What's the point of UFO photographs, when naysayers ignore them?

[1963]

Hi guys, I know that we have an excellent thread on UFO photo's already... but that is UFO photos in general. Some of the greatest pieces of 'UFO Proof' are showcased on there among some of the more 'less-convincing' and the 'downright fakes'... we love to find them and deposit them on that thread for all to discuss and register our own opinions on their validity. It is great fun and of immense interest to students of the ETH and generally inquisitive folk alike... but we are also aware of the disgusting amount of despicable chicanery that abounds this valuable field of ufological study which is only ever going one way, and that is real skilful progression that has 'and is'.. making confirmation of legitimacy damn near impossible today! , and therefore it is a sad fact that , if any... it is only the 'older photographs' that can be taken seriously.
To wit, the point of this thread is to ask just what happens when we are of the consensus that we have found what we were looking for in the first place? ... a genuine photograph that can't be passed off as being hoaxed in any way, that has been declared a genuine picture of 'an unidentified flying object' that cannot be identified in any way as being of a prosaic nature... and therefore by any laws of common sense, science or any other nomenclature you care to use , must be the 'extraordinary evidence' that 'extraordinary claims' require. [Carl Sagan]. ... In short, if there is just a single picture that passes all of the criteria set by the scholarly UFO sceptics ... then surely the principle of parsimony has to apply no matter the previous reservations of the inquisitor! [after all, it is.. the scientific way!]
... In other words, "why do you still rebuke and deny the existence of UFO'/Flying-Saucers when you cannot debunk the smoking gun that is on general display for all to see? ... Why aren't you all 'tinfoil hatters' yourselves? ... why do you believe that it is acceptable to declare 'hoax or misidentification' by proclamation without the slightest shred of scientific [or even skilled] evidence to back up your declaration?
... for instance, why won't you explain why this 40 year old photograph of a classical flying saucer is not proof of their actuality? ...

Here is the detailed analysis performed by an expert team led by Professor Richard F. Haines, Editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration... Analysis_of_a_UFO_Photograph_by_Richard_F._Haines.pdf (fenomenum.com.br)
... In which the conclusion of this thorough and exhaustive endeavour is ... Abstract - This report reviews various investigative activities and analyses surrounding a photograph of a purported unidentified flying object (UFO) taken on October 8, 1981, at about 11:00 AM, local time on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.
The evidence consisted of a single frame of 35 mm colour film which showed a sharply focused disc-like object against a clear blue sky with wooded mountain peak nearby.
Analyses of the original negative included micro-densitometry, computer enhancements, and other measurements intent upon showing a support thread, atmospheric disturbance, or other evidences of a hoax. ... In other words, A Genuine Photograph Of A Flying Saucer!

... Over to you.?

Cheers.

 

[nivek]

Thats a very interesting photo I may have seen before but I didn't know the back story and analysis of...

I'd say that is the real deal and to me fully supports the ETH as it appears to be a solid nuts and bolts alien craft...

...

 

[pigfarmer]

Nice write up.

Obi-Wan said that the truths we hold so dear depend very much on your point of view.

If we could render the fat and take away all the opportunism, lunacy, you name it, that surrounds UFOs then there is plenty of evidence to say that we are being visited. If we were talking about something utterly mundane and/or obscure and people caught them on camera - a bird maybe - you'd probably see the same thing writ small. Some would accept it and others wouldn't be satisfied until they dissected one. But pics of UFOs or Sasquatch or whatever are incendiary - the diametric opposite of mundane and/or obscure. People garner attention, fuel their media output with it, some look to make money and my favorite, some are just nuts drawn to all the hubbub. The US military loooooves UFOs as they have been useful tools over the years in completely terrestrial ways. From that p.o.v a picture or video or film isn't likely to proselytize too many. Going to need to more than that. That photo's been kicked around here before, even compared to other pics. Another is the Trent farm pic. The people that call that 'proof' don't need to be convinced and have they really only been a source of debate among those of us already well more than half way there. You want to convince your grandmother you'll need to bring ET over for lunch.

BTW - I agree with you. Just question the overall usefulness of photos. If film negatives aren't adequate I don't know what else might be. Food for thought though - I changed my mind about the PGF Bigfoot film because of Bill Munn's forensic analysis.

 

[karl 12]

A most excellent question mate and there are quite a few pics out there which are extremely intriguing (and extremely ignored).

Know it's been said before but it really is quite amazing just how much UFO content has been taken down from the internet - most of my links are dead when it comes to this pic but the 1997 Sturrock Panel analysis still might be available somewhere.

Below is the verdict on the photograph from another scientist, Dr James Harder:

In view of the obviously very great interest which this photo will evoke, I take the liberty of quoting in full Dr. Harder's opinion as given in APRO Bulletin Vol. 30, No. 12 -


"Generally I feel that the best test of authenticity is in the good reputation of the photographer, insofar as it is impossible to prove a negative - in this case that there is no possibility of a fraud. However, some of the indicators of an authentic photograph can help establish likelihood of an authentic photo. These are -


1. That the negative involved is one of a sequence of outdoor pictures and that the frame in question is not an isolated one. One way of producing a hoax is to re-photograph a positive print onto which has pasted an addition. To do a good job of hoaxing then one would have to re-photograph an entire roll of negative film.


2. That there are no inconsistencies in the lighting of the strange object and the rest of he scene. In the subject photo, I note that the shadows in the lower left of the scene indicate a Sun position nearly behind the camera. There is a reflection on the forward face of the UFO that is consistent with this Sun position. There also seems to be a bright spot under the UFO not connected with external lighting - maybe a light on the UFO.


3. With the right equipment, it is possible to make certain measurements of negative density of the UFO image and of other images of objects at estimated distances from the lens. Here the object is to show that the unknown is not nearby - and thus not a hubcap or other such object thrown into the air. The idea is to measure, from the image of the object at a known distance, the atmospheric 'extinction coefficient'. On a clear day, with a low value, contrasts between dark shadowed areas and brightly lit areas retain their distinction over greater distances. On hazy days, the light and dark areas blend towards a mid-range shade, giving the appearance that distant mountains have of being one shade of grey. Nearby shadows can show their true darkness, as opposed to the lighter shade of distant shadows. But in this picture there are no nearby shadows to serve as a standard, only shadows of trees in the lower left bottom.


Conclusion:

"All this considered, the photo presented here appears to be an excellent and probably genuine photo of a classical disc photographed in daylight. Although unlikely, if further information and clarification is available, it will be presented in a future issue of the Bulletin.

Link

You've got me looking through old UFO photos now lol.

 

[michael59]

A most excellent question mate and there are quite a few pics out there which are extremely intriguing (and extremely ignored).

Know it's been said before but it really is quite amazing just how much UFO content has been taken down from the internet - most of my links are dead when it comes to this pic but the 1997 Sturrock Panel analysis still might be available somewhere.

Below is the verdict on the photograph from another scientist, Dr James Harder:





You've got me looking through old UFO photos now lol.

Am I seeing windows on the craft in that first picture, Karl?