Lost photo of UFO found

Bob Down Under please don't be disillusioned. I think it's fair to investigate the possibilities, and we do that very critically here, and for good reasons. Namely, the number of misinterpretations and hoaxes that there are. Note, I didn't conclude anything but merely presented a visual possibility. Quite frankly, one picture and a second-hand story is hardly enough to conclude anything. So the picture stands as a question mark, never to be solved.

Don't mistake my approach to disbelief in the possibility of ET craft visting the earth. If I knew more about the photographer and other witnesses things might be more compelling.

I too thank the OP for sharing and allowing us to evaluate it.

Originally posted by kdog1982

I don't I copy and pasted it from the op source.

I played around with it a little,abetter look at it.

reply to post by Druid42

LOL...Thanks, Druid. I loved your deer hunter/hupcap story.

reply to post by verschickter


The Allegheny Mountains of Penn. are a pretty fair distance from the Hathor Temple of Dendra, Egypt...but that glyph certainly looks similar.

A picture of a picture?

Even the rock I live under has a scanner.

I think the picture needs to be authenticated first, in respect to the paper stock it was developed on. Is it consistent with what was available in 1970.

Fiber analysis. Hang on... I have Kodak on the phone.

reply to post by cluckerspud

Hi...I have posted high resolution scans...please read further into the thread.

reply to post by cluckerspud


photo paper discussed ages ago

Originally posted by Schlotzkins
Regarding the original photo, you've mentioned the distance haze factor. To my untrained eye, everything in the picture seems at least a little hazy. A couple questions if you don't mind....

You have to establish the level of atmospheric haze by looking at close objects and determining the level of tone from there. Then measure that tone against all others.

Originally posted by Schlotzkins
The way my eye perceives it, the tree on the right - on which one can apparently see individual leaves - appears to be the closest object to the camera. Next closest seems to be the object in question followed by all of the rest of the trees. That's just the way it seems to me. I see features and shapes on the object but not much real detail. Is that due to focus, haze, other conditions, etc.?

That's due to fixed focus. Everything is uniformly given a broad infinity focus if you want to think of it that way. I'd say the tree on the right, yes, is likely the closest item. Now when you sample the darkest area(s) of that tree, you see the value. Now sample the darkest part of the object. The object will show darker black levels than the tree. That means, it's closer than the closest object in the picture. Meaning, it's small and relatively close.

Originally posted by Schlotzkins
Given the size of the average tree leaf, could we estimate the distance at which an individual leaf becomes indistinguishable? Could we also use that info to get a distance from the tree to the camera? I guess I'm wondering whether we can get an idea of scale/distance using just the trees, then in turn estimate distance from the closest tree to the next closest tree, which appears to be below and behind the object. Then, assuming the object is where it appears to be in relation to the trees, we might be able to determine approximate scale of the object.

No. You'd have to determine ocular distortion, focal length, coupled with at least rough on-site measurements. of some kind.

Originally posted by Schlotzkins
Also, under the given conditions, at what distance do you expect to perceive haze? Could you please clarify for me how you quantify something like haze? I imagine there are tools for this, but I have no idea. Thanks.

Any raw-shot image has varying levels of tonal quality, and density. Let's take this pic we're talking about for example. Say it's allegedly the commonly reported 40ft wide. For it to be imaged at that size in the photo, it would have to be some considerable distance from the camera. The farther away an object is, the lighter the tonal qualities are. That's a simple fact of atmospheric density. How far does it have to be? Not far. But it almost becomes a moot point when the supposedly large distant object carries dark tonal qualities denser than the closest object. That's end of line. It's much closer than the closest object.

Now with enough know-how and effort - you can fake distance hazing in a couple different ways that don't involve digital means. But I'm not going to instruct the next generation of hoaxers by posting that here.

Originally posted by Bob Down Under
Rarely do i post comments these days but I have to chuck my 2 cents worth in on this thread.

If i was in possession of a ufo/ Et craft photo i would never post up on ats for many reasons, one being any slight artifact would be put through the mill and would debunked as a hoax.

Good luck to the OP

If the photo is a genuine object, and exhibited all the characteristics it should via a genuine photo of a distant relatively large object - then there's nothing anyone can say to debunk it. This isn't about opinions, it's about what is and isn't.

If it's a genuine UFO shot, witnessed by someone and photographed - then the visual data will bear that out. So if one has an original photo of a flying object they say was the real deal - they've nothing to fear in submitting it.

I think MUFON takes the appropriate approach towards photos and sightings, it's an approach they've developed over many years of investigating sightings. They stress one thing above all others- a credible sighting begins with a credible witness. In the case of photos that are sent in, the very first thing they do is attempt to locate the person who took the photograph to find out what their state of mind is, whether they were inebriated, etc. Basically they feel it's vitally important to verify the person is credible and that they have nothing to gain, that they are presenting the photo for honest reasons and not hoaxing. From there they try and determine from the witness the exact spot the photo was taken and in what direction, what they saw/ heard at the time, etc. MUFON can then check to see if there's a nearby airport, air base, weather station that launches balloons, etc.

The thing about this particular photo is the photo is all we have. We have no witness. And under MUFON's criteria, that renders the photo nothing more than a curiosity. It's completely worthless without access to the witness, and should be dismissed as unimportant since it can be anything (piece of trash blowing by, kid's flying toy, experimental drone, staged hoax, etc.)

reply to post by jritzmann


Looks similar to the "Area S4 UFO Revealed!" model.

www.google.com... ed=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=800&bih=476

reply to post by jritzmann


Thank you for your time and expert analysis on this photo. I have to say that after reading all of the helpful commentary and analysis in this thread (Your's in particular)...that I am leaning towards (80%) the idea that the object in this photo is probably not a genuine flying disc (possibly a hubcap, as you suggest). My only reservations (20%) stem from the atmospheric cloud or mist present around the dome of the object in the red-filter of the high-resolution scan (see page 29).
In the end,...this discussion has been both fun and illuminating for me, although I must confess to a degree of disappointment that we may not yet have found 'The Real Deal'.
Thanks again...TAT

Originally posted by cluckerspud
A picture of a picture?

Even the rock I live under has a scanner.

I think the picture needs to be authenticated first, in respect to the paper stock it was developed on. Is it consistent with what was available in 1970.

Fiber analysis. Hang on... I have Kodak on the phone.

sorry, poor effort. please read entire thread then come back and comment. you can find the hi res scans somewhere around page 12.

paper age seems to have been confirmed also.

Very interesting photo. Thanks for sharing OP.

reply to post by amlight


Thank you.

reply to post by jritzmann


Thanks for that very detailed reply to all of my questions. I appreciate it very much.

Best thread I've read in many moons.

Originally posted by Bob Down Under
If i was in possession of a ufo/ Et craft photo i would never post up on ats for many reasons, one being any slight artifact would be put through the mill and would debunked as a hoax.

I imagine that if I was in possession of a really good UFO photo, this would be one of the first places I'd take it, because I'd want it to be put through the mill to prove it positive. However, I would also keep in mind that even though I might have had an awesome experience and despite all odds was able to come away with a good photo of it, without additional evidence I can't expect to prove to anyone that it happened. Photos are limited by their nature, as are witness descriptions.

If you want to objectively prove something, it has to go far beyond a single account or photo and into multiple non-anonymous witnesses, multiple photos, physical evidence directly linked to the photos, that evidence confirmed by experts to be "alien," and so on. That's the criteria, and it's pretty tough, but dammit it should be. We're talking about trying to prove whether or not something exists here.

Or in the case of UFOs, at least "half-exists."

Great thread that I just spend a lot of time reading at work

Good thing it's a slow day.

Couple quick suggestions/observations I havent seen yet (although I admittedly skipped a couple pages in the mid-20s on this thread)

1. If this object is a hubcap, I take issue with the way the lighting looks on the edge of it. It is lit, rather than shaded, which gives the impression the edges are at a different angle when compared to the stock photos that have been supplied here.

2. I'd expect to see sharper, continual contrast throughout the object if its size is that of a hubcap. I'd also expect to see a "starburst" relfection at least somewhere on the object, giving the way the object is lit, with the light source to the top left.

3. If the "string" is at a 5 degree angle, if would mean the object would be rocking back and forth and I'd expect to see varying amounts of sharpness on each one of its ends. The object has a uniform edge. Then again, Im not sure what the shutter speeds back then could do in terms of catching a "freeze frame".

4.The haze/shade comparison looks pretty similar to the larger tree on the right.

5. And somewhat out there observation - what about the shape of the tree on the right? It almost looks like it is swaying to the right, away from the object, similar to how the trees in my backyard do with a large gust of wind.

That's all for now! Thanks everyone for keeping it relatively civil, we made some good progress!

Now if only our Congress could learn from this!

reply to post by dtrock78


Great points dtrock. I especially agree with the potential 5 degree rocking motion, vis-a-vis a string model.

reply to post by IAMTAT


Could be real, who knows. I'm keeping my options open on this one. Have you tried searching for other reports in the area at that timeframe? Contact a few major UFO groups like Mufon and submit it (hi rez image front/back) with the information you have. Maybe it'll fit into another unsolved puzzle. Try to contact the other man's family. It may be a story he told many times with more information to be uncovered.

Keep on this and don't conclude anything yet.