Best Photo/Video Evidence

[Ron Collins]

I am trying to find photos/video that you all believe to be the most authentic and clear evidence that the phenomenon is worth serious consideration. I am trying to convince my wife, who is as skeptical as they come, that there really is something to this. Her statement to me was that she has never seen a photo or video that was convincing enough. Her belief is that they are all just tiny dots in the sky or ultra grainy/fuzzy outlines in some pictures. I have accumulated some images in the past several months that are somewhat compelling, but I was hoping some of you would have more.

Thanks in advance.

 

[fitzbew88]

I'm not sure how hard this is going to be, but it might be possible to locate a set of photos that were analyzed by the Condon Committee and found to have no evidence of trickery. I mean, this might be a good source of photos for which at least elementary trickery has been ruled out.

Frankly, if I had a desire to convince someone that the UFO phenomena is real, I don't know if I would go the photo/video route.

I think I would try to develop a set of cases instead.

The Project Twinkle "case" is a hard nut to crack: April 27, 1950 - Multiple objects tracked simultaneously at an altitude of 28 miles (150,000 feet) by two different theodolites. Photos were taken, but they seem to have been lost in the sands of time.

Good luck with this.

I have never really tried to convince anybody.

 

[TClaeys]

The phenomenon has such a wide range. I've found good photographic evidence for "unknowns". People tend to discard this because it doesn't seem to fit what they want the UFO's to be. On the other hand they are shape-shifting lights in many arrays, sometimes hovering, sometimes floating, sometimes shooting at high rates of speed. These are true UFO's but no one cares. However, it is evidence that there are true unknowns(whatever they may be) that are poorly understood. I'm reffering to Hessdalen which I've mentioned here before. Whether they have intelligence is debatable, but they appear real, are documented, and are definitively UFO's. I really can't even find any evidence of dishonesty or hoaxing or anything, but many people have never heard of this place and the sightings. Maybe not what you are looking for, but a need for further study.
http://www.hessdalen.org/pictures/

Everything in pictures and video is always suspect. I don't know how we are ever to come to any convincing data regarding pictures or video. I find some interesting, but couldn't throw anything out saying "here, here is the smoking gun" without worrying about the authenticity.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Throwing Richard Hall's "Uninvited Guests" at people is a good way to convince them that there's something real going on with UFOs.

Also, I use the argument that the lack of amazing photos and videos should be understood as a part of the phenomenon and not grounds for its dismissal.

 

[dorkbot]

I'd echo the thought that I don't think you could make a really strong case these days with just a few photos or video clips. You certainly can't find any that prove "GENUINE ALIENS!" If a picture is worth a thousand words than to me it seems that the exact opposite is true of ufo material. You almost need a thousand words of context to know anything about the photo. To really examine a significant mass of good ufo cases and understand all the contextual details I think you would need like a college semester class as an introduction. That being said:

Off the top of my head I think the 1994 Nellis video makes a compelling case that somebody somewhere has some very unusual technology. I'm not an expert image analyst but nothing about that video strikes me as fabrication. The radio chatter strikes me as genuine and unrehearsed and it seems proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was actually filmed inside the controlled airspace of Nellis. If it is ours than whatever it was absolutely confounded the people looking at it, presumably professional aircraft trackers. If it is an elaborate hoax it is definitely the most sophisticated execution I have ever seen on a number of levels. To my mind this video only has three possible explanations, any of which should merit serious attention:

1. Very unusual military tech being demonstrated to some unsuspecting military/contractor people.
2. Intensely elaborate and expensive hoax perpetrated by people who apparently have access to Nellis/Area 51 test sites.
3. Something that doesn't belong to us.


The Belgian Black Triangle case is very good and you can find the video of the Air Force press conference showing the radar tapes from the F-16s they sent chasing after it. Taken together with the

you are nuts if you don't think something very unusual is going on.

The old documentary UFOs: It Has Begun has a nice interview with the crew of the Army helicopter from the 1973 incident around Mansfield, OH. It's generally considered one of the best cases on record and I believe the 1998 Sturrock workshop reviewed the case in detail.

The documentary Out Of The Blue is about the best you are going to get for a single film although I haven't seen Paul Kimball's Best Evidence yet. Richard Haines' Pilot Sightings video is nothing but back to back audio recordings of pilot/tower conversations during ufo encounters.

The UFO thing is pretty unique in that any assumption you care to make about it deserves serious consideration. If they are hoaxes you have a unique and sophisticated 50+ year mass hoax involving tens of thousands of people. If they are misidentification then it's fascinating how so many tens of thousands of otherwise reliable people see flying saucers and get massively freaked out about it. If it is a natural phenomena it is fascinating how most scientists are uninterested in studying it. If they are delusions I would hope we would be seriously considering how pilots have these delusions on such a regular basis. If it is deception then I want to know where the hundreds of senior citizens that used to be well placed military and government types are getting these bizarre and elaborate stories from. Taken only as a social phenomenon it should be enormously interesting to anyone who actually looks at it.

The other possibilities I hope wouldn't need any explanation for why they deserve serious consideration.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Show her the Trent/McMinnville, OR, May 11, 1950 photos.

Then show her the Roen, France, March 1954 photos, which are nearly identical to the Trents'. The photographers never met or had any correspondence. Also, both photos have withstood the scrutiny of many photo analysts.

I don't remember the damned name of the case, but the photo on the back of the dust jacket of Sturrock's "The UFO Enigma" is a really good picture.

The Trindade Island Brazil 1958 UFO pictures are good.

There are lots of good pictures.

 

[Lavarat]

Macabee
Macabee
Macabee

[size=large]MACABEE[/size]

 

[TClaeys]

Macabee
Macabee
Macabee

[size=large]MACABEE[/size]

Although I tend to look to macabee for credibility I am just distraught with the idea of the Gulf Breeze photos being real. They just look like the most bogus photos since Meiers. Like I am supposed to know what a real ufo looks like, but I just have problems with that story and pictures. I wonder if David will chime in here on the Gulf Breeze photos or others.

And certainly photos that seem to be VERY credible like Mcminville and Trinadade have problems as well. Of course I'll acknowledge my ignorance in that I'm no expert on anything, but for what it is worth, pretty much all photos have problems and cannot stand alone in my opinion.

See a new look at the Trinadade story and possible hoaxing. This story seems to have a wide-ranging story line accompanying it and when you get to the bottom of it, Trinadade may not be as compelling as it seems.
http://forgetomori.com/2008/ufos/how-to-fake-ufo-photos-by-almiro-barauna


Mcminnvile photo problems
http://www.debunker.com/texts/trent1969.html

Don't worry guys, I'm not some irrational debunker. I do take the time to look at both sides though. It again goes back to the idea that if we are looking for photo or video evidence, it just isn't enough to convince someone. Hell even photos, videos, multiple witness testimony, ect isn't enough for some.

The Nellis video is interesting and I'd like to learn more, but again we get this video from an anonymous source and off we go. I'm just starting to look into this one, it is interesting.

Anyway just 2 more cents thrown into this thread.

 

[fitzbew88]

Although I tend to look to macabee for credibility I am just distraught with the idea of the Gulf Breeze photos being real. They just look like the most bogus photos since Meiers. Like I am supposed to know what a real ufo looks like, but I just have problems with that story and pictures.

I agree, the Gulf Breeze pictures have always bothered me.

But I am convinced that something was going on, but an elaborate hoax can't be ruled out. Something illuminated was in the air, and it hovered and moved against the wind.

See a new look at the Trinadade story and possible hoaxing. This story seems to have a wide-ranging story line accompanying it and when you get to the bottom of it, Trinadade may not be as compelling as it seems.
http://forgetomori.com/2008/ufos/how-to-fake-ufo-photos-by-almiro-barauna

In my own mind, I consider Trinidade a hoax.

Mcminnvile photo problems
http://www.debunker.com/texts/trent1969.html

I don't agree with everything in this analysis, but the basic problem of the photos not agreeing with the story as far as time of day is a major issue.

Don't worry guys, I'm not some irrational debunker. I do take the time to look at both sides though. It again goes back to the idea that if we are looking for photo or video evidence, it just isn't enough to convince someone. Hell even photos, videos, multiple witness testimony, ect isn't enough for some.

I think you are right to be skeptical of everything.

The Nellis video is interesting and I'd like to learn more, but again we get this video from an anonymous source and off we go. I'm just starting to look into this one, it is interesting.

Several analyses are out there, but what has always troubled me about this video is that it looks like a tangle of balloons to me. The range information on the display shows the target rapidly changing distances (as if it is moving very rapidly) but the camera doesn't zoom or change in any way. I've wondered if the ranging information is not reflecting the target. If so, that blows a lot of the performance analysis out of the water.

And of course, there is always the provenance issue. The history of the film is unknown so it must be assigned to the Gray Basket.

 

[dorkbot]

And of course, there is always the provenance issue. The history of the film is unknown so it must be assigned to the Gray Basket.

I always thought the Nellis video deserved it's own basket...maybe the Beige Basket. If it is a hoax of some sort you would have to admit that it is a completely different order of sophistication than anything else out there. This is the kind of video/audio you would expect the military to have locked up somewhere, not some 10th generation photocopy of a blurry Polaroid when even combat field photographers were issued 4x5 Speed Graphics and Leicas decades ago.

One of the things I've wondered about and have heard little speculation regarding is that if the story of this being smuggled out by a contractor working there is true it seems reasonable to then assume that the military should easily be able to figure out who did it as they would know exactly what camera it came from and who was working that day, etc. You would think there would be a chain of custody for material like this within the military and that any potential smugglers would know they would be in big trouble for exporting this kind of thing. If this was a demonstration for some unsuspecting onlookers you would think there would be special consideration taken to ensuring the video didn't go anywhere from the beginning.

I'm not aware of any real followup stories to the video's origination. Did the producers of Hard Copy/Sightings ever get heat over this? Did any agency ever issue a denial or no-comment statement? Any rumors about the contractor who sold the footage being locked up or losing their job? As far as I can tell even after fourteen years there is nobody claiming responsibility for the footage or anybody popping out the woodwork yelling, "Gotcha!"

To me the video smells like an intentional leak from somebody with the authority to do so although I could only speculate as to their reasons. If it is a fabrication of some sort it seems to originate from within the military and that would be a fascinating story in it's own right.

 

[Ron Collins]

Thanks for the suggestions. This is all very helpfull. I would like to see Paul Kimball's Best Evidence. Does anyone know when it will be available in the US?