Another lost UFO photo found

Source

The guy who own this blog posted it with this caption:

"This picture was took by my Grandfather. i still have the original in hands."

Asking for more informations on it, a French forum friend on which I participate received this answer:

I asked my father about the picture, it’s a complete different from what i knew and my mom told me about… i’m kinda disappointed with that it was not my grandfather that took that picture, it was someone else, my grandfather was photographer and my dad helped him with that and my grandfather also had a photography shop, and they also reveal pictures to customers, my dad said he revealed this picture from a customer, my dad said that this picture is just one of many, he said that in this film, started as a few pictures of a cat in that same place, then the following pictures suddenly changed to that strange object in the sky. i still have this picture, idk who is the photographer of those pictures, all i know is, the pic was took here in my city and back in the 1970’s.

I also contacted him asking for more information about the original photo.

reply to post by elevenaugust
Bonjour, it'd be interesting to see the sequence of photos as described in the owner's comments.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Bonjour,

Originally posted by Kandinsky
it'd be interesting to see the sequence of photos as described in the owner's comments.

Hi Kandinsky, yes, I'll ask for it as well as if he knows what kind of camera was used.

Stay tuned!

reply to post by Kandinsky


I second that.
Should be interesting to see the entire sequence in chronological order.

ETA: if the grandfather worked in a photoshop, do you think there were more pictures like this one? From other customers maybe?

Almost every fake UFO pic from this time was the same size and shape and usually just above a set of trees.

It would seem obvious that someone who worked in a photography shop would have the means to fake a picture like this and the story is one we have certainly heard before many times. People love to trick other people back in those days it was almost a crazy for people to try to produce these types of pictures especially if they had the know how and equipment.

But because its an old looking photograph and black and white people will be sure to believe its more authentic than the modern fakes without giving it much thought. In reality pictures like this are much more likely to be fakes than most of the modern ones. At least these days a good percentage of what we see is just simple mis-identification of normal objects in the sky. If we saw exactly the same picture today in color everyone would be shouting 'fake!' but show the same thing in faded black and white and add the old 'this was in my fathers collection' story and people are all over it like its gospel.

But the simple fact is with techniques like double exposures and fishing wire together with the lower resolution pictures it was just as easy to fake stuff back then as it is now. Billy Meier made a living from it. Add in that the someone involved with this picture had their own photography shop and you have all the elements in place to create a fake.

reply to post by elevenaugust


Thats a very interesting picture and story. Im just worried that it looks like so many others from around that time. Ill be checking back to see what the ATS boffins make of this, without a doubt.

reply to post by elevenaugust


Looks pretty good to me.

Lighting is consistent, seems to be to my eyes where it appears to be in the sky and given how its framed id say the vista wasn't what the photographer was trying to take photos of. Its bizarre we have people decrying the fact its to similar to other UFO's at the time... you'd think possible alien craft would have some form of standard form to them.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
But the simple fact is with techniques like double exposures and fishing wire together with the lower resolution pictures it was just as easy to fake stuff back then as it is now. Billy Meier made a living from it. Add in that the someone involved with this picture had their own photography shop and you have all the elements in place to create a fake.

Errr physical negatives have low resolution? Im pretty sure physical negatives still have a resolution way outside any digital cameras we have now days? (could be wrong on that)

Either way its a good pic. And I wouldn't get to hung up on the fact the guys own a photography store, it was a fairly common occupation back then compared to now (even though it is a valid point).

Thing is, more I look at it, the more I think ive seen this one before...

reply to post by BigfootNZ

Errr physical negatives have low resolution? Im pretty sure physical negatives still have a resolution way outside any digital cameras we have now days? (could be wrong on that)

Yes you are right , 35mm negatives have a very very high resolution but when they are developed into small photographs like a 6 by 9 all the available detail is lost so much trickery is impossible to detect.

I agree the lighting does look good on this one, almost to good. It seems to much detail to be of any distance from the camera. If you look at everything else in the picture its very badly blurred. Objects get lighter the further away they are from the camera. This object looks like it has dark regions of about the same intensity as the dark regions on the trees in the foreground rather than the dark regions that we can see in the distance on the ground.

Could very easily be a tossed object.

When you turn the levels down the digitisation artefacts are consistent around all the high contrast parts of the image,meaning in my opinion that what ever the object is was most likely there when the photo was taken.This of course isn't conclusive and only proves that it probably hasn't been Photoshopped.


Edit.....I didn't add the yellow tint,it just went like that when I did the levels thing.

Any artist will tell you that objects get lighter as they get further away from the viewer. Dark colors and more importantly shadows get more washed out and lose their intensity. So objects of similar distances from the viewer will have shadows of similar intensity or darkness.

With this in mind i zoomed in on the object and picked what i decided was one of the darkest pixels.



I then did a search in the entire picture for pixels of the same darkness or intensity of shadows. If this object was far away then you should find pixels of a similar darkness on the ground in the distance. But I only found the same pixel shade in the branches of the trees in the foreground.

Ive colored these pixels in red to make them easier to see :




There was not a single pixel of the same intensity of shadow found anywhere other than in the branches of the trees which are just a few feet away. So i would have to conclude that the object in the sky is not any further away than those branches. This would be a simple perceptive trick that we have seen a lot from that era where someone throws an object just above the tree line and then claims its further away from the camera than it actually is.

This sort of analysis is much easier to do with black and white pictures than it is with color ones.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

I was thinking that maybe the trees are blurred and the UFO is not because it was a windy day. The object may have been stationary and the wind was moving the trees causing motion blur. I still haven't fully decided the if the photo is fake or real though.

Look at the focus and depth of field. The distant objects (hills) are more blurred than the the trees. This means the focus is in the foreground. The UFO is perfectly clear, in fact too clear! But ignoring that giveaway the UFO would have to be positioned at about the same distance as the foreground trees. This would make for a very small UFO with insect sized occupants.....or.....its a fake.

Having grown up being an avid photographer and having had my own black and white darkroom for a number of years, I can tell you photos back than can be manipulated by sandwiching negatives in the enlarger or using a dodging or burning technique to white out any fishing line that would have shown up in the photograph. I used to experiment and manipulating my black and white photographs in my darkroom for hours on end.

Another way of manipulating a black and white photo is using a double exposure filter. They used to create filters that screwed on the end of your lens that helped create neat double exposures. Adjusting your shutter speeds and apertures and holding down the film release button kept the film from advancing to the next frame. Hence, getting two exposures on the same frame.

However, having said that, the truth comes with the negative. It would be highly difficult to fake a negative under close examination. Even with a double exposure, the negative would surely give it away. It's one reason why old photographs of UFO's have more credibility than today's digital photographs.

reply to post by WeRpeons

Another way of manipulating a black and white photo is using a double exposure filter. They used to create filters that screwed on the end of your lens that helped create neat double exposures. Adjusting your shutter speeds and apertures and holding down the film release button kept the film from advancing to the next frame. Hence, getting two exposures on the same frame.

There was also the trick of projecting two images over each other and them taking a photograph of the result. This was much harder to spot. Not that i think that's what has happened here.

This picture is just a hand tossed object photographed.

This disc was of the design most assumed aliens flew in back in those days. Of course they have modern designs now because, well, there are new energy efficient models in the showroom nowadays aren't there? I mean no self respecting aliens would be seen in one of those old 1970 models these days aye!

isnt is jacques vallee that said photo analysis without having access to the original negative is a waste of time ? and someone else also said (i forgot which one) that having a ufo photo in itself is not enough, there should be case report containing interview with witnesss etc

The UFO, as so often, is EXACTLY IN THE MIDDLE of the picture.

(According to paintshop it's actually exactly in the middle +/- 2 pixels from the the inner border of the image). AMAZING.

And...as so often, the UFO is also conveniently in the sky, right there where the biggest open space is, NOT hidden by a leaf, not a little to the side, left or right.

Two major red flags and almost certainly a hoax, in particular since we again (and yawn ...) have the amazing story of an UFO which "magically" appeared afterwards on the photos after someone claimed they photographed something entirely else.

If it's the case that the UFO just "happened" to appear on the photo by chance, why EXACTLY in the middle and why EXACTLY placed on the largest space with open sky?

Oh wait, this is why: Because it's a hoax.

reply to post by flexy123


Firstly we don’t know whether the photo has been cropped to put the object in the middle.

Secondly the F in UFO kind of dictates it would be in the sky.

Thirdly there were a series of pictures so in others the object could have been partially obscured.

Finally I can’t see where there was any claim of this “magically” appearing afterwards on the photos and that they were photographing something else.

Of course it may well be a hoaxed image but to claim so on the above suggests you may be predisposed in that direction.

reply to post by elevenaugust

I can't wait to read through this one.

HERE is the last thread of a lost UFO photo being found:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It turned out to be a GREAT discussion.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

But the simple fact is with techniques like double exposures and fishing wire together with the lower resolution pictures it was just as easy to fake stuff back then as it is now. Billy Meier made a living from it. Add in that the someone involved with this picture had their own photography shop and you have all the elements in place to create a fake.

edit on 17-3-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

These types of photos scream fishing line and model to me. Way easier than double-exposure or retouching. A kid could do it.