Lost photo of UFO found

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Same as I was thinking, except that the trees on the right are a little sharper. I suppose there could be localised fog to the left though. There is not much view of the sky, with just a hint of cloud and not much contrast from the trees, it's more like a very old picture.

I cant get it out of my head I've seen this exact photo before. No telling if there are other prints floating around.

From the fifties through he sixties novelty photo's were quite popular. They were not hoaxes but usually fun stuff like UFO's or giant vegetables on a train car, stuff like that. They were often done by pasting the object on top of a background photo, then airbrushed to hide the edge and a photo of the result was then taken to produce a negative for the final print. Some are very convincing.

Originally posted by jerryznv

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by jerryznv

 

I think you are misunderstanding the role of Skeptic. We look for proof while giving every new thing the benefit of the doubt until it can be ruled out as a hoax or mistaken identity. Skeptics actually want to find the real thing. You have to start with no opinion and proceed from there.

I think you are right...and in this case I have decided that until the photo can be scanned and uploaded then there is nothing to talk about.

It needs examined...the fact that it can't be is proof enough that I can't assume it's real...if I were in such a hurry to post this thread and provided this photo...well I would have made it available for speculation...not the case here...just a story and a picture...how am I to swallow that?

Edit: Here's a star for your attempt at correcting me...thanks!

edit on 27-11-2011 by jerryznv because: ...

By not expecting everyone here to know what they should do and expecting them to post what they have asking for help as is the case here. I see nothing wrong here; just a person who found an old photo looking for help with it.

Do you think everyone interested here automatically knows what they should or should not do before asking? Of course not.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by jerryznv

 

I think you are misunderstanding the role of Skeptic. We look for proof while giving every new thing the benefit of the doubt until it can be ruled out as a hoax or mistaken identity. Skeptics actually want to find the real thing. You have to start with no opinion and proceed from there.

I can only tell you that I am not a hoaxer and have told the truth about how this came to me. I have posted this actual photo about which I have no knowledge as to whether or not it is something someone 'made up' a long time ago and photographed or actually witnessed at the time and snapped a photo. What I do know is that it's an old photo.

I look forward to seeing a high-res scan of this picture.

Ive just ran i through some art programs and i agree with what Blaine91555 said the focus would indicate that the object could be closer than the trees. Or its possible it could have been pasted on with an art program, or maybe even the old time method of a double exposure.

I did find a few anomaly's in the low-res pictures but i will wait until we see a higher res-scan to confirm before pointing them out.

If and when the IAMTAT does make a higher res scan could he please complete the scan and post it to the web in BMP or PNG format so there is no lossy compression pixelation, posting a JPG will just be a waste of time.

Blind skeptism is just as bad as blind acceptance. moderation people

Originally posted by davespanners
This one is quite similar, superficially anyway

Looks like that was the 70's style for ufo's

edit on 27-11-2011 by davespanners because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2011 by davespanners because: (no reason given)

Isn't it time for the 2012 models (UFOs) to be coming out soon??

reply to post by Blaine91555

Do you think everyone interested here automatically knows what they should or should not do before asking? Of course not.

As you say..."of course not"...I would not expect someone to post a picture and have it determined by skepticism...just swallow it...really?

I should think that someone with over 100 post's should know that there is going to be someone saying bulls*it...would you think not?

I am just stating my opinion...and lack of proof makes it unjustifiable...as would overwhelming proof...simply saying that without more I am left with less...and less leaves me skeptical.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Same as I was thinking, except that the trees on the right are a little sharper. I suppose there could be localised fog to the left though. There is not much view of the sky, with just a hint of cloud and not much contrast from the trees, it's more like a very old picture.

I cant get it out of my head I've seen this exact photo before. No telling if there are other prints floating around.

From the fifties through he sixties novelty photo's were quite popular. They were not hoaxes but usually fun stuff like UFO's or giant vegetables on a train car, stuff like that. They were often done by pasting the object on top of a background photo, then airbrushed to hide the edge and a photo of the result was then taken to produce a negative for the final print. Some are very convincing.

That could have been done just as easily with a polaroid double exposure, (what a take on they were..cost a fortune for the film) this picture looks a bit like a polaroid result, except that most of the picture should be in focus across the shot, but it isn't.

reply to post by IAMTAT


Great photo. I heard so many accouts of UFOs over the years what was this about? was it the one that supposedly crashed and was removed?

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

That helps and I'll see what I can find as far as samples and lists. The color degradation looks right to me. Prior to about 1976 or so the photo's discolored and faded badly if not kept away from light. You should keep it in a envelope to keep light out.

I had my son take a look at the back of the photo paper (younger eyesight to see if there was any other marks besides KONICA and 100...In the upper right corner in very faded grey he found the word 'Long' stamped diagonally (same angle as the others) and upside-down.

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by jerryznv

 

I think you are misunderstanding the role of Skeptic. We look for proof while giving every new thing the benefit of the doubt until it can be ruled out as a hoax or mistaken identity. Skeptics actually want to find the real thing. You have to start with no opinion and proceed from there.

I can only tell you that I am not a hoaxer and have told the truth about how this came to me. I have posted this actual photo about which I have no knowledge as to whether or not it is something someone 'made up' a long time ago and photographed or actually witnessed at the time and snapped a photo. What I do know is that it's an old photo.

No offense but yes you have no idea...so respectfully I will be critical of the photo.

I don't doubt your honesty and I am not attacking your post...but without more I have to assume that it is fake before I assume it is real...that is the nature of this site and with the millions of fakes you should understand that a person might leer at this skeptically.

Originally posted by jerryznv

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by jerryznv

 

I think you are misunderstanding the role of Skeptic. We look for proof while giving every new thing the benefit of the doubt until it can be ruled out as a hoax or mistaken identity. Skeptics actually want to find the real thing. You have to start with no opinion and proceed from there.

I can only tell you that I am not a hoaxer and have told the truth about how this came to me. I have posted this actual photo about which I have no knowledge as to whether or not it is something someone 'made up' a long time ago and photographed or actually witnessed at the time and snapped a photo. What I do know is that it's an old photo.

No offense taken. I'm as interested as everyone else to find out about this photo.

No offense but yes you have no idea...so respectfully I will be critical of the photo.

I don't doubt your honesty and I am not attacking your post...but without more I have to assume that it is fake before I assume it is real...that is the nature of this site and with the millions of fakes you should understand that a person might leer at this skeptically.

Originally posted by jerryznv

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by jerryznv

 

I think you are misunderstanding the role of Skeptic. We look for proof while giving every new thing the benefit of the doubt until it can be ruled out as a hoax or mistaken identity. Skeptics actually want to find the real thing. You have to start with no opinion and proceed from there.

I can only tell you that I am not a hoaxer and have told the truth about how this came to me. I have posted this actual photo about which I have no knowledge as to whether or not it is something someone 'made up' a long time ago and photographed or actually witnessed at the time and snapped a photo. What I do know is that it's an old photo.

No offense but yes you have no idea...so respectfully I will be critical of the photo.

I don't doubt your honesty and I am not attacking your post...but without more I have to assume that it is fake before I assume it is real...that is the nature of this site and with the millions of fakes you should understand that a person might leer at this skeptically.

No offense taken I'm as interestested as everyone else to find out about this photo.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Ive heard this exact same back story to a UFO pic before. Father passes away and son finds a photo of a UFO with some writing on the back.

edit on 27-11-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

Yup, the story comes with little alarm bells attached to it. I will keep an open mind though, I always do

reply to post by IAMTAT

No offense taken I'm as interestested as everyone else to find out about this photo.

I am interested too...so before we jump ahead and assume it is real...let us investigate...with hundreds of these photos showing up everyday...there has to be some kind of investigation into it's authenticity

I am all ears to someone here showing me it's authentic!.

sharpened the pic up with my iphone (photogene2, great app) and made a few quick adjustments. you can see the detail on the craft a little clearer



edit: it messed up the resolution a little in the edit so disregard this... i am however really looking forward to seeing the hi-res scan of the photo. i think this could really be something, aside from the fact it looks suspiciously '70s'

Originally posted by RickyVelveeta
sharpened the pic up with my iphone (photogene2, great app) and made a few quick adjustments. you can see the detail on the craft a little clearer



edit: it messed up the resolution a little in the edit so disregard this... i am however really looking forward to seeing the hi-res scan of the photo. i think this could really be something, aside from the fact it looks suspiciously '70s'

edit on 27-11-2011 by RickyVelveeta because: bad pic

Looks good...I am not sure what you were trying to do...but a new perspective helps...I guess we are all standing by on this one!

Another hold your breath moment in ATS history...and tomorrow the saga continues...supposedly!

reply to post by smurfy


The stamp means it went through Konica processing I think. Likely from an old "EE-Matic" and stores that carried those generally did their processing through Konica rather than Kodak. Konica did have a camera that would take Polaroid film I think, but I don't remember ever seeing one.

The stamps description matches. Nothing fancy back then. Stamp the Konica name and then grab a 100 stamp and add that.

I think Montgomery Ward carried Konica and Sears and Roebuck carried Kodak. Remember, those were the Malls then.

Kodak is easy to find info on papers and stuff but Konica, not so easy.

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

That helps and I'll see what I can find as far as samples and lists. The color degradation looks right to me. Prior to about 1976 or so the photo's discolored and faded badly if not kept away from light. You should keep it in a envelope to keep light out.

I had my son take a look at the back of the photo paper (younger eyesight

to see if there was any other marks besides KONICA and 100...In the upper right corner in very faded grey he found the word 'Long' stamped diagonally (same angle as the others) and upside-down.

Interesting? That may help also. I'm having a hard time finding a list for Konica products before 1976.

reply to post by Blaine91555

I cant get it out of my head I've seen this exact photo before. No telling if there are other prints floating around.

Same here. And I'm pretty sure it was on ATS.

OP, I know you mean well and are being honest in your research regarding this photograph. I am trying to find where I've seen this before but nothing so far.

Will definitely keep an eye on this thread and/or will update if I find that pic.

S&F for genuine information request !!