is it true this photo cannot be debunked?

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by Dashdragon

 

This photo may be more interesting then:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/499b33a31539.jpg[/atsimg]
Unknown? Check.
Flying? Check.
Object? Check.

Debunk? Nope, just forgotten.

I believe that with the full image, it was determined that the "flying lights" lined up more than coincidentally with the streetlights along either Pennsylvania or Madison Avenue. A bit of research is in order.

P.S. -- Nope. Bright lights on the balcony/steps of the Capitol Building. Very nice work done on it here:
Analysis of UFO over Capitol Building Photo

Originally posted by RSF77
This photo may be more interesting then:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/499b33a31539.jpg[/atsimg]

Unknown? Check.
Flying? Check.
Object? Check.

Debunk? Nope, just forgotten.

Not forgotten. But...

Flying? Nope
Object? Not really, it's a reflected image of an object, but not really an object. The object that's being reflected is outside the scope of the photo.

But this just shows that people like to jump to conclusions of "flying object" even when there's no reason to do so. I believe this pertains not only to the White House photo, but also the photo in the OP.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Bright lights on the balcony/steps of the Capitol Building.

And that's exactly what the image looks like to me, a reflection of lights on the ground.

They don't look like real solid objects. Likewise, the image in the OP photo also doesn't look like a real solid object, to me at least.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But this just shows that people like to jump to conclusions of "flying object" even when there's no reason to do so. I believe this pertains not only to the White House photo, but also the photo in the OP.

People can complain about Photoshop and other such programs ruining the UFO field, but one nice thing about the ready availability of decent quality image software is the ability for a fairly decent number of people to take the time and effort to fiddle with some of the older photos with much more ease, and come up with some interesting alternatives to the mythology. I'm certainly no expert. But I have time and motivation. In the old days it would take somebody like Jim Dilettoso or Richard Haines working in their own lab or others with originals and dubious blow-ups a long time to explore an explanation. And after all that time and money spent, they obviously didn't want to be wrong, so they tended to argue for something that wasn't there. If it was for a book, they wouldn't want to fill the book with junk because that wouldn't sell well. I certainly have no motivation to sell books.

If old photos can be debunked, all the better. That actually means less chaff when you're looking for some wheat. Unfortunately, the debunking doesn't get the attention and isn't as exciting as the aliens from space, so the same stuff tends to pop up over and over again, triggering general eye-rolling by the people familiar with the debunking.

The end result is that the photos that do pass muster become even more important bits of evidence. Although, naturally, photos by themselves with no corroborative evidence are very marginal evidence to begin with.

if the object in question is off the ground , then it certainly doesnt cast any shadow on the ground , as the clouds do!
So im claiming this is a hoax

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
SANNDY....your KILLING ME here! LOL! What good is any proposed concept or idea without skeptics? I hope you were just being sarchastic. LOL!

I really hate to have to ask this but did you read any of my posts? Including that one? I cannot believe with all I have posted in this thread you actually just asked that.

reply to post by reject


---

Hi, Nope.
If I remember correctly, it was captured during a topographical photo-mapping sequence in Equador (50s/60s?). Only one frame had the disk image.

Decoy

reply to post by Blue Shift


"lump with inverted cross consistent in ALL images?"

There was just the one image with the anomaly.

By "thread," I take it you must mean some string. It would have been much clearer than that. You could play connect the dots on the entire exposure; they are everywhere. There's also symmetry that cannot be accounted for by a "thread."

"streaks indicating movement?" You mean like in a comic book?

I think the biggest thing skeptics have going for them is why the negative(s) hasn't been developed with the latest technology we have today. They said they used professional equipment. They do have the negative(s), right?

Why hasn't this been done?

SEND THE NEGATIVE TO KODAK!

mods, feel free to lock the thread. thanks.

reply to post by Blue Shift


reply to post by Arbitrageur


Its not entirely that convincing.

There are still numerous things not only about that photo, but the entire 1952 incident.

Statements like these:

There are three hot spots under the mask that are not reflected on the top area, for whatever reason.

And the fact that the objects in the sky do not really match up with his reversed image, though it is very close. There appears to be several pictures taken from different angles, why are the objects always in the same position, shouldn't the reflection of light be different if the picture was taken from a different angle and magically somehow overexposed in the exact same way?

Also, why was nothing else overexposed except the alleged UFOs?

Why would a group of objects assume that exact formation, which is not linear or beneficial to them in any apparent way? Perhaps, if they were in fact spacecraft from some other civilization, there were attempting to mimic the light sources on the ground as an initiation for communication?

Of course I'm not saying this is the case, I'm only a mere human, just providing a little food for thought. Plenty of arguments could be raised either way.

In the late 70's and 80's my father ran a printing shop. I had the pleasure of being his extra labor. One of my jobs was to take developed negatives, and fix the defects to prepare it for burning a plate for the press. I used opaque and a paintbrush on a light table. The negative process at that time had all kinds of problems, there was stray background radiation that left dots. There was sometimes spots were the chemicals weren't on the acetate quite right. Then if you got any grit or dust about it would make weird artifacts. I got very good at painting with a 000 brush, and eventually could touch up photographs quite well. Never could master doing a face, it was too detectable. Otherwise, I could thin and mix the opaque and make a photograph look like it was intended. I have personally painted over several objects that look just like this on negatives. This looks like a very small object (grain of sand) refracted light around it in the developing room to me.

Today's processes of digital photography and laser printing don't suffer from any of these issues and it's easy to forget how fraught with error photography was a quarter century ago. Back then 150dpi was advanced. Now every office has 2000dpi.

Originally posted by CyberGarp
I got very good at painting with a 000 brush, and eventually could touch up photographs quite well. Never could master doing a face, it was too detectable.

My sister (she is a professional photographer) knows a guy that once made a photo of a guy, but as the glasses gave him troubles with the lighting, he took the photo with the light in a way that wasn't reflected by the glasses' lens and changed all the lighting on the man's face in the negative.

Originally posted by RSF77
Perhaps, if they were in fact spacecraft from some other civilization, there were attempting to mimic the light sources on the ground as an initiation for communication?

Of course I'm not saying this is the case, I'm only a mere human, just providing a little food for thought.

As food for thought I'd say it's thinking creatively, and creative thinking skills do have value.

However in determining what's most likely, I'd have to consider Occam's razor, meaning the simplest explanation is the most likely.

In other words, something that looks like a reflection of streetlights, is more likely to be a reflection of streetlights, than a fleet of alien spaceships who traveled untold vast distances of interstellar space, to come to earth and arrange their ships so that from one particular photographer's perspective, they appeared very similar to a reflection of streetlights.

But if I was making a Hollywood movie, your idea would make a better movie!

But I also think Occam's razor applies to the photo in the OP. There are numerous potential alternative explanations besides a spaceship. As I said before, I'm not convinced it's a UFO. Leave off the "FO", and call it a "U", for unidentified.