Oh how I miss the UFO pictures of Yesteryear whether hoaxed or possibly real

In the Yesteryears of UFO scrutiny and debate…..the pictures offered back then we’re closer to the view and much more detailed in shape and definition. They were in the iconic shapes that were discussed and immortalized as a “Classic Flying Saucer” shapes.



Today we get pictures of obscured, globular, quasi spherical points of lights in the sky at distances in the order of miles away. Lacking in detailed and definable shapes.



What happened? It’s like a paradigm shift on how we view UFO’s. Why can’t today’s pictures of objects reflect those of Yesteryear? Surely today’s cameras are top notch than decades back.

Why are UFO’s not closer to people in the distances they used to be, whether hoaxed or real, in the pictures being presented for scrutiny and debate in today’s world. The discussion of pictures presented today seems to be diminished in that… how much in conversation can one theorize, hypothesize, and conclude as a real hoax or a real UFO, from a dot(s) of light(s) in the daylight or evening sky?

Perhaps Aliens are now camera shy….

I would rather discuss yesteryear iconic type UFO pictures ….if only those types of pictures were taken with the cameras of today whether standalone or incorporated in a cellphone.

👽🛸

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Remember all the debate about that one guy (don’t remember exactly) Billy Meier I think? He had the best fakes.

I had a clear daytime sighting several years ago.

It looked like an eggshaped blob of hematite.

Maintained consistent speed and trajetory, consistant altitude during duration.

I didn't bother trying to capture it with my cellphone because it would have been horrible video not doing the moment or sighting justice and ultimately serve no real point.

So I didn't even try and just enjoyed seeing what I was experiencing.

Maybe the real craft are only showing themselves to people who don't really care about "having proof".


ETA : I also miss the days when Crafts had "character" and material substance.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

They are my favorite threads here to read. Hoaxes or not.

But the old school one's were definitely neater to look at.

You brought an interesting idea to my head. What really changed? Is it that the cameras back then were a mechanical device. The cameras today are electronic. I would wonder if this has something to do with that.

originally posted by: Kocag
You brought an interesting idea to my head. What really changed? Is it that the cameras back then were a mechanical device. The cameras today are electronic. I would wonder if this has something to do with that.

Perhaps you have something there….but how would it be testable?

A person would first have to notice or be aware that a traditional Flying Saucer is relatively very near to you physically…..and that does not seem to happen much these day’s, let alone having a mechanical type camera with you at the same time.

Perhaps one can approach it as they do when ghost hunting. That is to say, sometimes ghosts are not seen through a camera lens until the picture gets reviewed, and then a ghost appears in the image. I suppose if you wanted to, you can take a mechanical camera and just take a set of pictures in a 360 degree sweep of the sky. And then develop the film (and there in lies a problem and high costs first finding film and then the developing of it)…see if you’ve captured anything.

Or you can get lucky like those in the past…..have a close sighting and have a mechanical camera with you, film loaded and ready to shoot. Hell…keep the camera in your glove compartment at the ready….

Perhaps electronic technology obsoleted mechanical cameras for a reason….hmmmmm

👽📸🍺

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Remember all the debate about that one guy (don’t remember exactly) Billy Meier I think? He had the best fakes.

I had the opportunity to buy his original photo album. I still kick myself or not jumping on it.

I don't totally discredit Meier. I think he could have had a genuine encounter. And then hoaxed everything after that for what ever reason.

originally posted by: kangawoo

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Remember all the debate about that one guy (don’t remember exactly) Billy Meier I think? He had the best fakes.

I had the opportunity to buy his original photo album. I still kick myself or not jumping on it.

I don't totally discredit Meier. I think he could have had a genuine encounter. And then hoaxed everything after that for what ever reason.

WOW….I am truly sorry for your loss. I would have jumped on it in a heartbeat. Yeah I think he had an experience as well….the pictures are iconic either real, half real half false, completely false….it didn’t matter. I only viewed them in (old) UFO magazines I use to buy. Billy was one of my influences in the interest of UFO’s.

👽🍻

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I don't follow your logic. If yesterdays photographs of UFOs are meaningful to you, and something you'd love to have, why not taking photographs for yourself? The way those vintage-looking pics were taken is widely known: you just need two dishes, some glue, some fishing line, and an old camera.

You can take as many photographs of your flying saucers as you like.

a reply to: Direne

Spray paint a frisbee silver.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I don't follow your logic. If yesterdays photographs of UFOs are meaningful to you, and something you'd love to have, why not taking photographs for yourself? The way those vintage-looking pics were taken is widely known: you just need two dishes, some glue, some fishing line, and an old camera.

You can take as many photographs of your flying saucers as you like.

Is this what you mean?



I took that in 1977, with a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Flash camera. I have always been interested in U.F.O. pictures and wondered how many of them were real and how many were fake. So I hit upon the idea that the only way to be able to spot the fake ones was to try to replicate the process myself. I got pretty good at figuring out how to spot fake ones; used a lot of different techniques, too. The above shot is what I call the classic "Pie Pan" shot. It's just some sort of round item or plate-type object thrown into the sky and photographed. This happens to be an actual pie pan.


Edit to add:
This was one I shot in 1978 and it resembles the very first one in the OP:




It happens to be another one of my classic "Pie Pan" shots.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I wonder about those pictures back then. Was it life imitating art or art imitating life? The flying saucers in the science fiction movies from the 1950s were almost always shaped like "Flying Saucers." Todays SF movies don't use that shape much anymore.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

What happened? It’s like a paradigm shift on how we view UFO’s. Why can’t today’s pictures of objects reflect those of Yesteryear? Surely today’s cameras are top notch than decades back.

Why ?
Anyone can doctor pictures nowadays .
Back then they were actual objects such as hubcaps from Ford autos , hats , etc.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Congratulations. That's pure scientific method at work. Replicating what one cannot understand in order to obtain a deep understanding of what initially looked as a weird event.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

It's the difference between digital and celluloid based film. Probably has to do with spectrum sensitivity.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Congratulations. That's pure scientific method at work. Replicating what one cannot understand in order to obtain a deep understanding of what initially looked as a weird event.

Maybe you can't understand it. (I have my suspicions why you have problems like that.) But, I understand it perfectly. A lot of those old U.F.O. pictures were fake. Period. And I know how they faked them.

Do you understand now?

originally posted by: Gothmog
Anyone can doctor pictures nowadays .
Back then they were actual objects such as hubcaps from Ford autos , hats , etc.

Correct. Or Oldsmobile hubcaps:

The fact that almost everyone has a phone with a camera on and yet there is a lack of good modern photos would suggest that most old photos were faked.

Sad but probably true.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

lol! I certainly did. My words were honest. No sarcasm. That's why I said you did well in showing the OP how to obtain similar pics as the ones he misses,

I hope this makes clear you simply over-reacted. Now, tell me, is it because in these forums one never expects the other posters to be sincere? What made you think my words were sarcastic?

I'm deeply sad how irrationally defensive social media turns people. Yet, I forgive you for your mistake.

One thing is for sure... These pics are not photoshoped...