• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

1990 Canaima UFO

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Chuckleberryfinn

Chuckleberryfinn

Paranormal Maven
I've heard Mr. Biedny say a number of times that the Canaima UFO pic from 1990, seen below, depicts one of the more convincing UFO sightings. I agree that the picture doesn't appear to be fake. But there's still one problem. Doesn't it look stupid? It looks like flying pottery. What in the hell kind of intelligence sits at the helm of this piece of shit?

<img src="http://ufocasebook.com/canaimalarge.jpg">
 
Why does it look stupid? It's a clearly structured craft, compact, technological, machined, with what appears to me to be just the right interaction with the light, and an appropriate scale. There's an aperture with what appears to be a light beam emanating, the beam looks real to me, it's got a entropic, soft blend with the background, something difficult to do artificially. "Flying pottery"? Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I can certainly think of many images that definitely fit that moniker, but this one is definitely not in that category, IMO.

What do you think would look "smart", by comparison?

This remains one of the most fascinating, credible UFO photos I've seen to date.

dB
 
It kind of looks like one of those early French hot air ballons that they put farm animals in, before the Montgolfiers' moved to human testing. I'm not suggesting that this is that, but yet it still reminded me of it.

Why isn't this in color? Why were they using black and white film, I guess I should say?
 
im of the mind these days that if we exist, then aliens exist. and in great variety and numbers.
discounting all the fakes over the years, there seems to be so many variations on individual craft seen, that seems a likely scenario.
 
<img src="http://www.ufocasebook.com/robertslarge.jpg">

<img src="http://ufocasebook.com/robertssmall.jpg">

Taken in Vancouver, Canada, in 1981, this pic is one of my all time favorites. I would consider it a better picture than the ugly Canaima pic.

All due respect, Mr. Biedny, since I agree that the picture appears to be completely legitimate for the reasons that you list -- I just think it doesn't at all fit my expectations on what a genuine UFO ought to look like. Perhaps my opinion on what a realistic craft would look like derives too much from Star Trek. Perhaps that lopsided and awkward craft represents the height of fashion on some other world. Alternatively, maybe they haven't got any fashion sense at all and abide by the "form follows function" idea, in which case the object is round and bulbous because it needs to be.

I realize that reality doesn't have to conform to my expectations and thus my argument against the Canaima pic is weak.

Maybe it is some kind of hot air balloon. On the other hand, that light beam shooting to the ground wouldn't come from any kind of balloon I've ever seen.
 
I wasn't seriously suggesting it was a hot air balloon. I don't know what it is.

As for ufo designs, I don't think we could possibly fathom the design sense of an alien race based on what little we've seen. Human futurists and artists cold imagine what such ships would look like, and they would usually be wrong, I'm sure.

In any case, I imagine the actual form of an ufo depends more on the witnesses' expectations than any predetermined shape. These are probably shapeless, quantum potentials until someone sees one, and then the wave form collapses, and voila, a ufo. Or angel. Or firebird. Or bizzarre omen. etc.
 
I recommend a book called UFOs are Real Here's the Proof. In it it deals with craft that looks like the first photo. Not just Ed Walter's ones either.

Here's a vid of a similar craft
53jDG8Y7SoQ

I've seen a better version and a shadow is cast on the ground.

And for those not aware, do a search on Ed Walters Gulf Breeze ufo pics.
 
David have you ever sketched the UFO that you saw hover above your house in Jersey? Id be extremely interested to see such a sketch.
 
David Biedny said:
Why does it look stupid? It's a clearly structured craft, compact, technological, machined, with what appears to me to be just the right interaction with the light, and an appropriate scale. There's an aperture with what appears to be a light beam emanating, the beam looks real to me, it's got a entropic, soft blend with the background, something difficult to do artificially. "Flying pottery"? Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I can certainly think of many images that definitely fit that moniker, but this one is definitely not in that category, IMO.

What do you think would look "smart", by comparison?

This remains one of the most fascinating, credible UFO photos I've seen to date.

dB
Click to expand...

SHOW OFF!LOLL
 
David Biedny said:
Why does it look stupid? It's a clearly structured craft, compact, technological, machined, with what appears to me to be just the right interaction with the light, and an appropriate scale. There's an aperture with what appears to be a light beam emanating, the beam looks real to me, it's got a entropic, soft blend with the background, something difficult to do artificially. "Flying pottery"? Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I can certainly think of many images that definitely fit that moniker, but this one is definitely not in that category, IMO.

What do you think would look "smart", by comparison?

This remains one of the most fascinating, credible UFO photos I've seen to date.

dB
Click to expand...

David. It looks similar to the Gulf Breeze UFO (Ed Walters?) pics from the late '80's early '90's.[attachment=154][attachment=155]
 

Attachments

  • breeze2.jpg
    breeze2.jpg
    6 KB · Views: 28
  • gbone.jpg
    gbone.jpg
    26.2 KB · Views: 28
I've said before that the Walters pics are the most bogus looking photos I've seen. I guess that is due to the preconcieved notion that I somehow know what they are supposed to look like. PP eluded to this as well.

But in the meantime does anyone know of reports of this type of craft other than Walters and this craft? It doesn't seem to fit the mold of even Hyneks categories (not that it should be fully comprehensive). It's not lights in the sky, a disc, a cigar, or anything else usually reported.

Also, where does the picture come from?? I thought it was an anonymous photo which always leaves me suspicious. How much do we really know of this photo, story, sighting, etc. Not much to my understanding. I know David has voiced the opinion that without corroboration we have, really, nothing. Maybe it is real, but a real what?? Perhaps it is better that there isn't any more corroboration. Imagine if the photos from Mcminville or Trinidad had no corroboration either. Would this make their photos more mysterious or more likely to be dismissed because of the lack of corroboration? The pictures in and of themselves are neat and exciting, but don't really get us any closer to any truth in my opinion.

So, does anyone know more about the one in question??
 
The Walters pictures look like upside down pots lit from the inside by a normal, 60 or 100 watt bulb. If they're actual craft of some variety, it appears that the occupants are screwing with us, the trickster entities that Vallee describes.
 
TClaeys said:
I've said before that the Walters pics are the most bogus looking photos I've seen. I guess that is due to the preconcieved notion that I somehow know what they are supposed to look like. PP eluded to this as well.
Click to expand...

I would say you need to hold the originals in your hand...they're nothing like you see on the net and in books. Not even close.

Some folks have considered this might have been some sort of experimental craft out of Pensacola.
 
I've said before that the Walters pics are the most bogus looking photos I've seen. I guess that is due to the preconcieved notion that I somehow know what they are supposed to look like. PP eluded to this as well.
Click to expand...

Eluded to them looking fake? No, I'm still open to Ed being legit. Some of the photos are very very hard to explain away as hoaxes. The double exposure doesn't work with, say the photo with the tree covering some of the craft.

But my first impression wasn't very good about the initial photos. They looked ghostly and like a double exposure. But, I read a lot of stuff from debunkers and Bruce Maccabee and MUFON and in the end the debunkers were debunked.
 
Paranormal Packrat said:
Eluded to them looking fake?
Click to expand...
Sorry Aaron, I meant Chuckleberry.

BTW Jeff. Do you think there may be a reason that only Walters saw these craft and photographed them?? I've always had trouble with this one because Macabee is involved and he seems pretty credible. But still, at first look, I'm just like "whatever, what a joke".

Have you ever seen anything like this or heard of anyone else seeing something similar?? And what do you think of this case and the photos, especially if you've handled the originals and you know something about photo manipulation. I know I'm steering away from Canaima a bit, but for similar comparison it's the only one I know of that has any data, fraudulent or not. It is just so odd looking. Again, like I know what the hell a real craft should look like.
 
jritzmann said:
TClaeys said:
I've said before that the Walters pics are the most bogus looking photos I've seen. I guess that is due to the preconcieved notion that I somehow know what they are supposed to look like. PP eluded to this as well.
Click to expand...

I would say you need to hold the originals in your hand...they're nothing like you see on the net and in books. Not even close.

Some folks have considered this might have been some sort of experimental craft out of Pensacola.
Click to expand...

I was reading on ATS the other day that you held some photos that looked just like a pin point until you blasted light through them with professional gear or something.... was that those pics in this thread?
 
Would love to see the color version. I don't see it on Bruce's site.

At first glance the object in the Canaima photograph looks to light against the brightly lit sky. Because of this, sorta looks super imposed. Granted the object could've had luminous qualities that might account for this.
 
When I was watching a video on YouTube, the one from Mexico where a UFO releases dozens of spheres, I noticed another (short) clip on YouTube. It's made off three seperate movie clips bundled together. What caught my attention is the footage taken in Mexico, january 2008, at night. It's shows two unknowns but the shape reminds me of something Ed Walters captured on polaroid during the Gulf Breeze sightings.
Maybe it's my imagination but it looks similar to what Walters photographed. Maybe Biedney or Ritzmann can enhance the images.
 
Back
Top