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.

 

Is there nowadays any genuine UFO photo that meet Hynek's criteria? Questions....

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
We're actually flooded with hundreds, if not thousands, of anonymous UFO photos/videos submissions that are either fakes or mis-identifications or that remains inconclusive, that's a fact; and we spend, here and elsewhere, a lot of our precious time trying to separate the wheat from the chaff....

I recall what Astronomer Dr.Hynek (for 20 years the scientific consultant to USAF's official UFO study project "Blue Book") gave about UFO photographs criteria, suggesting that a purported photograph of a UFO (particularly a Daylight Disc, because they are quite simple to fake) should not be taken seriously unless the following conditions are satisfied:

1- there are reputable witnesses to the actual taking of the picture, and those witnesses also sighted the object visually at the same time;
2- the original negative(s) is available for study, since no adequate analysis can be made from prints alone;
3- the camera is available for study;
4- the owner of the photograph is willing to testify under oath that the photograph is, to the best of his knowledge, genuine, that is, that the photograph shows what it purports to - a UFO. (The last condition need not apply if the photograph in question is accompanied by several independently taken photographs, preferably from significantly different locations).


Source: J.Allen Hynek: The UFO Experience - A Scientific Inquiry (1972)



In the 50's/60's, there were some that met these criteria (I'm thinking for example about the Trent (McMinnville - Oregon) case. But as of today....

Where are these photographs?
Is there only one photo from the past decade that meet these criteria and that is not known to be either a fake, mis-identification or that remains inconclusive so far?
Are Hynek's criteria still available nowadays? And if so, is there anything else to add to the list?
edit on 19-5-2011 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2011 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Maybe there is only 1 because hardly anyone uses film cameras any more and are thus creating negatives when taking photos.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
What "one photo" is being referenced?

And I think since "film cameras" are pretty much dead to the mainstream, these "rules" need to be revamped for the current technological age...



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
The problem with that criteria is that nowadays digital cameras are used, so you can't study the negative, and also, it's so easy to be faked.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Hynek's criteria still holds up in my opinion. Just change the original negative to `the original photo data still on camera memory card `



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I started THIS thread on the McMinnville UFO photographs a while ago , and due to some excellent contributions and investigation from some posters on the thread , I now think it's almost certain the pictures were a Hoax .

As for more recent credible pictures , I haven't seen any amateur pics that have struck me as genuine ,maybe the military have some , but if they exist we don't know about them as they would be under the veil of secrecy , in a secure location .



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
to answer everyone taliking about " origional negative " / " origional digital data "

both concepts are irrelevant

the techonoly to make a fake negative has existed since the advent of photography

and digital data is even easier to fake - only products like canons forensic data kit offere any certainty that the file is un edited



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


can you give me a link to that "1".?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by asdeff3
 

That was a question:




Is there only one photo from the past decade that meet these criteria and that is not known to be either a fake, mis-identification or that remains inconclusive so far?


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


Originally posted by gortex
I started THIS thread on the McMinnville UFO photographs a while ago , and due to some excellent contributions and investigation from some posters on the thread , I now think it's almost certain the pictures were a Hoax .

As for more recent credible pictures , I haven't seen any amateur pics that have struck me as genuine ,maybe the military have some , but if they exist we don't know about them as they would be under the veil of secrecy , in a secure location .

Thanks for the link, gortex, very interesting and great work from everyone!
So the general consensus was that it was just a suspended model under the wires?
Was it ever confirmed by any further study?

Searching for thread here in ATS, I found the amazing research work from Isaackoi, back in 2007, that listed the "top 10 UFO photos" (and films) as below:

1- McMinnville photographs (11 May 1950)
2- Gulf Breeze encounter (11 November 1987 and onwards)
3- Trindade Island photographs (16 January 1958)
4- Tremonton, Utah film (2 July 1952)
5- Great Falls, Montana film (August 1950)
6- Rex Heflin photographs (3 August 1965)
7- Salem, Massachusetts photograph (12 August 1883)
8- Jose A y Bonilla photographs (12 August 1883)
9- Ummo photographs (1 June 1967 and other dates)
10- Stephen Darbishire photographs (15 February 1954)

Note that, if we exclude the Gulf Breeze photo, all of these have been taken before 1970....
Could it be possible to do the same list (using Hynek's criteria) for photographs taken between 1970 and 2011?

I will take again Isaackoi words with Hynek's citations:

“The majority of the photographs in the Blue Book files are indeed obvious hoaxes or misidentifications”

and

“There are no cases in the Blue Book files which meet the above stringent conditions. What we do find in the files are several cases that meet nearly all of the conditions.”

Is it still true nowadays?
edit on 19-5-2011 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
4

log in

join