Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: ufo photos

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364

    ufo photos

    There are many books on ufos, showing photos of "ufos" as in extraterrestrial spaceships. Many photos from the 50s up to the present. From many different people in all walks of life. The early ones, the classical saucer shape. Many from Mexico and South America. From fuzzy photos to the obviously fake Billy Meier photos taken in the bucolic Zurich Oberland. Leaving the con men and kooks aside, there are still lots of photos taken by what seems to be normal persons. One off snapshots taken while on vacation, or in the backyard. The photos show some object in the sky. Usually fuzzy, sometimes a hazy light. Often the classical saucer shape with a dome. What I wonder is if these persons are mostly pranksters or just misinterpreting normal objects? Probably misinterpreting objects. Many seem to be sincere, but misguided. Now Youtube videos... When you look at some of the old photos taken in the 60s and 70s, there does seem to be an object there. While not conclusive, still interesting. Never shooting gun evidence. Pilots and military personnel attest to sightings, but never conclusive.

    Nowadays, the whole field is polluted with wackos. Ufo congresses can be outright dismissed. I am just addressing the man in the street or military man who has no agenda and just once snapped a photo of an object.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    1,973
    I don't see a question in your statement, anything specific you are looking for? I never put much weight on photos of night time lights unless they are so close up that the witness sees an alien through a window, I recall no photo which exists of that type of circumstance but there are sightings like that on record.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,070
    It also seems like, if these were really alien spacecraft, then today as more and more people are carrying higher and higher quality cameras, then the number of such photos and their quality should steadily increase. When there are big impressive meteors, we can often find dashboard camera video of the event. But that doesn't seem to be the case. We still just see the occasional photo, and always blurry and indistinct.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    It also seems like, if these were really alien spacecraft, then today as more and more people are carrying higher and higher quality cameras, then the number of such photos and their quality should steadily increase. When there are big impressive meteors, we can often find dashboard camera video of the event. But that doesn't seem to be the case. We still just see the occasional photo, and always blurry and indistinct.
    Yes, indeed. It is a rare instance where absence of evidence is, in reality, evidence of absence.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,337
    I think you'd have to put yourself in the shoes of the average Joe, not interested in airplanes, not really interested in UFO sightings, no real experience in photography. Then suddenly lots of things seem amazing. An airplane seeming to fly extremely fast (but it's actually the much lower cloud layer moving very fast the other direction in a storm front)... a far away blob zips away real fast, making very sudden angular moves (but it's a drop of water on the lens, moving with a sweeping camera, or an out of focus insect close by)... three stars moving in formation (actually US satellites designed to fly in a triangle). It also explains why in such videos there are never crowds of people ooh'ing and aah'ing at that marvelous thing in the sky.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    I don't see a question in your statement, anything specific you are looking for? I never put much weight on photos of night time lights unless they are so close up that the witness sees an alien through a window, I recall no photo which exists of that type of circumstance but there are sightings like that on record.
    Well, the question is, regarding mainly old photos taken by normal photos, what could be a plausible explanation? Are the photos below all hoaxes?
    Here is a bit of what I am talking about:
    https://www.geek.com/culture/before-...tings-1759746/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,337
    Taken by normal photos?

    You don't need photoshop or a drone to fake a UFO.. just throw something in the air, snap a picture or 20, pick a nice vague one, done. At least, that's how it used to be. And lenticular clouds are much better known now than they were before. I mean, more people know what they are. And some of those pictures are so vague they're hard to take seriously. So, all of those in the article hoaxes? No, probably not. Some absolutely. Some probably honest pictures of amazing natural things. Maybe one or two damaged film.. who knows?
    Last edited by slang; 2019-Mar-07 at 10:02 PM. Reason: natural*
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,138
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Well, the question is, regarding mainly old photos taken by normal photos, what could be a plausible explanation? Are the photos below all hoaxes?
    Here is a bit of what I am talking about:
    https://www.geek.com/culture/before-...tings-1759746/
    Who knows? And the odds are we will never know.

    Just looking through them, some of them look like probable misidentifications - clouds or other things. Maybe some are hoaxes. But the bottom line is I don't know, I doubt anyone KNOWS, and I doubt anyone ever will.

    And given that, I don't find them all that important or interesting. At best they are curiosities and they demonstrate nothing as far as I'm concerned. Bad data is still bad data, and having that much more of it does not prove anything.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    ...- clouds or other things. Maybe some are hoaxes.
    Did you say horses?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Pareidolia horse.jpg 
Views:	41 
Size:	6.2 KB 
ID:	24066

    UFOs have a double boost with the sciencey feel plus the "what if" excitement that is like investing a dollar in the lottery for the "what if" imaginative experience. Remember this one...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Pareidolia.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	5.1 KB 
ID:	24067

    Then you add the likelihood that other sentient life exists given 2E23 stars in the observable universe, it's hard not to do a double take on whatever evidence is deemed worth of consideration. I haven't seen anything worthy enough to go from "Unidentified Flying" something to an alien space ship from another planet.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,530
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    Taken by normal photos?

    You don't need photoshop or a drone to fake a UFO.. just throw something in the air, snap a picture or 20, pick a nice vague one, done. At least, that's how it used to be.
    Speaking of which, something struck me about the first one in that link:


    This reminds me an awful lot of a very common object, though people normally don't get to see it in isolation:

    A ventilated brake disc!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,708
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Well, the question is, regarding mainly old photos taken by normal photos, what could be a plausible explanation? Are the photos below all hoaxes?
    Here is a bit of what I am talking about:
    https://www.geek.com/culture/before-...tings-1759746/
    Some are obvious fakes. Some seem to be natural phenomena (lenticular clouds). Some may be artefacts such as lens flare. Some are "unidentified".

    Given that the number and quality of pictures hasn't increased in direct proportion with the number and quality of cameras out there, I can't see much point in wondering about these unidentifiable pictures.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,245
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Well, the question is, regarding mainly old photos taken by normal photos, what could be a plausible explanation
    Look at the photos that you cited. The plausible explanation is that some of these are photos of normal phenomena, e.g. Venus, cloud formations, terrestrial lights, planes, camera flares. Or even flaws in the film or processing (these are vintage photos).
    Another plausible explanation is that most of these photos are fakes, e.g. a "Flying Saucer Club" just happens to release a photo that looks like a model UFO thrown up in the air! A photo of what looks like a pot lid!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,199
    I find that I cannot possibly respect--or believe in--any alien species that is incapable of hiding its flying craft from apes with simple cameras.

    Speaking of McMinnville, there was an excellent examination of the photos, somewhere online, that took the case apart. It was well within the realm of clever fakery.

    LATER: I think it was this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20190301...com/trent.html
    Last edited by Roger E. Moore; 2019-Mar-08 at 02:32 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    426
    The image below is a scan of a photograph that was printed in a recent article on 'ufo sightings' in my local newspaper.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Newspaper Cropped.jpg 
Views:	62 
Size:	680.5 KB 
ID:	24071

    The image below is a photograph I took of Tiangong I last year as it passed overhead.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	TIANGONG 1 2018 03 21 19_56_19 AEST Cropped.jpg 
Views:	63 
Size:	181.0 KB 
ID:	24072

    I would sincerely doubt if any similar dumbbell shaped object captured in a photograph was a 'ufo'.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    What I do not understand is why a rural family would come up with hoax... Seem harmless people to me.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSu_qnhWehA

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,337
    One: what do you call a hoax? Any picture that some people claim contains a UFO, but does not? What if someone takes a picture, has it developed and printed, takes it home, and discovers something odd on it. Film defect, lense glare, closeby insect, whatever. Shows it to someone saying "this is odd". His friend takes the picture shows it to someone else. Someone else runs to the newspaper and says "UFO!!!!!". Is that a very unrealistic scenario, do you think?

    Two: what, in your opinion, should people who purposely create hoaxes be like, if not "harmless people"? Axe murderers? Psychopaths? Lying con-men?

    I really want answers from you on all these questions.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    1,973
    Old pics or new pics, fuzzy pics or clear pics, would it really make any difference in making the case for aliens? Take a more recent example of the Phoenix lights back in 1997, imagine for a moment that back then cell phones with cameras were present at that time. So when the object passed over the city several people recorded it with a variety of snap shots and videos showing exactly what the eye witnesses were claiming, that a large chevron or boomerang shaped object passed overhead.

    What would be the result? Some would claim an alien spaceship, others would claim an elaborate hoax on the city, still others would claim that it was an experimental military craft that somehow drifted off course during testing. We might have better pictures but wouldn't the final result be pretty much the same?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    Old pics or new pics, fuzzy pics or clear pics, would it really make any difference in making the case for aliens? Take a more recent example of the Phoenix lights back in 1997, imagine for a moment that back then cell phones with cameras were present at that time. So when the object passed over the city several people recorded it with a variety of snap shots and videos showing exactly what the eye witnesses were claiming, that a large chevron or boomerang shaped object passed overhead.

    What would be the result? Some would claim an alien spaceship, others would claim an elaborate hoax on the city, still others would claim that it was an experimental military craft that somehow drifted off course during testing. We might have better pictures but wouldn't the final result be pretty much the same?
    Well, probably not, because it's unlikely that the photos would show that. There's pretty solid evidence that the "Phoenix Lights" were planes and flares. The photos and video that we do have of the event show that pretty clearly, and having more photos would just provide that much more supporting evidence.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,882
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    One: what do you call a hoax? Any picture that some people claim contains a UFO, but does not? What if someone takes a picture, has it developed and printed, takes it home, and discovers something odd on it. Film defect, lense glare, closeby insect, whatever. Shows it to someone saying "this is odd". His friend takes the picture shows it to someone else. Someone else runs to the newspaper and says "UFO!!!!!". Is that a very unrealistic scenario, do you think?

    Two: what, in your opinion, should people who purposely create hoaxes be like, if not "harmless people"? Axe murderers? Psychopaths? Lying con-men?

    I really want answers from you on all these questions.
    Also, what is the significance of the family's being rural? What does that have to do with anything?
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    1,973
    Well, probably not, because it's unlikely that the photos would show that. There's pretty solid evidence that the "Phoenix Lights" were planes and flares.
    You're missing my point that even if there were clear pics of a chevron shaped object little would change as to the outcome, no proof of aliens.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    You're missing my point that even if there were clear pics of a chevron shaped object little would change as to the outcome, no proof of aliens.
    That's true only because your additional photos were non-demonstrative in offering improved objective scientific evidence favoring a claim for alien origins. It's all about the veracity of the objective evidence knowing that, at some point, claims can become highly acceptable or even have great certitude, yet words like "proofs" suggest absolutes, which can create more problems than they're worth.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,070
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    You're missing my point that even if there were clear pics of a chevron shaped object little would change as to the outcome, no proof of aliens.
    Ah, I think I did misunderstand you, sorry. But actually, I think if we had multiple clear photos and video of some chevron shaped object that made it clear that it was an aircraft or spacecraft of some sort, I think the conversation about the event would be very different.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    1,973
    Yes Grey thx, a different conversation as in the alternate possible explanations previously posted. It may be postulated as an aircraft but as a spacecraft could be pushing it.
    Ha yeah George, the proof pudding would have to be indisputable, a pound of alien flesh would do it nicely ;-)

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    Yes Grey thx, a different conversation as in the alternate possible explanations previously posted. It may be postulated as an aircraft but as a spacecraft could be pushing it.
    Ha yeah George, the proof pudding would have to be indisputable, a pound of alien flesh would do it nicely ;-)
    Yeah; "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    One: what do you call a hoax? Any picture that some people claim contains a UFO, but does not? What if someone takes a picture, has it developed and printed, takes it home, and discovers something odd on it. Film defect, lense glare, closeby insect, whatever. Shows it to someone saying "this is odd". His friend takes the picture shows it to someone else. Someone else runs to the newspaper and says "UFO!!!!!". Is that a very unrealistic scenario, do you think?

    Two: what, in your opinion, should people who purposely create hoaxes be like, if not "harmless people"? Axe murderers? Psychopaths? Lying con-men?

    I really want answers from you on all these questions.
    IMHO: A hoax is when a person knowingly wants to portray something as being which he/she knows it is not. I am not talking about film defects. I am talking about this particular case, where the family say they saw something and took a photo of it. If they suspended an object on a string then took a photo, that is a hoax. In the case of the Trent "ufo", Mrs. Trent said she saw the object, called her husband and he took a photo of it. Trents father also said he briefly saw it. So here we have 3 persons involved.

    People who create pictures must have some kind of an agenda, I would think: get in the limelight, make money out of it, etc. They stuck to their story all their lives.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Also, what is the significance of the family's being rural? What does that have to do with anything?
    Simply that my view of rural people, is that being closer to nature, they are more apt to enjoy the simple things in life and be less money-oriented.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,364
    Just to be clear: I am not saying the Trent ufo was the real deal: I am trying to understand why three farmers would perpetrate a hoax and stick to the story all their lives.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    People who create pictures must have some kind of an agenda, I would think: get in the limelight, make money out of it, etc. They stuck to their story all their lives.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

    An example of a rural setting, two people directly involved and their mother corroborating, not made for money or fame, it took 66 years for the two women to admit that the photos were fakes but one of them maintained that they had seen fairies and that one of the photos was not all faked. The story became famous and was promoted by people who thought it supported their agenda (a form of spiritualism). Also the people involved were 'sick of fairies' but still didn't just 'fess up.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,138
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    IMHO: A hoax is when a person knowingly wants to portray something as being which he/she knows it is not. I am not talking about film defects. I am talking about this particular case, where the family say they saw something and took a photo of it. If they suspended an object on a string then took a photo, that is a hoax. In the case of the Trent "ufo", Mrs. Trent said she saw the object, called her husband and he took a photo of it. Trents father also said he briefly saw it. So here we have 3 persons involved.

    People who create pictures must have some kind of an agenda, I would think: get in the limelight, make money out of it, etc. They stuck to their story all their lives.
    OK, let's say I concede everything. It isn't hoax, these people not only believe they saw something, but they actually did, and they took a picture of it. And I have no explanation as to what they saw.

    So what? What does that prove? Am I expected to believe that ETs are visiting Earth because of this? Am I supposed to believe that there are mysterious things out there? OK, there are mysterious things out there. So what?
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •