Board Logo
« TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jul 25th, 2017, 3:36pm


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1  Notify Send Topic Print
 thread  Author  Topic: TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS  (Read 1673 times)
ZETAR
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 8084
xx TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS
« Thread started on: Mar 6th, 2015, 7:52pm »

THAT 5% WHICH COMPELLED MANY TO QUESTION THE PHENOMENA ~ TOP TEN HEAD SCRATCHERS cool

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2979867/Can-solve-UFO-cases-Vintage-alien-photos-governments-couldn-t-explain-reveal-world-s-strangest-sightings.html

User Image

SHALOM...Z
User IP Logged

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2
drwu23
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 6591
xx Re: TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS
« Reply #1 on: Mar 7th, 2015, 08:37am »

A few of those pics on the linked page are indeed interesting......I like the one that looks like one of George Adamski's alien ships.
cool
User IP Logged

purr
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

..you talkin' to me...YOU TALKIN' TO ME..??!


PM

Gender: Female
Posts: 4792
xx Re: TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS
« Reply #2 on: Mar 9th, 2015, 2:16pm »

Thanks ZETAR, must say I feel more 'compelled' by the UFO classics than by recent images with all the new tech available to hoaxers. And I think with many of these golden oldies there's real objects in those photos, reasonably fitting UNKNOWN category, that is: probably not of earthly origin.

So, no grounds for B J to close down the Casebook just yet. cheesy

Sayin they're real is easy. The hard part is Who or What they are...


purr
« Last Edit: Mar 9th, 2015, 2:17pm by purr » User IP Logged

Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.

-RONALD REAGAN
DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS
« Reply #3 on: Mar 9th, 2015, 2:33pm »

on Mar 9th, 2015, 2:16pm, purr wrote:
Thanks ZETAR, must say I feel more 'compelled' by the UFO classics than by recent images with all the new tech available to hoaxers. And I think with many of these golden oldies there's real objects in those photos, reasonably fitting UNKNOWN category, that is: probably not of earthly origin.

So, no grounds for B J to close down the Casebook just yet. cheesy

Sayin they're real is easy. The hard part is Who or What they are...


purr


Hi Purr,

"Not of earthly origin"? kiss

I agree with some of them showing real-world objects, but at least two appear to be reflections, a couple of them I feel have been satisfactorily explained but yes, a couple still defy rational explanations.

Also, there's a couple I can think of that aren't there at all...


Cheers. grin
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
ZETAR
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 8084
xx Re: TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS
« Reply #4 on: Mar 9th, 2015, 4:19pm »

DRDIL OPINED:

TO WIT:

"I agree with some of them showing real-world objects, but at least two appear to be reflections, a couple of them I feel have been satisfactorily explained but yes, a couple still defy rational explanations."

FURTHERMORE ~ AND ~ NOT TO PUMMEL THIS POINT INTO BOREDOM ~ "a couple still defy rational explanations."

SOOOOO ~TWO OUT OF TEN ~ 20% EH ? grin ~ YA BACK IN THE SADDLE AGAIN MICHAEL ~ MIGHT I SAY... REFRESHING WITH HISTORY ATTACHED!

User Image

I MAY HAVE TO RECONSIDER THAT HERETOFORE KNOWN AND BANTERED ABOUT COLLOQUIALISM OF 5% OF U.F.O.S SIGHTINGS ~ ARE OF INTEREST ~ WORTHY OF A PEEK grin...FRESH PLASMA TO THE CASEBOOK CAFE' ~ GLAD UR BACK!

@ PURR,

TO WIT:

"Thanks ZETAR, must say I feel more 'compelled' by the UFO classics than by recent images with all the new tech available to hoaxers. And I think with many of these golden oldies there's real objects in those photos, reasonably fitting UNKNOWN category, that is: probably not of earthly origin."

YOU'RE QUITE WELCOME! ~ FOLLOWING YOUR LOGIC ~ cool

User Image

THREE CIRCLES OF CONSIDERATION ~ TERRESTRIAL (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DARK OPS) ~ EXTRATERRESTRIAL ( THE ETH'rs ) ~ THAT WHICH IS BEYOND THE COMPREHESION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED...RIGHT SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE ~ WHERE THOSE THREE CIRCLES OVERLAP ~ SEEMS TO BE THAT SWEET SPOT ~ THAT PYRAMID ~ IMHO ~ WHERE SUCH DATA WOULD/COULD BE FORMATTED ~ IMH >>> LAY <<< OPINION...ENOUGH OF MY POWER-POINT PRESENTATION...

BACK TO MY REGULAR SCHEDULED DUTIES...

User Image

SHALOM...Z

"Sayin they're real is easy. The hard part is Who or What they are...
wink" PURRFECTLY SAID...
« Last Edit: Mar 9th, 2015, 4:26pm by ZETAR » User IP Logged

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2
DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS
« Reply #5 on: Mar 9th, 2015, 5:02pm »

on Mar 9th, 2015, 4:19pm, ZETAR wrote:
DRDIL OPINED:

TO WIT:

"I agree with some of them showing real-world objects, but at least two appear to be reflections, a couple of them I feel have been satisfactorily explained but yes, a couple still defy rational explanations."

FURTHERMORE ~ AND ~ NOT TO PUMMEL THIS POINT INTO BOREDOM ~ "a couple still defy rational explanations."

SOOOOO ~TWO OUT OF TEN ~ 20% EH ? grin ~ YA BACK IN THE SADDLE AGAIN MICHAEL ~ MIGHT I SAY... REFRESHING WITH HISTORY ATTACHED!



Míkay Zetar, Iíll bite!! grin

This has always been one of my favourites but I suspect as it *seems* to show some kind of dirigible with an exhaust trail (of sorts) then it is oft-overlooked:

Quote:
PUERTO MALDONADO 1952:

At 04:30pm on July 19, 1952, the attention of Customs Inspector Sr. Domingo Troncoso, then with the Peruvian Customs Office at Puerto Maldonado on the jungle frontier with Bolivia, was called to a very strange cigar-shaped flying object over the river area. The big dirigible-shaped craft was flying horizontally and fairly low in the sky, passing from right to left from the observers position. It was leaving a dense trail of thick smoke, vapor, or substance on its wake. This object was a real, structured, physical machine and may be seen from its reflection in the waters of the Madre de Dios river underneath it. The object was estimated to be over a hundred feet long.

User Image



Also Iíve always been intrigued by the Edwards AFB one:

User Image

However if memory serves me correctly and for all it was official photographers capturing one of the early flights the UFO wasnít seen at the time. I may be mistaken but I think that was the case.

But the main one that I was thinking of when I said explained was the Lemonde one, firstly have a look at the following image (Daily Mail one on the left):

User Image

Spot the difference? Obviously, itís the utility pole (I highlighted in red just for you Phil kiss). It has been cropped out of most of the images on the net but why you might ask? wink

Well have a look at the following I knocked up:

User Image

On the left in the red highlight is the Lemonde one, the one on the right in a dark highlight is the one you can see in the middle of the background image (1930ís) and the one in yellow is a photograph of a 1930ís streetlight. I believe the utility poles wires run straight above the light fitting, if you compare them then I believe you can even see the wire clamp is evident on both images (top left of main body).


Cheers. grin
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
ZETAR
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 8084
xx Re: TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS
« Reply #6 on: Mar 9th, 2015, 5:42pm »

DRDIL ~ INDEED...

I ALWAYS HAD AN AFFINITY TO THIS DUO OF SHOTS ~ wink

User Image

User Image

THOSE MASS SIGHTINGS ~ YA JUST NEVER KNOW grin

SHALOM...Z
User IP Logged

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2
DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS
« Reply #7 on: Mar 9th, 2015, 6:16pm »

on Mar 9th, 2015, 5:42pm, ZETAR wrote:
DRDIL ~ INDEED...

I ALWAYS HAD AN AFFINITY TO THIS DUO OF SHOTS ~ wink

User Image

User Image

THOSE MASS SIGHTINGS ~ YA JUST NEVER KNOW grin

SHALOM...Z

Hi Zetar,

Have you not read the expose the LA Times did on the Battle of LA images, well, not really an expose, just uncovering the original:

Quote:
The incident, now referred to as the Battle of L.A., occurred less than three months after the Pearl Harbor attack and two days after a Japanese submarine shelled an oil facility near Santa Barbara.
The next day, on Feb. 26, The Times published a photo page with a retouched version of the above searchlight photo and seven other images of damage from falling anti-aircraft shells.

This six-photo gallery includes two versions of the searchlight photo. The first was recently found at the Los Angeles Times Photographic Archive at UCLA by Simon Elliott, researcher in the Department of Special Collections at UCLA. The second version ó retouched ó was published in 1942. The second version exists as a copy negative also at UCLA.

This week I inspected the negatives from which the two versions were scanned at UCLA.

The non-retouched negative is very flat, the focus is soft and it looks underexposed. While I could not tell if the negative was the original or a copy negative made from a print, it definitely showed the original scene before a print was retouched.

The second negative is a copy negative from a retouched print. Certain details, such as the white spots around the searchlightsí convergence, are exactly the same in both negatives.
In the retouched version, many light beams were lightened and widened with white paint, while other beams were eliminated.
In earlier years, it was common for newspapers to use artists to retouch images due to poor reproduction ó basically 10 shades of gray if you were lucky.

Thus my conclusion: the retouching was needed to reproduce the image. But man, I wish the retouching had been more faithful to the original. With our current standards, this image would not be published.


ORIGINAL:

User Image


RETOUCHED:

User Image


Quite a difference.

And regarding the infamous 1952 image, did you see the lens flare images I posted a while back:

on Mar 25th, 2010, 5:45pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi Fig, I hope youíre well. smiley

I was sent these at the time and it is 100% lens flare!! grin

User Image

User Image


This is much of the same (i.e. exactly) and as with the Lemonde image above, they usually show the cropped version so the lines of convergence canít be established.

Donít get me wrong, Iím not necessarily disputing the sightings surrounding the images, because as you alluded to we ignore multiple witness sightings at our peril, but rather that I feel these particular images shouldnít be inextricably associated with them because I personally believe they are demonstrably false.

Sorry ZetarÖ wink

(Still glad Iím back? kiss)


Cheers. grin



*Edit for clarity & to fix images. Doh!!*
« Last Edit: Mar 9th, 2015, 6:35pm by DrDil » User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
ZETAR
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 8084
xx Re: TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS
« Reply #8 on: Mar 9th, 2015, 7:50pm »

DOC ~ LIKE OLE TIMES ~ cool

AS POSTED ~ FACT OR FICTION-Y-TOUCHED UP (WITHOUT SELF-IMPOSING OPINIONS AS TO ANOTHERS INTERPRETAION ~ RESPECTFULLY) ~ BEGS THE QUESTION ~ OF THE ORIGINAL NEGATIVE...COMPARE AND CONTRAST...YA KNOW THAT PASSING THOUGHT...TO SECOND GENERATION...HAVING SAID THE AFOREMENTIONED...AND IN LIEU OF OPTICS ~ WHAT WAS TARGETED BY BOTH MUNITIONS AND LIGHTS ~ GUESSING THE CAUSE AND EFFECT ~ IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN ~ SHOULD INDEED BE PONDERED ~ cool ~ NEVER BEEN ONE NOT TO QUESTION ~ DOC ~ GLAD UR BACK ~ KEPT A CANDLE LIT IN THE STAR CHAMBER FOR YA ~ WE ALL DID ~ kiss ~ IF GOOD TIDINGS MAY BE ~ LINDA AND LUVEY WILL BE ROUND THE CORNER...

ALWAYS...

NUDGING THINGS ALONG ~ cool

SHALOM...Z

« Last Edit: Mar 9th, 2015, 7:53pm by ZETAR » User IP Logged

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2
jjflash
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 1476
xx Re: TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS
« Reply #9 on: Mar 9th, 2015, 9:27pm »

Yep, the DC image is lens flare. Explained very well below.

on Nov 3rd, 2014, 6:58pm, jjflash wrote:
Some helpful explanations worth a look and consideration, in my opinion:


User IP Logged

The UFO Trail
purr
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

..you talkin' to me...YOU TALKIN' TO ME..??!


PM

Gender: Female
Posts: 4792
xx Re: TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS
« Reply #10 on: Mar 10th, 2015, 1:20pm »

on Mar 9th, 2015, 2:33pm, DrDil wrote:
Hi Purr,

"Not of earthly origin"? kiss

I agree with some of them showing real-world objects, but at least two appear to be reflections, a couple of them I feel have been satisfactorily explained but yes, a couple still defy rational explanations.

Also, there's a couple I can think of that aren't there at all...


Cheers. grin


Hi DrDil, the "not of earthly origin" description isn't another hairball that I came up with: read it in the books of rocketscientist (who better to trust on flying objects!) Stanton Friedman when reviewing the various Project Blue Book categories. And its use of UNKNOWN indicated not lack of information (the latter captured in yet another distinct category) but marking those cases which after rigorous analysis (excluding stuff like weather balloons, swamp gas, Venus, hallucinations and/or inadequate spectacle hygiene etc. etc.) still fail to yield an earthly/mundane/manmade explanation. Dr. Friedman (and I agree) thought it reasonable to designate such UFO cases probably "not of earthly origin". (The definitions of Unknown and Unidentified 'flying objects' have become less clear since Dr. Condon's dismissive conclusions 1960's to present. Because aliens were no longer a scientific option.)

In light of the above, no matter whether you and I decide to agree on 100 or 3 (total!) real world flying objects fitting UNKNOWN (early Blue Book definition), we would be truly discussing an extraordinary subject. I agree UFOlogy should not waste much time on reflections and all things actually not there.

smiley

purr
« Last Edit: Mar 10th, 2015, 1:21pm by purr » User IP Logged

Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.

-RONALD REAGAN
DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS
« Reply #11 on: Mar 10th, 2015, 2:07pm »

on Mar 10th, 2015, 1:20pm, purr wrote:
Hi DrDil, the "not of earthly origin" description isn't another hairball that I came up with: read it in the books of rocketscientist (who better to trust on flying objects!) Stanton Friedman when reviewing the various Project Blue Book categories. And its use of UNKNOWN indicated not lack of information (the latter captured in yet another distinct category) but marking those cases which after rigorous analysis (excluding stuff like weather balloons, swamp gas, Venus, hallucinations and/or inadequate spectacle hygiene etc. etc.) still fail to yield an earthly/mundane/manmade explanation. Dr. Friedman (and I agree) thought it reasonable to designate such UFO cases probably "not of earthly origin". (The definitions of Unknown and Unidentified 'flying objects' have become less clear since Dr. Condon's dismissive conclusions 1960's to present. Because aliens were no longer a scientific option.)

In light of the above, no matter whether you and I decide to agree on 100 or 3 (total!) real world flying objects fitting UNKNOWN (early Blue Book definition), we would be truly discussing an extraordinary subject. I agree UFOlogy should not waste much time on reflections and all things actually not there.

smiley

purr


Hi Purr,


Itís been a while, I hope youíre wellÖ. wink

Didnít you watch the X-files Purr? ďTrust no-one!!Ē

Donít get me wrong, Stan is a fantastic researcher (his Lazar exposť was second to none) but just because heís a rocket scientist it doesnít mean heís beyond reproach and especially so when itís a question of belief.

I do know what you mean though and I wasnít being facetious (for a change, honest grin), just trying to be playful. Really though I guess itís just that irrespective of who, how or what analysis was carried out then I personally would still be hesitant to declare anything not of earthly origin as itís just not the next logical step, well, unless of course weíre talking meteorites and the like. I know it wasnít your own phrase and I wasnít being derogatory, just having a bit of fun.

Also regarding the UFO vernacular Iíve been banging that particular drum for years, an alternative I always favoured was UAP, i.e. ďUnidentified Aerial PhenomenaĒ which I believe would be a welcome departure from UFO because, regardless of our subjective definitions, I believe that amongst the general public it has ingrained & instant connotations of aliens and the like. Much the same as I suspect ďnot of earthly originsĒ would have, although it seems as if thatís the actual intention in this case.

Each to their own I guessÖ smiley


Cheers.
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
Sys_Config
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Amigos


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 5000
xx Re: TOP 10 PHOTOS OF UNKNOWNS
« Reply #12 on: Mar 13th, 2015, 9:44pm »

Hi doc..you asked me about ufo evolution..it was a site I visited and first saw Purr..Wu and Carol..It was a beautiful site but changed suddenly..I never joined..as my plate was full here. . Just the nature of the net.
I loved their UFO Evo collection of art and Ufo pix..Purr was and is always a great read..and a well grounded person in reality as well as the mystic tradition.
I came across a flickr site with a few of the older ufo pix..that included some you all just commented on.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ufoevolution/
ufo evolution
User Image
china 1942

« Last Edit: Mar 13th, 2015, 9:51pm by Sys_Config » User IP Logged

Breaking the Matrix ..More than UFO related..Its Life Related
http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/
Pages: 1  Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 18,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls