UFO Photographed In 1937 Flying Above City Hall In Vancouver, Canada

originally posted by: GovernmentSauce

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Blue Shift
The photo looks flat, like it had a stray drop of developer fluid on it when they hung it up to dry.

Since it was midday in a large city and NOBODY else went on record as noticing it, what does Occam's Razor suggest?

I'm not supporting any claim for or against this image being either a developing error or an extraterrestrial probe-weilding visitor, for I have no experience in either sphere; but where in the OP or the link does it state that the photographs were taken at midday? I did not see that.

It does state a few times that the intention behind taking the photographs was to capture the Christmas lights. Are Christmas lights usually illuminated and visibly distinct in Vancouver at midday? The photograph appears to show a dark(er) sky and distinct lights (or lighter areas) around the building, to my untrained eye; which one may imagine to depict a time between evening and early morning.

Do you perhaps have another link which clarifies the time at which the photo was taken? Genuinely curious. I have not seen this image before, nor heard of this case.

Fair question. It was sometime between 8 AM and 4 PM, sunrise and sunset in Vancouver.

ADD -- You've got to take decades-old family lore with caution, especially with such a striking image that cried out for a back story.

Ask yourself -- why only one shot? The guy goes to get a special seasonal image, makes one exposure [which he won't even see for days or weeks], figures it'll be perfect, and goes home?

add -- 'midday' was an assumption based on perceived daytime sky, in midwinter in far north.

a reply to: JimOberg

He probably didn't use an automatic and by the time he was ready for another shot it was gone? I'm only playing devil's advocate here because neither of us know for sure.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: JimOberg

"It looks like the Norwegian spiral and other "rockets" we've seen"

Which all reality-based people realize WERE rockets.

Well I read that as you implying that this was a rocket too. Maybe you should have been a little clearer as you didn't say this wasn't a rocket but you already knew that.

A good rule for writers is that writing something that CAN be understood isn't enough, you must write it so it CANNOT be MISunderstood, and I strive for that but can fall short Thanks.

The three rocket launchings posted earlier are thoroughly documented as weird-looking but in modern terms 'prosaic' events.

Norway spiral -- satobs.org...
SpaceX launch -- dozens of videos.
"China airport" -- Standard appearance of Soyuz launch out of Baykonur, used on a Chinese website which reported the airport story but seems to have had no actual connection with the sighting itself [this happens a lot]
typical videos shown here -- satobs.org...

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: JimOberg

He probably didn't use an automatic and by the time he was ready for another shot it was gone? I'm only playing devil's advocate here because neither of us know for sure.

So he then decided to forget about the reason he went down there in the first place?

a reply to: JimOberg

What do you mean? He took a photo, mission accomplished. For all we know he could have taken more photos that came out undeveloped or he could have taken some from different angles that didn't capture the anomaly.

We don't know for sure but a lack of extra images is not proof of a hoax.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes


Not proof but a little odd.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Looks like Flight of the Navigator craft.....

Cameras had no automatic anything back then. The negatives would be nice but they have been lost.

I'm going with watermark after many thousands of rolls personally processed. Could have been an eyelash on the negative.

originally posted by: HiMyNameIsCal
a reply to: badw0lf


Must have been some big news that day. Mabey the local sports team won or possibly the latest pinup girl is a real looker!


Never the less I sure see a lot of down turned caps.

They were the run of the mill jobless looking at their mobile papers for work.

Not sports fans checking their email.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: JimOberg

He probably didn't use an automatic and by the time he was ready for another shot it was gone? I'm only playing devil's advocate here because neither of us know for sure.

So he then decided to forget about the reason he went down there in the first place?

and he set his iphone -12 to make crappy photos of the night with alien ufos in the sky.

Aren't you better than this? I thought so... strange comeuppance for us I suppose.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: JimOberg

He probably didn't use an automatic and by the time he was ready for another shot it was gone? I'm only playing devil's advocate here because neither of us know for sure.

So he then decided to forget about the reason he went down there in the first place?

....Oh....Jim,Jim,jim

I'm leaning towards a flying pig in a translucent disk surrounded by a protective plasma.
Likely coal powered to account for the exhaust trail.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: RawIntel
Good thread OP, hadn't heard of this before either.

I'm going with real...mainly because Oberg chimed in. Dead giveaway.

I'm particularly interested in this picture because it's been used before to 'prove' that a lot of modern images of rocket launchings must be 'real UFOs' because they look like THIS pre-spaceflight emulsion flaw. That's what passes for 'disproof of debunking' in some quarters these days.

"particularly interested" in a photo that you deem to be nothing but an emulsion flaw? seems counterintuitive...in fact, your whole crusade is baffling to me. You're already clearly on the side of the majority; you hold nothing but "safe" opinions, yet you relentlessly argue and condescend to a demographic that you will A) never be able to sway to your side, and B) shouldn't care about in the first place. How many EXPERTS in their field do you know who sit around arguing with laymen all day? how many PEOPLE do you know who willingly and constantly inject themselves into a subculture they purport to despise and openly denigrate? let's be real - you use a LOT of the same leaps in judgment, cross-collateralization of information, red herrings, and outright misrepresentations as many of those you argue against, and you think that by cloaking it all in a facade of aeronautical jargon you're giving yourself an appearance of legitimacy...and I suppose you ARE, to some. for me, I admit that I find you frustrating at times, but mostly just hilarious. I've never seen someone with so much purported education and experience dive with such zeal into pointless arguments, simply to try to prove an opinion that ALL of his mainstream peers already hold...what are you trying to prove, and to whom?

If your game is NOT disinfo, then I am truly baffled as to what you hope to accomplish.


Your turn - take me to school

A distant meteor entering thicker atmosphere, burning up and exhibiting rapid changes in direction - the observers could not estimate actual distance. However, the vertical ascension at the end seems unexplained by my theory.

a reply to: RawIntel

Man, that was well stated! The sad part, is that he's not alone. He trolls YouTube videos too, to "argue and condescend," as well as to inject his "expert" opinion. He's been called a disinfo agent in the past, by researchers and professional people, including this educated guy:

a reply to: RawIntel

Fair questions, and I'm frequently asked them.
See www.jamesoberg.com...


Mainly, I learn things hereabouts I wouldn't otherwise encounter,
and I practice explaining really unearthly concepts like space flight
that aren't widely understood and such misunderstandings lead
to frequent misinterpretations of spaceflight-related images and videos.

[and sorry to disappoint, but I
do change a lot of minds, and make friends]

Well, once again, it all boils down to a crappy image with nothing else to back it up. So you either "believe" in it or not, however, it's all moot because there is no more information to be gleaned from it.

Therefore, it goes right into the file with the tens of thousands of other sightings and photos and videos that end up proving / illuminating exactly nothing except perhaps our own human proclivity for filling in the gaps of our own ignorance with whatever explanations we're most comfortable with.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: GovernmentSauce

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Blue Shift
The photo looks flat, like it had a stray drop of developer fluid on it when they hung it up to dry.

Since it was midday in a large city and NOBODY else went on record as noticing it, what does Occam's Razor suggest?

I'm not supporting any claim for or against this image being either a developing error or an extraterrestrial probe-weilding visitor, for I have no experience in either sphere; but where in the OP or the link does it state that the photographs were taken at midday? I did not see that.

It does state a few times that the intention behind taking the photographs was to capture the Christmas lights. Are Christmas lights usually illuminated and visibly distinct in Vancouver at midday? The photograph appears to show a dark(er) sky and distinct lights (or lighter areas) around the building, to my untrained eye; which one may imagine to depict a time between evening and early morning.

Do you perhaps have another link which clarifies the time at which the photo was taken? Genuinely curious. I have not seen this image before, nor heard of this case.

Fair question. It was sometime between 8 AM and 4 PM, sunrise and sunset in Vancouver.

ADD -- You've got to take decades-old family lore with caution, especially with such a striking image that cried out for a back story.

Ask yourself -- why only one shot? The guy goes to get a special seasonal image, makes one exposure [which he won't even see for days or weeks], figures it'll be perfect, and goes home?

add -- 'midday' was an assumption based on perceived daytime sky, in midwinter in far north.

Many thanks for your considered response, Jim.

I agree that there is certainly scope for over elaboration, or even manipulation, of the recollection of events - both conscious and unconscious - whenever one may face opportunities for greater personal 'exposure' ;-) Proving such can often be a tricky task, however.

As for the image being a concern because of a lack of others in the sequence, though, I'm not as sceptical. It's the millenial generation who pioneered the proliferation of endless day-to-day photography, not the generations before. Photographic film and development costs were expensive, unlike the modern ephemeral digital medium. Members of the general public were likely to be more spartan in their photographic habits than professionals of the day, or of the public today, principally because of the cost factor.

originally posted by: HiMyNameIsCal
a reply to: GovernmentSauce


I live near Vancouver and I can tell you that we have very cloudy "British" weather quite often. So early evening can be as dark as night, especially around Christmas.


I can also vouch for the amount of UFO activity around these parts. I have myself observed many unexplained aerial phenomena and am constantly watching the sky.

Many thanks for the reply and local insight, Cal. It seems that it may be harder to pin a clear timeframe to when the photgraph was taken than may have been suspected.

Here's hoping that we have fewer of those dark British clouds now that Spring is on the way

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

"some UFO researchers have suggested that this image is nothing but a watermark defect that appeared during the development of the print. " - nope. development defects don't fly across the sky before being photographed.

How do you know it's flying across the sky?....it's a photo not a video.