Old black and white ufo photos: was they really hard to fake?

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I read sometimes on ATS (here for example) that old black and whites photos of UFO can't be faked.

This thread intend is to show that, at the contrary of a persistent belief, old B&W UFO photos are not that hard to fake and that they can also be the result of misidentifications, as well as the modern CCD cameras.

I will expose you some examples, most of them taken from the CONDON report, trying to be as accurate as I can.

Sometimes, when it's possible, I will show similar misidentification or fake taken with a modern camera.

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

A- Natural Phenomena Photographed as UFOs

1- Lenticular cloud



This one was photographed in Brazil; it came from APRO archives and show a classic lenticular cloud.


These thin clouds are usually related to irregularities in ground elevation (hence classified as "orographic" clouds), and sometimes appear stacked, one above the other, like a pile of saucers. A number have appeared in UFO reports.


Example with modern camera:



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

2- Sub-sun



Subsuns are a part of subhorizon atmospherics phenomenoms. They can often be seen from an airplane as a blinding and shimmering disk or oval.
They are formed by a direct reflection of the sun from millions of plate shaped ice crystals in a thin lower cloud layer. Photo courtesy NCAR.

Example with modern camera:



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

3- Long exposure shoot of an astronomical object




The above is a time exposure of the moon, showing trailing due to the earth's rotation.
The explanation of such a photograph of the moon is obvious to anyone familiar with astronomical photographs. Yet a similar picture showing the trails of the moon and Venus was widely printed in newspapers across the country in March 1966. The trails were described as two UFOs.


However, in this case, it's hard to believe that the shoot wasn't intentionally done and (in normal moon visibility conditions) that someone could honestly misidentifying the moon for a UFO. So, IMO, I would put this one in the fake section.

In most cases, it's another astronomical object that is genuinely taken for a UFO: it could be either Venus or Jupiter, and we regularly see here and elsewhere reports of such misidentification.

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

B- Photographic effects taken as UFOs

1- Film defect


Palomar Mt. Photo courtesy Mrs. Z. Rungee


Creases or unusual pressure produce dark images on negatives and bright spots on prints made from them.
Chemical damage during development can produce either bright or dark spots on negatives or prints.



Reported "UFO" identified as a developing defect. Pinawa, Manitoba. Photo courtesy of the witness.

By definition, there are no such effects on modern CCD camera; however other problems can appears:


"Black hole" at the center of the sun caused by the overflow (over exposed) light, especially on CMOS sensor.

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

2- Lens flares


Lens flare (upper right) caused by street lamp in photograph of Comet Ikeya Seki.


internal reflections, or lens flares produced by unwanted light paths through the camera optics.
Many widely circulated UFO photographs are unquestionably the result of lens flares.
Symmetry about a line connecting the flare to a bright light source in the photograph is usually the clue to identification of a lens flare photograph.


Example with modern camera:



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




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
C- Fakes

1- Hand-thrown model


"Physically fabricated" UFO photo made by hand-throwing a spinning model.

Example with modern camera:


A saucer-shaped model thrown in the air

Source

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

2- Suspended model


"Physically fabricated" UFO photo - a suspended model.

Examples with modern camera:



A suspended model.

Source



"UFO" by Robbert Van Den Broeke:


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

3- Illuminated model


"Physically fabricated" UFO photo. Nighttime time exposure of a model held by hand and illuminated by flashlight.

See the Beaver photos case for reference:

Source

Example with modern camera:


"UFO" by Robbert Van Den Broeke:


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

4- Double exposure


"Optically fabricated" UFO photograph. Double exposure of elliptical lamp superimposed on a landscape.

See the El Guapo, Venezuela, case, APRO bulletin, for reference (Link to the APRO bulletin to come)

Example with modern camera:


Double exposure shoot with a moving laser light on the second shoot.

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

5- Cut-out


"Optically fabricated" UFO photograph. Cut-out drawing superimposed on a print and recopied.

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

6- Reflection


"Optical fabrication." Full moon in the midst of a sunset scene -- a physical impossibility.
Image of moon (behind the observer) was reflected in a sheet of glass through which photo was taken

Example with modern camera:


Photo taken behind a glass on which ceiling light were reflecting...

Source 1
Source 2



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
But then some pictures do have UFOs...not that they are UFOs created by a distant ET civilization, but because the experts just really can't say what it is.

Not knowing what it is=UFO

EDIT: I do agree a lot are fake.
edit on 5-4-2012 by satron because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I work in photoshop daily....i can take any photo and turn it into a faux grainy old black and white....brushes, actions and filters are a hoaxers dream......and well the dream of all the chics on covers on magazines


isnt modern technology awesome?!
edit on April 5th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevenaugust






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


Who could believe to these? XD



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by theitalian
Who could believe to these? XD

Unfortunately, Nancy Talbott for example...

See here



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
isnt modern technology awesome?!

Actually from the perspective of us believers it pretty much sucks



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by zilebeliveunknown

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
isnt modern technology awesome?!

Actually from the perspective of us believers it pretty much sucks



that was a bit of sarcasm. sorry. I should have...

/sarcasm




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
This is going to come out as totally rude and being that guy but I don't mean to be because this thread is pretty informative. However, the title of it is driving me nuts. "Were they really that hard to fake?" Also, we should get some pictures of unexplained ones for contrast don't you think? I've seen some pretty convincing old ones. I'll have to put on my research hat and find some. Really, I dont mean to come across as a jerk or offend you. I try not to be *too* much of a grammar spaz, but sometimes I just can't help it.
edit on 5-4-2012 by jar11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
I work in photoshop daily....i can take any photo and turn it into a faux grainy old black and white....brushes, actions and filters are a hoaxers dream......and well the dream of all the chics on covers on magazines


isnt modern technology awesome?!
edit on April 5th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)


Awwwww damnit!! I knew your avatar was too good to be true! LOL!


Ok, now jokes aside. I hear what you saying, about digital images. How does one explain some photos that were developed in B&W in the old days, and look pretty convincing? I know that it was possible, but the amount of work to do it, and resources involved to look so good.... was it really worth the person's time? Nowadays it's a quick photoshop job, but then it wasn't.

And let's not forget that some of these people gained nothing financially from it. So why would they expend that energy and effort? It doesn't add up to me.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jar11
This is going to come out as totally rude and being that guy but I don't mean to be because this thread is pretty informative. However, the title of it is driving me nuts. "Were they really that hard to fake?" Also, we should get some pictures of unexplained ones for contrast don't you think? I've seen some pretty convincing old ones. I'll have to put on my research hat and find some. Really, I dont mean to come across as a jerk or offend you. I try not to be *too* much of a grammar spaz, but sometimes I just can't help it.
edit on 5-4-2012 by jar11 because: (no reason given)

You're absolutely right, but my native language is French and I still do stupid grammar errors; and it was too late to correct it in the title.
As for the unexplained old B&W photos, yes, I already thought of this and it will be the subject of a future thread.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Only 1 of those photo's remotely looked like a ufo to me... The rest dont even compare...



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


thanks for your post it is an informative and well put together piece



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Those black and white photos are pretty poor examples of a 'UFO', obvious camera defects





top topics
 
5

log in

join