Lost photo of UFO found

I don't know what that artifact is. But if you're going to call it a string, you also have to explain how the string goes up a short distance, turns at a right angle to the right, and then continues in the up direction. It is not straight. And I find it very difficult to believe that as grainy and blurry as the photo is you could possibly see a string.

Also as to comments that the object is closer than the trees and thus must be small, who is to say how big alien life is? Could they not be small, or even microscopic? If the occupants of the ship were tiny in comparison to humans, there could be hundreds of them in there! Just my opinion!

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
I remain a skeptic always, but never close minded.

Err say again, maybe you should take the 'always' out

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

Even classic/old fake photos are valuable - someone will pay you to use it in their their book or to add it to a collection. Go to eBay if it's not sentimental, and find the lowest bid you're comfortable with and you might just make a nice little chunk of change.

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll just hang on to it. It's very cool.

Sorry OP. I don't want to burst your bubble, and I am not even stating that my analysis of the photo is accurate. I want to believe this is real...and I live about 40 miles from Brownsville, PA, so I have a keen interest in this topic / post.

It could be a scratch...

It could be my imagination....

But there are several issues here that go against it being real.

1. There is no apparent blur of motion
2. The picture is just too perfect. The craft is in direct center of the photo, as if the shooter was in the right spot at the right time and WITH a camera. Not many people carried cameras back in 1970, so this guy would have to have been very lucky indeed.

I would welcome continued discussion and hear from others who might have better Photoshop skills than me....I could be 100% wrong on this.

All valid points, PJ...But still...WHAT IF...?
I am still optimistic that it won't prove to be a fake...I'm okay if it is...but I think we're all just a little bit due for the real thing after so many disappointments.

reply to post by darkest4


I agree with everyone above doing the research right now. You've got have fun with the topic while checking it out -- play with the "what if" scenarios even as it appears to be a fake. Plus folks in this thread today are rational minded, which is great for all us curious folks.

Originally posted by IAMTAT
All valid points, PJ...But still...WHAT IF...?
I am still optimistic that it won't prove to be a fake...I'm okay if it is...but I think we're all just a little bit due for the real thing after so many disappointments.

The "skeptic" brigade will have a blast with what you just posted, call us all ignorant believers or something.

Right now I'm leaning about 70% chance of "string" and 30% "not a string".

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos

I agree with your opinion, if not your tone. It's FUN to investigate these things. I remain a skeptic always, but never close minded. Life is joy and discovery...

Fair enough, I got too snappy. Just get annoyed seeing obvious hoaxes that's just a random picture or youtube video with nothing else backing it up always being the number #1 topic on ATS when stuff with some actual credibility and research put into it gets largely ignored these days.

It doesn't so much bother me just that the topic is popular but more that the popularity is fueled largely by people who will just ignore the evidence or logic debunking it solely cause they think "debunking" is bad and will blindly argue it's real solely because they "believe" (want) it to be and everyone else is just a "sheep" or "asleep" or "debunker" etc. Just seems pointless to have to spend so much of ATS's collective energy constantly arguing with hardcore "believers" over obvious hoaxes. Or, stuff that is just so vague and without sources/witnesses etc that it's impossible to "debunk" it just like it's impossible for anyone here to debunk my claim that I have blonde hair because I said so or I provide a picture that may not be me or wearing a wig etc, still worthless as far as evidence or proof goes even if you can't "debunk" it because there's not enough info.

ATS didn't used to be all about just eye catching titles for 1 picture/video hoaxes (the title of this thread wasn't bad though, just most others are) with no research or anything else of substance, though those certainly existed the front page wasn't covered in them all the time. At least the thread is somewhat amusing, I'm just quite cranky today it seems

OP, it's a shame you never heard any other information on this photo.
Great photo either way... I mean does anybody know a greater photo hoaxer than Meier??? This ranks right up there with his stuff.
Lots of people have UFO stories, my family included, and it's one of those things that gets lost in the shuffle.

reply to post by phantomjack


Thank-you.... phantomjack for your analysis of the object in the photo. A *star* too you.

But... I would tend to think that the object would have to be stabilized with a least three diagonal strings; instead of just one. Thanks for finding the first possible string --- Now... can you find the other two, including the main central string, that the possible one or three diagonals strings are attached too?

Originally posted by Erno86
But... I would tend to think that the object would have to be stabilized with a least three diagional strings; instead of just one. Thanks for finding the first possible string --- Now... can you find the other two, including the main central string, that the possible one or three diagionals strings are attached too?

Depending of course on the weight and actual size of the actual object, which would also determine the size and thickness of the support no?

Originally posted by darkest4
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Why are people making excuses for it to be a UFO. That is ridiculous and in direct contradiction to occam's razor. This is the type of desperate thinking that makes the UFO field an utter joke with all the "believers" who want to believe some random stupid picture that fraudsters billy meier produced dozens of even dozens of years ago. Even when presented with evidence of a string? Seriously people? It's very easy to do pictures like this with forced perspective. I can't believe anyone is saying they "believe" it's real just on seeing this random photo rofl.

Why are people even debating this? It's worthless as "evidence". You need multiple independent witnesses, the source, unaltered photo/video, expert analysis and so on before anything can even come close to evidence. This is just another silly random photo with a vague unverified story and an anonymous "friend" source which can EASILY be faked. Utterly useless.

forgetomori.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 28-11-2011 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)

You don't need all those things to prove something is true. You need all those things to convince people who don't believe it. Not having all that info doesn't make something less true, it makes it difficult or impossible to prove. But the same can be said as far as disproving it goes. It looks like a good photo and I haven't read anything that can prove or disprove if it is genuine.

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by 1ifbyland2ifbydebitcard

 

But if it is a scratch, it is in a very interesting position -- Directly in the center of the top of the craft. What are the odds of that?

Indeed, such a coincidence that it's damning to the authenticity.
Though I have to say, if it were string, the line does not seem to go to what I would imagine to be the dead center of the object.

Originally posted by thehal
I don't know what that artifact is. But if you're going to call it a string, you also have to explain how the string goes up a short distance, turns at a right angle to the right, and then continues in the up direction. It is not straight. And I find it very difficult to believe that as grainy and blurry as the photo is you could possibly see a string.

Also as to comments that the object is closer than the trees and thus must be small, who is to say how big alien life is? Could they not be small, or even microscopic? If the occupants of the ship were tiny in comparison to humans, there could be hundreds of them in there!

Just my opinion!

Its a very fair question. Though, I dont see it making any turns, I just see it stopping all together.

And, I dont physically see a string. I see pixels, in a straight line, which represents some sort of anomaly, as there has to be some explanation as to why there are straight, in line pixels, in the scan.

It could be a scratch, as I have stated already.

Its a valid point you make about size. Obviously, we have no way of knowing how big an alien might or might not be.

But in reference to this topic and THIS photograph, however, the "ship" could be hovering above the trees, which would make it about 20-30 feet in diameter...OR, it could be hovering from a fishing pole about 5 feet from the camera and only 12 inches in size.

Who knows?

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

Even classic/old fake photos are valuable - someone will pay you to use it in their their book or to add it to a collection. Go to eBay if it's not sentimental, and find the lowest bid you're comfortable with and you might just make a nice little chunk of change.

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll just hang on to it. It's very cool.

Sorry OP. I don't want to burst your bubble, and I am not even stating that my analysis of the photo is accurate. I want to believe this is real...and I live about 40 miles from Brownsville, PA, so I have a keen interest in this topic / post.

It could be a scratch...

It could be my imagination....

But there are several issues here that go against it being real.

1. There is no apparent blur of motion
2. The picture is just too perfect. The craft is in direct center of the photo, as if the shooter was in the right spot at the right time and WITH a camera. Not many people carried cameras back in 1970, so this guy would have to have been very lucky indeed.

I would welcome continued discussion and hear from others who might have better Photoshop skills than me....I could be 100% wrong on this.

All valid points, PJ...But still...WHAT IF...?
I am still optimistic that it won't prove to be a fake...I'm okay if it is...but I think we're all just a little bit due for the real thing after so many disappointments.

I hear ya bro! I should have said "It's too good to be true..."

Originally posted by Erno86
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Thank-you.... phantomjack for your analysis of the object in the photo. A *star* too you.

But... I would tend to think that the object would have to be stabilized with a least three diagonal strings; instead of just one. Thanks for finding the first possible string --- Now... can you find the other two, including the main central string, that the possible one or three diagonals strings are attached too?

edit on 28-11-2011 by Erno86 because: spelling

As a matter of fact, I did find a similar pixel string at the right of the craft...Though, I don't necessarily agree with the "stability" thing, and I didn't bother exploring it any further. I guess I should, huh?

reply to post by franspeakfree


with out knowing much of billys photos but 99% look fake

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

Don't be so disrespectful, show some manners and decorum, innocent until proven guilty. if this is a hoax then let the moderators deal with it. If you don't like it there are plenty of other threads you can get in to.

Back to the photo..................

You are being very defensive. There is nothing disrespectful in what i said, its simply the truth. I have heard this exact back story to a UFO pic that was reported to be found by a son before. In fact it was a very famous case.

OK. You've heard the story before and it was a very famous case. WHAT case, exactly? You don't know? Then your evidence is worse than the OPs. If that's all you've got, it's not much.

reply to post by IAMTAT


A few things
Here you will see a pretty good description of the object

On September 25, 1970, I was returning home from a high school football game. Three blocks from my home, I sighted a most amazing object. It was disk-shaped, silver-aluminum in color, approximately 1000 feet in length. It had a turret on top, surrounded by a row of windows. The underside had three large spheres, with a central flat disk. It was glowing white. The sky was clear, temperature about 50 degrees centigrade. The object moved silently across the evening's sky in a west to east direction.

www.ufowisconsin.com...


The only reason however I feel a little skeptical about it is because that object seems fairly huge
And..... there are NO CLOUDS.........

A massive object like that with no clouds at that visible height.... we would have heard so much of it before would we not?

a list of other events
www.ufocasebook.com...

Originally posted by kdog1982
Yes,much better

It looks like A Ed Woods Flying Saucer !



One that looks like it, the OP's Photo

reply to post by franspeakfree


The object in the photo, would have to be balanced perfectly, with the use of just one string.

Epps photo's are in good focus, that he took with his Leica camera during World War Two; but I can't find them on Andreas Epp's YouTube site.

Epp... has a live interview video of his flying saucer sighting, along with his two flying saucer pictures; on the video that I possess.

Here's a really funny thought, what if this is a Billy Meier photo? I'm sure that old d'ber sold some of them to people.