Lost photo of UFO found

reply to post by smurfy


Great picture. My family has a cabin in the Allegheny Mountains and I've heard of Bigfoot sightings and even had an encounter myself. The area up there is really creepy.

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by dtrock78

 

For me, Curious4ufos posting on pg. 35 has pretty much ruled out the hubcap theory.

In that case i don't think you read the post very carefully. It doesn't rule out a hubcap, which is confirmed in this later post:

Originally posted by curious4ufos
That doesn't mean it can't be a very similar hubcap, there must be thousands of different hubcap designs out there.

I am a believer, but the fact that this happened in a radio silence area suggests to me not that it's a real exterteresstial UFO, but that it's a UFO from Earth. That area would make a great testing ground.

Plus all these 50s, 60s and 70s UFOs always look so 50s, 60s and 70s. Looks like human technology to me.

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by kdog1982

 

Nobody can seem find it...so maybe this is the only one and it has never been published. I am actually very surprised that someone hasn't at least found another photo of this same object.

Believe me, you are keeping me busy. I have hunted for a dupe of that pic. I'm left bum empty.

I can't say Hoax, but I lean that way. It's just my skeptical view on life. I'm a realist.

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by rigel4

 

This photo has definitely NOT been proven to be a fake...at least not yet...On the contrary, it still stands up after 36 pages of intense photographic analysis and scrutiny by some very talented photographic experts here on ATS.

Bull poop. I did showed it as a model on a wire here: link.

If you insist that I blow it up and pixel peep here you go:



The lines perfectly line up in a ONE PIXEL line from top to bottom.

This is a model suspended on a wire.

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by kdog1982

 

...and so many, many, more, my friend : )
I seem to collect mysteries.

Hey, keep us to one or two a month, OK? We'll solve em all, just don't flood us.

You are a VERY interesting character.

reply to post by pianopraze


But wasn't that later showing to be the bleed through from the letter "K" on the back of the document?

Just saying. A few pages later the writing bleed through was accepted as the string theory debunk. I better go re-read.

reply to post by Druid42


I debunked it being just the K. My post was after that. If you draw a ONE PIXEL line from top to bottom connecting the two lines i show here... then use the arrow key to nudge the line over one or two pixels, you will see the lines in several places all up and down the photo.

There is no way this is not a model on a wire.

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by pianopraze

 

But wasn't that later showing to be the bleed through from the letter "K" on the back of the document?

Just saying. A few pages later the writing bleed through was accepted as the string theory debunk. I better go re-read.

My take is that the bleed through of the K would probably have been wider so I'm not 100% sure that's what we see on the scan. However, it the K bleed through certainly can't be ruled out as the source and therefore we can't say that's evidence of a string. It's unfortunate the bleed-through of the K happens coincidentally in that exact spot, but that's what we have to deal with so at best it's inconclusive.

With advanced photographic techniques, an FBI lab could likely separate the image on the emulsion from the bleed-through of the writing on the back, but this is beyond the capabilities of most of us including the OP so we will probably never know.

reply to post by pianopraze


Yeah, I checked. It was before, not after.

Heck, I was going with the tossed hubcap theory. Your dangling a hubcap from a fishing pole by fishing line theory is also acceptable. However, can you refute curious4ufo's focal points? He brought another interesting twist in the conversation. His analysis deems the UFO to be above the third tree line. Color gradients are a viable twist in this mystery. That's make the UFO about 150 ft across. Your thoughts?

reply to post by Druid42


Here's my home made ufo above the treeline:



If I set my lens to infinity and shot in daytime it would look similar. Maybe I'll recreate it tomorrow in daylight.

In reality my UFO is 3 feet off the ground and my camera is a few inches off the ground.

That's by far the closest pic of a ufo I've seen... Their propulsion makes the sky orange, which I totally knew it would... There's a chance it may be hanging from a string though (or it's a 'pixel')... Still.... Interesting.

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by rigel4

 

This photo has definitely NOT been proven to be a fake...at least not yet...On the contrary, it still stands up after 36 pages of intense photographic analysis and scrutiny by some very talented photographic experts here on ATS.
With all due respect, if you have proof that it is a hoax, please offer it...rather than to dismiss it with simple opinion. Thank you.

Glad to see this thread continued on.

It will not be possible to prove this real or a hoax. That is the case with many of these photo's.

In this case the age of the photo and the year it was taken factor into that. The prints from that time simply do not archive well.

This seems to me to be another among the unknowns. We can form opinions but no proof either way will happen.

That looks pretty fake... Just saying

OP,
You should take a shot and try sending the digitals to Bruce Maccabee. I always liked his analysis on UFO programs because he is pretty impartial, and he always seems to have some great computer software for photo analysis.

He's got his own website, maybe sending him an email through it with the link to this thread would be all it took. When I was a member of the History Channel boards (before they took them down) we were able to get several notable people to come onto a thread and discuss a topic with us, it was pretty neat. And usually a simple invite is all it takes.

reply to post by dtrock78

Hi dtrock,
I don't know anything about Mr. Maccabee, but if you have a way of contacting him, inviting him into this discussion and/or forwarding these scans, I would be very grateful...I'm sure we would all appreciate his thoughts.

reply to post by dtrock78


is he the guy on ufo hunters?

@ IAMTAT

I just sent him an email explaining this photo and asked him to review the thread. I'll let you know ASAP if he gets back to me. I'm hoping I piqued his curiosity.

@ DASH

No, but he's been on several programs over the years.

He's a retired optical physicist that worked for the Navy. He's written several technical articles/papers over the years and in terms of sheer science / analytical background, I think he's one of the best.

Here's his Wiki page -

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Druid42

Druid,
I believe that the result of 'curious4ufos' learned and impressive photographic analysis on the image's focal planes ultimately indicated that this object was roughly three car lengths in size (40-60 ft.?).

reply to post by dtrock78

Thanks again, dtrock. I hope he responds...I would love to have his take on this.