at Extraeme's thread...here. There's a question about reflections that's challenged by the old windscreens. The description sounds similar to a WWII barrage balloon, but it's 1930 peacetime! I think you'll enjoy his description as I was reminded of your JAL thread whilst reading it




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join