Rendlesham Forest…, A Christmas Story from 1980 - Can We ‘Let it Be’?

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: ctj83

Sorry I didn't make myself clear.

I am not disputing that the "original" photo was on film stock and probably a genuine photo.

I am suggesting that the 'colour photo' in the presentation and possibly others that Larry mentions may have been coloured with photo software.

In other words this one.

Colouring a B&W Image is fairly easy in photo software as I've done it myself. Looking at that picture however it would requiere some skill (and imagination). Quite some colouring detail in it ...

Not saying it can't be done though, so this is not really an argument.

The picture seems to lack some details in the upper spectrum (whites) as well. Must have been quite the spectrum (or delibirate loss of detail?). Guess they should take some HDR images next time

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

Not sure if you've seen the previous post - but I think we can't judge on lack of detail due to how I've gotten this here. I'd say the lack of dynamic range and detail, in this photo is down to two things:

- As mentioned, I've pulled this from a powerpoint projection in a YouTube video. Massive loss there on both counts.
- The photo could well be the one that Georgina Bruni had reexpose to brighten it. Huge loss there.

a reply to: mirageman

Rereading LEAG, at the point where Larry claims he took the photo, and he was only with Mark (who earlier he said had been there), there is an interesting comment made.

He was stood just over from John Burroughs who was getting out of a vehicle. Disregarding the authenticity of the photo.

This fits in with:
- The fact John saw this photo at the presentation in 2014 where I pulled the image from
- The fact that on Phenomenon Radio - Larry says he saw John in a field, approaching the 'object'

John is well aware of this photo, and supposedly was near by at the time of its shooting.

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

- As mentioned, I've pulled this from a powerpoint projection in a YouTube video. Massive loss there on both counts.
- The photo could well be the one that Georgina Bruni had reexpose to brighten it. Huge loss there.

Sure, from ... to Powerpoint to YouTube to screenshots etc will produce some major loss.

It only seemed to me that for an underexposed picture wich was (presumably) corrected, there's a lot of detail missing in the higher tones as well.

Would love to see the original, andere maybe with some digital magic on that one we could see a lot more ...

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

The best copy I can find on the web is here @

www.therendleshamforestincident.com...

Unfortunately it's a jpg so subject to the usual compression.

And now I think of it this pic does resemble what alldaylong saw the night before the incident

]

(Please note the pic was digital recreation based on what alldaylong described! Like it's not obvious ).

a reply to: mirageman

I'll be the first to say it looks like a well lit tent.
Then you can throw stuff at me and move on.
If I saw that in the distance I'd just think Rave tent!
Probably been to too many festivals.
Next time I see someone camping in the woods I'm going to have to go and take a closer look. Just in case.
I'm reading Encounter again.
Im starting to get annoyed with the writing style.
Maybe I'll get on to that Reich book after all.
Good work on the graphics, by the way.

a reply to: mirageman

The photo is such a pity, because it's covered in smudges, has no detail in the shadows and the resolution is too low.

What I can say is the the top set of lights, almost match. It feels like the same object rotated by 5-10 degrees. A more likely explanation is distortion I guess. Which means its the same photo, but the question is was the detail present (I find that hard to fake), was the colour present or added (false colour seems possible).

Imagine the photo is as old as Larry claims but disinformation. I wonder where there might have been a photo lab / shop near by...

a reply to: Tulpa

I've heard the 'rave' explanation. But really, Christmas night in December in the middle of nowhere in a Suffolk forest.
I don't think back in 1980 that anyone was saying............

.

... tell me when the spaceship lands 'cause all this has just got to mean something.

Nah! that was all a decade away back then. Happy daze. All behind us all now as well.

a reply to: ctj83

Yes I feel like this photo is something that's not been covered in detail. But I also think there must be a reason why it's had little exposure. Just a hunch like I said before.

I 've also reached the point where I think I'll also have to re-read this whole thread. There are so many details I've probably forgot (and missed) in the two and a half years since it was started.

a reply to: mirageman

Just came across the part where Mal Scurrah describes the earlier radar event when a Phantom night fighter got scrambled.
He definitely says Oct/Nov 1980.

I'd suggested earlier on that he might've been relating the story from 1956 when two Venom fighters chased a blip.
That can be discounted (if it hadn't been already) for obvious reasons.
There must be another one that wasn't made public but it does make me wonder how often they get these things down there. Pretty busy airspace, and that's just the ones we get told about.

Mind you, it is in the section on rumours connected to RFI.

It may look like a rave tent but I think someone might've heard some sort of noise!
Unless they were waiting for the aliens to drop off the sound system.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: ctj83

Yes I feel like this photo is something that's not been covered in detail. But I also think there must be a reason why it's had little exposure. Just a hunch like I said before.

I do think that could be because of the camera. On an analog camera it's even harder to take pictures at night compared to recent digital camera's. Lighting sensitivity was determined by the type of film role in the camera itself, not by simply flipping an ISO switch and letting the sensors to their work for you.

BTW ctj83, I'm not convinced the shot from the Powerpoint is based on this photo, but like you State details could have been added later..

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

I think Mirage meant media coverage 'exposure', as opposed to film exposure. Your spot on regarding film stock, not sure if you saw my earlier comment, where Larry had said that special film was used that wouldn't 'white' out. There is zero chance this photo was on a digital camera, the cameras of the time were far too primitive in terms of light sensitivity. Also, because digital then was quite literally linear, not logarithmic in terms of tonal range, only film could store details in the blacks. These were what was pulled out by Georgina Bruni.

In terms of the powerpoint, I'm not sure myself. Four of the lights line up very well, but in reality that could be a coincidence, the same photo manipulated or, it's a different photo of the same object.

What is interesting is why it's gained so little coverage. Imagine that photo being revealed in a book or new documentary...

a reply to: ctj83

Just to confirm that when I used the word "exposure" I was referring to how little coverage it has had. Larry claims it is a US DoD photograph in the talk he's giving at the conference.

Strangely he seems to have kept it (and the 'coloured' photo(s)) out of reach from Peter Robbins. The A10 + UFO photo features in Peter's "Deliberate Deception booklets (the links to which are somewhere earlier in the thread and can be found quite easily with a web search). However these pictures have been available for nearly two decades and do not feature in reprints of Left at East Gate or Peter's Deliberate Deception booklets.

a reply to: mirageman

Ok, I misunderstood that one

Since I'm relatively new to this case (and ufo's in general), I can only speculate why this photo showed up only recently.

The more I look at the coloured image, the more I think it's genuine. At least the background that is. The slight green/yellow/brown hue looks authentic if we take the possibility into account that the trees were lighted with spotlights. Color temperature looks spot on.

The 'candyfloss' on the other hand ... I'm not sure ... Looks like a plasma effect from an 80's movie to be honest.

I went to Wikipedia to check plasma color variations and it seems to match more or less. Not sure of this is the right track though ...

Maybe kev can elaborate a bit more on the colors?

a reply to: mirageman

Oh, and the smudged black and white one looks like it has been stitched to some other document (top left corner). Also the smudges to me look like that's not on the picture itself, but because the actual photo was crackled/damaged.

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

It has certainly seen better days hasn't it?
Its a miracle that so much has been pulled out.
Does this stitching imply that its been in part of a file somewhere?
Not suggesting that proves anything but most people put photos in albums or leave them in the envelope the developer sends them back in.
It might've been "liberated" from a bunch of other papers?
Or released at an appropriate time?
It may be possible to get more out of the background but the actual object is going to be harder.
Someone mentioned special effects on the film being unlikely, specially for the eighties, so that leaves us with The Object.
Probably repeating here but does anyone know anything about active camouflage or how something like that may react to being photographed?

a reply to: Tulpa

Yep, made me question those things as well.

For the object, I was also thinking about influence of ultra violet light or radioactivity on film. No idea what kind off effect that would give.

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

Radioactivity causes film to "fog up". That's the basis as far as I remember of the Dosimeters we used to wear around the reactors. I can't imagine that UV light would be very friendly in terms of exposure of film either, but i'm not a film/photo guy.

Kev

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

Well, putting on my doubting cap, the movie detectives would demand to see the whole strip of negatives.
Even that would present further problems.
Are all the others fogged?
Could a clever person deliberately hoax a couple of shots in the middle then somehow fog up the rest?
Would there be any way to tell how the fogging was done ie exposure to radiation, or some other means?
I think the effect on the object looks sort of electric but the rest of the outline looks like something with a tarp draped over it.
Whatever it turns out to be, it sure doesn't want to be recognised.