posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 12:18 PM
Here's a fantastic picture which should satisfy skeptics in regards to the proper protocols of analysis. In 1981, a woman named Hannah McRoberts
snapped this awesome shot of a classic dome UFO. It was shot off the east coast of Vancouver Island and has undergone a scientific analysis by one of
NASA's credible scientists, Richard F. Haines. Published in the Journal of
Scientific Exploration Vol 1, No. 2, pp. 129147, 1987
Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, October 8,1981
Analysis by Richard F. Haines (PDF file)
150 dpi resolution photo - 300 dpi resolution photo
Copyright: Hannah McRoberts
McRoberts/Fortean Picture Library.
The study linked is extensive and is 19 pages. It should stop the "birds, bugs" explanations it its tracks. I will point out, in the abstract it is
stated "These analyses suggest that the disc was a three
dimensional object located at a distance of at least 30 feet from the camera;" Now I don't know if that was a typo and was meant to say 300 feet?
Because the abstract conclusion seems to suggest otherwise. Perhaps it was stated this way because there had already been extensive
camera/lens/shutter speed analysis done which might mean that no object
less than 30 feet from the camera would be in focus. Just thought I
would touch on before someone else points it out and hangs up this thread on a technicality.
At any rate, subsequently, another comment from a well respected scientist Dr James Harder:
Generally I feel that the best test of authenticity is in the good reputation of the photographer, insofar as it is impossible to prove a negative
- in this case that there is no possibility of a fraud. However, some of the indicators of an authentic photograph can help establish likelihood of an
authentic photo. These are -
1. That the negative involved is one of a sequence of outdoor pictures and that the frame in question is not an isolated one. One way of producing a
hoax is to re-photograph a positive print onto which has pasted an addition. To do a good job of hoaxing then one would have to re-photograph an
entire roll of negative film.
2. That there are no inconsistencies in the lighting of the strange object and the rest of he scene. In the subject photo, I note that the shadows in
the lower left of the scene indicate a Sun position nearly behind the camera. There is a reflection on the forward face of the UFO that is consistent
with this Sun position. There also seems to be a bright spot under the UFO not connected with external lighting - maybe a light on the UFO.
3. With the right equipment, it is possible to make certain measurements of negative density of the UFO image and of other images of objects at
estimated distances from the lens. Here the object is to show that the unknown is not nearby - and thus not a hubcap or other such object thrown into
the air. The idea is to measure, from the image of the object at a known distance, the atmospheric 'extinction coefficient'.
On a clear day, with a low value, contrasts between dark shadowed areas and brightly lit areas retain their distinction over greater distances. On
hazy days, the light and dark areas blend towards a mid-range shade, giving the appearance that distant mountains have of being one shade of grey.
Nearby shadows can show their true darkness, as opposed to the lighter shade of distant shadows. But in this picture there are no nearby shadows to
serve as a standard, only shadows of trees in the lower left bottom.
"All this considered, the photo presented here appears to be an excellent and probably genuine photo of a classical disc photographed in daylight.
Although unlikely, if further information and clarification is available, it will be presented in a future issue of the Bulletin
Further, the following Link
to a former Frisbee manufacturer who rules out the aerodynamics
of the object as being that of a 'Frisbee'
So there you go. I don't expect anyone to read the entire 19 pages but at least look over.