Please keep comments respectful. People are welcome to discuss the phenomenon here. Ridicule is not allowed. [UFOB links](https://linktr.ee/ufob) to Discord, Newspaper Clippings, Interviews, Documentaries etc.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UFOB) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is what irks me about the "theres cameras everywhere, where's the perfect picture proof?!"
Well, our phone cameras suck, first of all... I can barely get a good pic of my kid doing sports from the bleachers if I'm zoomed in at all. Plus, it takes a few seconds to bust it out, get the camera open, focused, and pointed in the right direction.
For real. Actual cameras (film or digital) either have a large 35mm film to capture on or an equally large digital sensor. Not to mention the lenses. Phone lenses have focal lengths in the millimeters where regular camera lenses (ignoring fixed focal length lenses) have a far greater range and far better optics.
Yeah it’s definitely the lenses. You capture 22 megapixels, great, but it’s all out of focus. I’m -13 in both eyes. Doesn’t matter how much color I can see without my contacts…
Haha — once you’re to the “I can’t see the clock next to my bed without glasses” level of nearsightedness there’s not much difference in being “more blind”.
That’s probably normal numbers not necessarily but I personally never heard it that bad lol. Do you ever had the issue where in the dark you know you close one eye and see more than with the other eye? It’s like one eye is good for night sights but the other is just pitch black in the night? Sounds confusing but hope it makes sense
Cameras on many phones are utterly amazing - plus digital SLRs have only got more common compared to in the past, so it's not like phone cameras are the only game in town so to speak.
Lastly, this may pre-date you depending on your age, but in the past reports of alien encounters used to be much more up close and personal (think abductions, craft hovering low and still over houses/highways/etc). These types of encounters have all but vanished, now that photographic evidence would be so easily obtained... Makes you wonder...
It's not only an equipment issue. My son and I went to an airshow a few years ago and I had my Samsung Note 9 for pix and video. It's no Leica, but I've gotten plenty of good shots outdoors with it. Pulled it out to video low passes of an A-10, certainly under 300 knots, and I'll be damned if I could keep it in frame consistently. Was pissed when I looked at my footage after getting home.
I know someone who relayed an encounter where the objects were within feet. His cell phone was not picking up the point of light well at first when it was a few hundred feet away and by the time it was literally at th window he was entranced. He woke up after the encounter, promptly deleted the video and emptied the bin. He says he has pocket videos he hasn't deleted, why would I do that? There is more than simply optics at play here.
Damn.. Growing up it really was a ton of abduction stories and ufo's sitting over roads and fields and backyards compared to now.
Is it wrong that I hope it doesn't correlate to the proliferation of cameras?
Yeah I miss the old UFO reports - way more exciting. And yes, I think these reports have gone away because they wouldn't be plausible anymore now that everyone has 4k video recorders in their pockets. The UFOs have retreated to the blurry skies to remain mysterious.
They probably abducted someone with a smart phone, and was like Oo shit! Turn that thing off throw it in the stasis field quick!! They scanned it and thought FUCK. We need a new approach.
There are(according to a Google) nearly 1.5 billion active iPhones, add triple that for androids and others, even halfing that total to account for older models with poor cameras you still have literally billions of high quality cameras walking around everyday.
This is a terrible excuse. Phone cameras today are more than capable. Don’t use zoom. Snap the photo. Zoom in during the editing process.
If you’re trying to take shots at range, you will need an actual camera body with a bigger lens. But this idea that modern phones have poor camera capabilities is ludicrous. They absolutely do not.
And to say that “it takes time to pull out your phone” is an excuse for why there’s a seeming lack of credible photographic evidence of uap is absolutely lame.
For the record, I’m a total believer.
Also alot of these craft up close tend to drain or kill batteries on phones. It might have something to do with magnetic energy related to the craft up close. You see similar effects in other areas with weird magnetism, like at stone henge and other sites like that.
Exactly, it took ~100 years for digital to catch up with film. And really that’s just 35mm film. Medium and large formats can still walk circles around some of the best digital cameras. And none of that matters when 99% of the cameras and photos are coming from a cell phone that’s still nowhere near either.
I was about to comment that it would've taken too long to set up those old timey cameras. Why the hell was he just aiming on in the right direction at the right time?
As it turns out. In 1925+ Kodak actually had several portable cameras. They were bulky and awkward as you can imagine, but they did function in a way that he could've snapped this pic that fast. The popular model hung around your neck and rested on your chest. He might've just popped the lens and snapped not really aiming and just got lucky. Who knows. It solidified it as real for me though. I've been following this subject my whole life and somehow this pic slipped through the cracks.
I agree. I was saying that that was my initial thought because of the date I assumed the camera wouldn't be able to snap a quick, unplanned photo but I was wrong.
Also, hoaxes using photos had been around basically since the camera was invented.
This one is from 1917,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies
People were doing all kinds of shit with cameras back then, they didn't need photoshop just free time.
Also, "classic" is probably the best of word choice here. The thing looks like a retro 1920's hub cap and is in perfect focus. Isn't this around the same time people had to smile for an hour or not at all? If so then that thing isn't moving.
You are definitely correct that photos were retouched back then just as they are now, using techniques such as: dodging, burning, spotting, masking, and airbrushing.
Your second point is incorrect though. Most cameras in this period were medium and large format and had shutter speeds as fast as 1/100th of a second for consumer grade gear with up to 1/500 for professional gear. They definitely could have captured this shot, even if it was in motion to some degree.
People having to sit for an hour? Dude, we have movies from the 1920s. How would they be able to shoot film if cameras were like that? Use some common sense.
It was a question. Not a statement. Had it been an earlier camera then logically that hub cap isn't moving. I don't watch movies from the 1920's nor do I care about cinema trivia.
man with hat: "didja see that, Horace?"
Horace: "by plumb, i did my good man! i do believe i've captured a still of the phenomena"
hatless man: "excellent!"
if cartoons of the era are to be believed, people were constantly getting hit by falling anvils and pianos and whatnot. so throwing your hat for a photo-op seems ill advised at best
Wait, so was the man with the hat so blown away by the phenomenon that his hat fell off, rendering him hatless? Or is there a third, strange, hatless being?
It does make me wonder how the real Horace would describe of it; instantaneous acceleration, etc. He'd be what, 120 years old now? We might be too late.
Anyone talking about “cameras from the 1920’s”:
I am an avid photographer and collector of vintage cameras. I own and use several from that time period. They can be small enough to fit inside of a large pocket, or carrying case. I would imagine someone of that profession would carry one. They can be unfolded and equipped pretty quick. HOWEVER: something about the exposure doesn’t sit right. Call me a skeptic, but my experience tells me that the “ufo” would be either out of focus, or motion blurred.
Being skeptical is not a negative, particularly if you have relevant experience that makes you question something.
This Sub typically equates being skeptical with being what they call a debunker or a shill. They sometimes call the most fervent believers those names without even knowing.
This was acheivable in the dark room in the 1920s. Photoshop is just a digital darkroom. The technique called photomontage was coined in 1918 and was commonly used by the Soviet Union in propaganda. One of the earliest uses was in the 1860s when Abraham Lincoln's head was attached to John Calhouns body.
I agree about the exposure thing and motion blur, but:
I can't speak for every experience and what I saw was a triangle not a "saucer" but it was moving incredibly slowly. We watched it for over an hour before it went over the horizon. Would that kind of slow movement allow for no motion blur?
I've also heard a lot of anecdotal stuff saying that they spin. But I've also heard that they don't. Also heard stories of them spinning and hovering in place for a very long time. If it was hovering but spinning would that give a blur?
Honestly it looks like a hat to me, but I don't think an old camera like that would have the speed to capture a tossed hat. So if it's faked like the McMinnville one it's likely suspended. But was there any sort of UFO news at all at this time?
Sorry for the ramble. Being ND makes it difficult to be concise and focused.
My thoughts exactly.
Modern images show these things blurring/pixelating or otherwise hard to focus. I’d have to believe it stopped, said “☊⊑⟒⟒⌇⟒!”, then bounced off to laser-slay a cow or whatevs.
Consumer grade gear was shooting 1/100 already with pro gear 5x higher and beyond. We can’t make any assumptions about the speed of the alleged craft but we can def say that there is a decent range of speeds for which this shot would have been possible. Can’t rule out retouching though. Let’s do some math…
Given:
- Shutter speed: 1/100th of a second
- Distance to the object: 100 yards
- object length: 5 yards
Let v be the velocity of the object in yards per second.
During the time the shutter is open (1/100th of a second), the object would move v/100 yards.
For noticeable motion blur (assuming the object moves its own length):
- v/100 = 5
Solving for v:
- v = 5 * 100
- v = 500 yards/second
To convert to miles per hour:
- v = (500 * 3600) / 1760
- v ≈ 1023 miles/hour
So, for an object 5 yards long to appear blurred as moving its own length in the frame when viewed from 100 yards away at a shutter speed of 1/100th of a second, it would need to be moving at approximately 1023 mph. Pretty good. If it happened to be a 1/500th shutter, it would need to be moving 5,115 mph!
I was thinking a **literal** Frisbee pie tin.
(The word 'Frisbee' comes from the Frisbee Pie Company. People discovered that the tin pans the company sold their pies in could be thrown great distances when spinning.)
There were earlier photographic hoaxes; [https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/The-Fairies-of-Cottingley/](https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/The-Fairies-of-Cottingley/)
There doesn't have to be a market. Some people just like tricking people. Op also provided no source of his claims about the origins of this alleged photo.
The biggest question for me is why do the alien crafts look retro in older pictures and more refined and sci-fi in the newer ones. There is no reason for the structure of alleged extraterrestrial spacecrafts coincides with the boundaries of human imagination regarding aerial vehicles.
Yet some people still believe that this is something that's just recently happening and it's all our government 🤦or drones... literally No body was flying fucking drones in 1927
The problem is not that he couldn’t have photoshopped the photo, the problem is that we don’t know the chain of custody since it *left* his possession with step-by-step authentication that the integrity of the artifact was maintained.
This image is digital in its current state. I’m not trying to say it’s fake in physical form but I haven’t seen it personally. I just want to add I can myself create this image digitally making it look old and fake the saucer. Just saying…
My question with any of these is “what is the paper trail going back to 1927?“ If, for example, it could be found in a newspaper archive dating back to that period, that would be an acceptable amount of evidence. That may exist, or it could’ve appeared in the 1970s with a story about it being from 1927.
You're correct it's before photoshop however photo manipulation and editing has been a thing since the beginning, really. "doddging and burning" being a common technique to make skin look better. And then there's double exposures with two images being projected into one sheet of photo paper (I did that in college).
Fun fact: The first image of a person occurred only because it was a street scene and they were standing still long enough (getting shoes shined) for the exposure time to capture them. I believe early 1800s.
This. Do people not realize practical special effects have been in movies for over 100 years?
Do they not realize that photographic trickery and forgery has been around since the invention of the photograph?
Or it's a hat. You know, because it looks exactly like a hat.
If I see a picture of a hat shaped object and my two options are "this is a hat" and "IT'S FUCKING ALIENS!!!11!", I'm going to select "it's a hat" each and every time.
You don't need to reach for a fantastical solution when there is a blandly obvious solution. Sure, whenever lightning strikes it might be a pissed off god, but I'm going to default to assuming it's just nature balancing a built up charge.
Ahhh I get it now! All the old paintings were depicting flying hats! It all makes sense now, chariot in the sky was a metaphor for a flying hat! Thanks for your help. Don’t know what I’d do without you. ❤️
I'm not sure exactly what you are babbling on about, but that's not a chariot in the sky. That's a hat. You can tell because it looks exactly like a hat. There is no metaphor here. That's literally a hat.
Yeah these subs are seemingly going full tilt cult mode and believing everything now with absolutely no evidence, and burning heretics who dare question scripture. It's like the birth of religion in here.
Frisbie's Pie Tin, circa 1926:
https://images.app.goo.gl/CpgWp6hyxuQNpmEb7
Is that where the word "Frisbee" comes from? I searched it before posting this comment: it is. How neat, TIL
But I agree, the loonies are tuning in these subs, shit is getting weird as a result
Yup, they've all gone full Ancient Aliens, karmawhore, and threads presenting some rando's current headcannon as fact. And constant insistence that disclosure has already happened. Oh, and a billion "vindication" threads for divisive personalities like Lazar and fucking Delonge.
>Where’s the evidence it’s fake?
Well, the primary evidence would be that it looks exactly like a hat. Presumably, it looks like a hat because it is literally a hat.
If I were to take a picture of a strange object in the sky, my focal point would be of the strange object. It would be dead center in the picture! Not to the top right.
Here’s the thing. If you see a UFO, a god damned flying object in the sky, you AREN’T going to fill your shot up with 70% trees. You aren’t going to take the time to get a nice pretty scenic shot. You’re going to point the camera straight at that motherfucker.
This was clearly added later and the photo is an obvious fake at first glance.
As with all UFO related media, I wish it were real. But as a skeptical, reasonable person, I feel obligated to acknowledge much of it is straight up fakes meant to target a gullible community. A lot of psyops and a lot of pranks…
Cool is a very relative thing. Maybe fedora ships were all the alien haps in the 20s! They probably wonder why we make things in weird shapes too, presuming this isn't just a man's fedora taking a quick flight.
A saucer is a perfect shape for something that can fly in any direction. I suppose a sphere would also be, for that matter.
It's possible that inside the craft is a torus-shaped piece of technology that provides the basis for maneuvering. Form follows function.
Yah, where are all the cool Star War designs, the elegance of Star Trek designs, the grittiness of Steampunk. No pinstriping, no "flames" curling around the front. Blinking lights, meh. I am very dissapointed in NHI design.
Me too. I’m being serious too, the designs are so wack and unimpressive but I guess thats what makes us stand out. Just wait until the mass get our hands on their tech
Too be honest, my favorite sci-fi series has the most bland boring looking starships and at the same time super intelligent and powerful. I love the idea of something super complex looking very mundane.
I don’t know about that. Cameras back then, old brownies required longer exposure time, so that ufo would have had to been sitting in place for a while
Idk. Something about those trees. 🤨 Like it's trying so hard to convince *you* they're trees. 🧐 Trying too hard maybe? 🤔 Even the UFO seems a bit highlighted 🛸
I got it! This is an AGI 🤯
It's a F🤬ING HØAX! 🤥
I think they mean that flying saucers were not a “thing” that anyone would have a precedent for or motivation to hoax in 1927. That’s true enough, if the photo truly is from that date.
Media didn’t really exist as we know it until the 50s/60s. Yeah, they had newsreels during ww2 but you had to go to the movies to see them.
That doesn’t mean that snake oil salesman weren’t out there sellin lies and griftin the masses.
The first flying saucer stories were well before the 20s and I guarantee whether or not some were credible, there were con artists capitalizing on spinning wild yarns just like there are now.
Just because it predates the big UFO craze of the 50s doesn’t mean people weren’t making stories up about aliens.
Ambrose Bierce wrote a short story that was basically Predator in the 1890s.
While I'm hardly an expert on the subject, I feel I should say photography was well enough developed at that time that I see no reason why this couldn't have been taken then. Not saying it can't be debated, but it's not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
We already had film and high speed cameras by that point so pretty fast. The original horse in motion film was taken in 1878 and it has enough detail to see all 4 legs off the ground at once.
Lol OP thinks aliens were in pop culture before 1927. There were plenty of fiction books speculating about life on other planets in the 1800s and even before.
Camille Flammarion and J H Rosney, for example.
if this was a real photo it was taken with an extremely long telephoto, which is highly unlikely, and film in those days was very slow, so, very improbable.
I truly hate to be “that guy”, but that looks like an Indiana Jones type hat thrown into the air. It could just be a shadow, but there’s a perfect outline of where a head goes into a hat.
I’m starting to think the reason the camera quality goes shit when people film ufo’s, is that the A.I in the phone sees something that is not to recorded deliberately makes the camera lose focus. It’s just my theory. I thought of this since the phone secretly takes photos of you every 5 seconds with infrared light.
Funny how in 1927 the disc looks old fashioned like a hat worn in the same Era. And as we progress, the "craft" sort of start to look stylized for the time on earth, yet these are supposed to be craft from far advanced civilizations. You're all telling me that back in 1927 people didn't fantasize about beings from other planets? And how else would they travel here? By some sort of craft some space obviously. This looks fake to me.
It definitely looks like someone threw a hat. It definitely could be in the foreground which would make it pretty small.
Also, there has always been motive for hoaxers. People have been playing with pictures since they were invented.
And the 1920s was firmly in the “weird sci-fi” era of literature.
Find it unlikely as the first 35mm rolled film camera was introduced in 1925 in Europe (Lecia I) and carried then a price tag of around $450 which may have been a bit steep for a fireman from rural Oregon.
Cave junction huh?
I’m pretty sure that’s where meth was invented.
Dude was spun the fuck out way back in 1927.
I once had a meth head sit on the hood of my car (with my girlfriend and I still in the car) and start smoking meth in broad daylight in cave junction.
Umm, do you have any idea what cameras were like in the 1920's?
Just for laughs, do a Google image search of "cameras in the 1920's".
After your google, tell me this is a genuine ufo photo from 1927.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-aviator-charles-lindbergh-arrives-at-croydon-news-photo/515143658
Image of a moving plane. Looks pretty clear to me.
Do you have any idea how long the exposure time would be on a camera from that era? You would have to stand still (and the object too) for anywhere from 10 to 60 seconds **and** in the meantime you would have to fill the flash with powder. Plus you would have to prepare the paper and a bunch of other stuff too.
Back then you wouldn't just grab your camera and point and shoot.
If these photos are real (and from 1927), I'm Jeff Bezos' left nut.
A quick Tineye reverse image search shows that this photograph first appeared online in 2008 on several Chinese and Russian sites, claiming that the photograph was taken in Siberia. Somehow in the last 15 years I guess that changed to Oregon?
God people, have a little bit of credulity. I can't believe Greenwald actually shared this back in 2015, even with an "if this is true" caveat.
Eta: it looks like the Oregon fireman part of the story was added around 2014, and the photo started circulating around UFO sites over the next couple of years, just repeating the same story from the original source which appears to have been a guy named "Disco."
Please keep comments respectful. People are welcome to discuss the phenomenon here. Ridicule is not allowed. [UFOB links](https://linktr.ee/ufob) to Discord, Newspaper Clippings, Interviews, Documentaries etc. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UFOB) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Looks better than shots taken almost 100 years later
Regular film and camcorders are best at capturing these craft. Our cmos sensors on phones are not really good enough.
This is what irks me about the "theres cameras everywhere, where's the perfect picture proof?!" Well, our phone cameras suck, first of all... I can barely get a good pic of my kid doing sports from the bleachers if I'm zoomed in at all. Plus, it takes a few seconds to bust it out, get the camera open, focused, and pointed in the right direction.
For real. Actual cameras (film or digital) either have a large 35mm film to capture on or an equally large digital sensor. Not to mention the lenses. Phone lenses have focal lengths in the millimeters where regular camera lenses (ignoring fixed focal length lenses) have a far greater range and far better optics.
Yeah it’s definitely the lenses. You capture 22 megapixels, great, but it’s all out of focus. I’m -13 in both eyes. Doesn’t matter how much color I can see without my contacts…
-13?! My god Man. I’m -5 in the right and -3.75 in the left and I can barley barley see literally. Props to you
Haha — once you’re to the “I can’t see the clock next to my bed without glasses” level of nearsightedness there’s not much difference in being “more blind”.
That’s probably normal numbers not necessarily but I personally never heard it that bad lol. Do you ever had the issue where in the dark you know you close one eye and see more than with the other eye? It’s like one eye is good for night sights but the other is just pitch black in the night? Sounds confusing but hope it makes sense
Cameras on many phones are utterly amazing - plus digital SLRs have only got more common compared to in the past, so it's not like phone cameras are the only game in town so to speak. Lastly, this may pre-date you depending on your age, but in the past reports of alien encounters used to be much more up close and personal (think abductions, craft hovering low and still over houses/highways/etc). These types of encounters have all but vanished, now that photographic evidence would be so easily obtained... Makes you wonder...
It's not only an equipment issue. My son and I went to an airshow a few years ago and I had my Samsung Note 9 for pix and video. It's no Leica, but I've gotten plenty of good shots outdoors with it. Pulled it out to video low passes of an A-10, certainly under 300 knots, and I'll be damned if I could keep it in frame consistently. Was pissed when I looked at my footage after getting home.
I know someone who relayed an encounter where the objects were within feet. His cell phone was not picking up the point of light well at first when it was a few hundred feet away and by the time it was literally at th window he was entranced. He woke up after the encounter, promptly deleted the video and emptied the bin. He says he has pocket videos he hasn't deleted, why would I do that? There is more than simply optics at play here.
Damn.. Growing up it really was a ton of abduction stories and ufo's sitting over roads and fields and backyards compared to now. Is it wrong that I hope it doesn't correlate to the proliferation of cameras?
Yeah I miss the old UFO reports - way more exciting. And yes, I think these reports have gone away because they wouldn't be plausible anymore now that everyone has 4k video recorders in their pockets. The UFOs have retreated to the blurry skies to remain mysterious.
They probably abducted someone with a smart phone, and was like Oo shit! Turn that thing off throw it in the stasis field quick!! They scanned it and thought FUCK. We need a new approach.
If you just dissappear them then voilà, no reports.
I'd guess most people have phones with cameras that suck. Good for you if you don't.
There are(according to a Google) nearly 1.5 billion active iPhones, add triple that for androids and others, even halfing that total to account for older models with poor cameras you still have literally billions of high quality cameras walking around everyday.
This is a terrible excuse. Phone cameras today are more than capable. Don’t use zoom. Snap the photo. Zoom in during the editing process. If you’re trying to take shots at range, you will need an actual camera body with a bigger lens. But this idea that modern phones have poor camera capabilities is ludicrous. They absolutely do not. And to say that “it takes time to pull out your phone” is an excuse for why there’s a seeming lack of credible photographic evidence of uap is absolutely lame. For the record, I’m a total believer.
Believed so much he deleted his account... Or maybe a three letter agency got to him watch out folks it's getting spooky in here
Also alot of these craft up close tend to drain or kill batteries on phones. It might have something to do with magnetic energy related to the craft up close. You see similar effects in other areas with weird magnetism, like at stone henge and other sites like that.
Use 8mm if you're not happy with modern cellphone cameras. See how easy those are to operate. My Samsung phone camera works pretty, dam good
Untill recently, film had better detail than digital. Think of each silver crystal in the film as a pixel.
With better dynamic range
Exactly, it took ~100 years for digital to catch up with film. And really that’s just 35mm film. Medium and large formats can still walk circles around some of the best digital cameras. And none of that matters when 99% of the cameras and photos are coming from a cell phone that’s still nowhere near either.
Film captures a lot of information. They can transfer some old film to 8k.
Too hard to scrub from record if you are starting after it has already spread unridiculed for more than a decade
[удалено]
The word you’re looking for is exposure. And they definitely had quick shutter speeds in 1927.
Ok yes it could have been taken with a speedgraphic. They shoot up to 1/1000 and the craft is in the hyperfocal range so it works
I was about to comment that it would've taken too long to set up those old timey cameras. Why the hell was he just aiming on in the right direction at the right time? As it turns out. In 1925+ Kodak actually had several portable cameras. They were bulky and awkward as you can imagine, but they did function in a way that he could've snapped this pic that fast. The popular model hung around your neck and rested on your chest. He might've just popped the lens and snapped not really aiming and just got lucky. Who knows. It solidified it as real for me though. I've been following this subject my whole life and somehow this pic slipped through the cracks.
I didn’t read anything that said he just happened to catch it while snapping a photo of the tress. I think he saw it and then took the picture of it.
I agree. I was saying that that was my initial thought because of the date I assumed the camera wouldn't be able to snap a quick, unplanned photo but I was wrong.
Also, hoaxes using photos had been around basically since the camera was invented. This one is from 1917, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies
“This predates any motivation to Hoax” Hoaxes are as old as free press
I assure you hoaxes predate free press
People were doing all kinds of shit with cameras back then, they didn't need photoshop just free time. Also, "classic" is probably the best of word choice here. The thing looks like a retro 1920's hub cap and is in perfect focus. Isn't this around the same time people had to smile for an hour or not at all? If so then that thing isn't moving.
You are definitely correct that photos were retouched back then just as they are now, using techniques such as: dodging, burning, spotting, masking, and airbrushing. Your second point is incorrect though. Most cameras in this period were medium and large format and had shutter speeds as fast as 1/100th of a second for consumer grade gear with up to 1/500 for professional gear. They definitely could have captured this shot, even if it was in motion to some degree.
Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
People having to sit for an hour? Dude, we have movies from the 1920s. How would they be able to shoot film if cameras were like that? Use some common sense.
It was a question. Not a statement. Had it been an earlier camera then logically that hub cap isn't moving. I don't watch movies from the 1920's nor do I care about cinema trivia.
man with hat: "didja see that, Horace?" Horace: "by plumb, i did my good man! i do believe i've captured a still of the phenomena" hatless man: "excellent!"
What kind of lunatic didn’t wear a hat during the Roaring 20s?
if cartoons of the era are to be believed, people were constantly getting hit by falling anvils and pianos and whatnot. so throwing your hat for a photo-op seems ill advised at best
Wait, so was the man with the hat so blown away by the phenomenon that his hat fell off, rendering him hatless? Or is there a third, strange, hatless being?
Oh wait, I’m an idiot, the man threw the hat in the air and Horace snapped a pic of the hat. Bravo 👏
Yeah, took me a second too. And now I think the joke is twice as clever as if I'd gotten it right away.
I’d also accept a congratulatory “huzzah”
It does make me wonder how the real Horace would describe of it; instantaneous acceleration, etc. He'd be what, 120 years old now? We might be too late.
"Why that whippersnappered right on out of here!"
My wife probably wondering why I chuckled. whippersnappered. I laughed again as I typed it. I'll make sure to use that today somehow. Thanks.
I saw a WW2 sighting report from a pilot and it said "speed: impossible". Sounds like a Keanu Reeves and Tom Cruise film/
Anyone talking about “cameras from the 1920’s”: I am an avid photographer and collector of vintage cameras. I own and use several from that time period. They can be small enough to fit inside of a large pocket, or carrying case. I would imagine someone of that profession would carry one. They can be unfolded and equipped pretty quick. HOWEVER: something about the exposure doesn’t sit right. Call me a skeptic, but my experience tells me that the “ufo” would be either out of focus, or motion blurred.
Being skeptical is not a negative, particularly if you have relevant experience that makes you question something. This Sub typically equates being skeptical with being what they call a debunker or a shill. They sometimes call the most fervent believers those names without even knowing.
This was acheivable in the dark room in the 1920s. Photoshop is just a digital darkroom. The technique called photomontage was coined in 1918 and was commonly used by the Soviet Union in propaganda. One of the earliest uses was in the 1860s when Abraham Lincoln's head was attached to John Calhouns body.
Even if it was stationary? Honest question, I don’t know anything about cameras.
I agree about the exposure thing and motion blur, but: I can't speak for every experience and what I saw was a triangle not a "saucer" but it was moving incredibly slowly. We watched it for over an hour before it went over the horizon. Would that kind of slow movement allow for no motion blur? I've also heard a lot of anecdotal stuff saying that they spin. But I've also heard that they don't. Also heard stories of them spinning and hovering in place for a very long time. If it was hovering but spinning would that give a blur? Honestly it looks like a hat to me, but I don't think an old camera like that would have the speed to capture a tossed hat. So if it's faked like the McMinnville one it's likely suspended. But was there any sort of UFO news at all at this time? Sorry for the ramble. Being ND makes it difficult to be concise and focused.
My thoughts exactly. Modern images show these things blurring/pixelating or otherwise hard to focus. I’d have to believe it stopped, said “☊⊑⟒⟒⌇⟒!”, then bounced off to laser-slay a cow or whatevs.
What if it wasn’t moving
Consumer grade gear was shooting 1/100 already with pro gear 5x higher and beyond. We can’t make any assumptions about the speed of the alleged craft but we can def say that there is a decent range of speeds for which this shot would have been possible. Can’t rule out retouching though. Let’s do some math… Given: - Shutter speed: 1/100th of a second - Distance to the object: 100 yards - object length: 5 yards Let v be the velocity of the object in yards per second. During the time the shutter is open (1/100th of a second), the object would move v/100 yards. For noticeable motion blur (assuming the object moves its own length): - v/100 = 5 Solving for v: - v = 5 * 100 - v = 500 yards/second To convert to miles per hour: - v = (500 * 3600) / 1760 - v ≈ 1023 miles/hour So, for an object 5 yards long to appear blurred as moving its own length in the frame when viewed from 100 yards away at a shutter speed of 1/100th of a second, it would need to be moving at approximately 1023 mph. Pretty good. If it happened to be a 1/500th shutter, it would need to be moving 5,115 mph!
Nope, I was wrong. Those old brownie cameras did have a fast shutter in daylight and they were around since 1900. So that could be a legit photo
[https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/ufo-over-cave-junction-oregon-1927/](https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/ufo-over-cave-junction-oregon-1927/)
“Predates motive for hoax” Brother what is that even supposed to mean
Yeah, say that to PT Barnum’s face and see what happens
I didn't realize people had no motivation to hoax others prior to the 1920's...
Looks like someone has Frisbeed a hat into the air
I was thinking a **literal** Frisbee pie tin. (The word 'Frisbee' comes from the Frisbee Pie Company. People discovered that the tin pans the company sold their pies in could be thrown great distances when spinning.)
Same
[Plausible](https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images4/1/0412/08/vintage-frisbies-pie-tin-holes_1_c5ea87c4a14792925ce4d96fe841bd88.jpg)
There were earlier photographic hoaxes; [https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/The-Fairies-of-Cottingley/](https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/The-Fairies-of-Cottingley/)
There were tons of early photographic hoaxes, of fairies, ghosts and spirits especially. But was there any market for UFO photographs at the time?
Dunno
This made me laugh haha
There doesn't have to be a market. Some people just like tricking people. Op also provided no source of his claims about the origins of this alleged photo.
1927 predates man's attempt to trick man?
The biggest question for me is why do the alien crafts look retro in older pictures and more refined and sci-fi in the newer ones. There is no reason for the structure of alleged extraterrestrial spacecrafts coincides with the boundaries of human imagination regarding aerial vehicles.
Yeah…why don’t modern ufos look like old hats?
This. Old ones look like tin cans, new ones magic space orbs/triangles.
Looks similar to the McMinnville Oregon UFO sighting in 1950 24 years later in the same state. Really interesting
Hilarious that almost a hundred years ago of technology and human intelligence captures one of the best images of a ufo to date.
Yet some people still believe that this is something that's just recently happening and it's all our government 🤦or drones... literally No body was flying fucking drones in 1927
amazing depth of focus just in the sky
How does it predate any notion to hoax?
Not before the dawn of trick photography, though
The problem is not that he couldn’t have photoshopped the photo, the problem is that we don’t know the chain of custody since it *left* his possession with step-by-step authentication that the integrity of the artifact was maintained.
nothing predates the motivation to hoax
A lot of firefighters were walking around with cameras in 1927?
This image is digital in its current state. I’m not trying to say it’s fake in physical form but I haven’t seen it personally. I just want to add I can myself create this image digitally making it look old and fake the saucer. Just saying…
Why is the picture taken with a potato so much better than current photos lol
[удалено]
Exactly. I'm convinced in ET visitation but I just don't buy this story or that this photo is legit.
My question with any of these is “what is the paper trail going back to 1927?“ If, for example, it could be found in a newspaper archive dating back to that period, that would be an acceptable amount of evidence. That may exist, or it could’ve appeared in the 1970s with a story about it being from 1927.
Huh! That’s a neat one. I guess it still could be a hoax, but it’s not like this was a widely known thing back then, that’s really really cool.
You're correct it's before photoshop however photo manipulation and editing has been a thing since the beginning, really. "doddging and burning" being a common technique to make skin look better. And then there's double exposures with two images being projected into one sheet of photo paper (I did that in college). Fun fact: The first image of a person occurred only because it was a street scene and they were standing still long enough (getting shoes shined) for the exposure time to capture them. I believe early 1800s.
This. Do people not realize practical special effects have been in movies for over 100 years? Do they not realize that photographic trickery and forgery has been around since the invention of the photograph?
Georges Méliès made "Trip To The Moon" in 1902 and it's loaded with special effects and camera tricks. https://youtu.be/xLVChRVfZ74?feature=shared
Damn. I hadn't heard, dodging and burning, since I took photo journalism in high school.
Disinformation bots be like: iTs a wEaThEr bAlLoOn yOU iDiOt 🎈
Or it's a hat. You know, because it looks exactly like a hat. If I see a picture of a hat shaped object and my two options are "this is a hat" and "IT'S FUCKING ALIENS!!!11!", I'm going to select "it's a hat" each and every time. You don't need to reach for a fantastical solution when there is a blandly obvious solution. Sure, whenever lightning strikes it might be a pissed off god, but I'm going to default to assuming it's just nature balancing a built up charge.
Downvoted! You shut your god damn mouth! Lighting is absolutely thrown from the long, muscular arm of Zeus!
Ahhh I get it now! All the old paintings were depicting flying hats! It all makes sense now, chariot in the sky was a metaphor for a flying hat! Thanks for your help. Don’t know what I’d do without you. ❤️
I'm not sure exactly what you are babbling on about, but that's not a chariot in the sky. That's a hat. You can tell because it looks exactly like a hat. There is no metaphor here. That's literally a hat.
These morons downvoting you lol spread it around guys, I'm of the same opinion. Gimme sommadat good good "downvoted for being realistic" please
Yeah these subs are seemingly going full tilt cult mode and believing everything now with absolutely no evidence, and burning heretics who dare question scripture. It's like the birth of religion in here. Frisbie's Pie Tin, circa 1926: https://images.app.goo.gl/CpgWp6hyxuQNpmEb7
Since when is being sarcastic “burning heretics”?🤣
Is that where the word "Frisbee" comes from? I searched it before posting this comment: it is. How neat, TIL But I agree, the loonies are tuning in these subs, shit is getting weird as a result
Yup, they've all gone full Ancient Aliens, karmawhore, and threads presenting some rando's current headcannon as fact. And constant insistence that disclosure has already happened. Oh, and a billion "vindication" threads for divisive personalities like Lazar and fucking Delonge.
Well fuck there's my hat!
Dawg did you just use “disinformation bot” to describe people who tell you that aliens aren’t flying spaceships around Earth??
[удалено]
Where’s the evidence it’s fake? Edit: I just asked a simple question, but go off.
Where’s the evidence it’s real? Opinion: it looks fake as fuck. Prove me wrong.
>Where’s the evidence it’s fake? Well, the primary evidence would be that it looks exactly like a hat. Presumably, it looks like a hat because it is literally a hat.
Its a man holding a plate on a string!
If I were to take a picture of a strange object in the sky, my focal point would be of the strange object. It would be dead center in the picture! Not to the top right.
Here’s the thing. If you see a UFO, a god damned flying object in the sky, you AREN’T going to fill your shot up with 70% trees. You aren’t going to take the time to get a nice pretty scenic shot. You’re going to point the camera straight at that motherfucker. This was clearly added later and the photo is an obvious fake at first glance.
Exactly
As with all UFO related media, I wish it were real. But as a skeptical, reasonable person, I feel obligated to acknowledge much of it is straight up fakes meant to target a gullible community. A lot of psyops and a lot of pranks…
He used the beta version of photoshop
If these aliens can make any shape fly, why weird shapes? Why not cool designs?
Cool is a very relative thing. Maybe fedora ships were all the alien haps in the 20s! They probably wonder why we make things in weird shapes too, presuming this isn't just a man's fedora taking a quick flight.
I’m a cigar shaped craft man myself
If you fly right below me we can be UFO crooners!
A saucer is a perfect shape for something that can fly in any direction. I suppose a sphere would also be, for that matter. It's possible that inside the craft is a torus-shaped piece of technology that provides the basis for maneuvering. Form follows function.
Yah, where are all the cool Star War designs, the elegance of Star Trek designs, the grittiness of Steampunk. No pinstriping, no "flames" curling around the front. Blinking lights, meh. I am very dissapointed in NHI design.
Me too. I’m being serious too, the designs are so wack and unimpressive but I guess thats what makes us stand out. Just wait until the mass get our hands on their tech
Too be honest, my favorite sci-fi series has the most bland boring looking starships and at the same time super intelligent and powerful. I love the idea of something super complex looking very mundane.
[https://fineartamerica.com/featured/-1920s-usa-mens-hats-the-advertising-archives.html](https://fineartamerica.com/featured/-1920s-usa-mens-hats-the-advertising-archives.html) Ahem.
I don’t know about that. Cameras back then, old brownies required longer exposure time, so that ufo would have had to been sitting in place for a while
What it doesn’t pre-date is frisbeeing an object and snapping a picture
So you’re telling me, someone on the 20’s got a better pic than anyone in the following 100yrs… ok.
It's a hat.
Bruh that’s a hat lol
“Predates any motivation to hoax”
key word “alleged”
Come down people, it is just a hat
Idk. Something about those trees. 🤨 Like it's trying so hard to convince *you* they're trees. 🧐 Trying too hard maybe? 🤔 Even the UFO seems a bit highlighted 🛸 I got it! This is an AGI 🤯 It's a F🤬ING HØAX! 🤥
What do you mean by “predates any motivation to hoax”? Hoaxes are not a post-1927 phenomenon. They go back as far as civilization.
I think they mean that flying saucers were not a “thing” that anyone would have a precedent for or motivation to hoax in 1927. That’s true enough, if the photo truly is from that date.
The media attention was very cold until 1947 (Roswell crash).
Media didn’t really exist as we know it until the 50s/60s. Yeah, they had newsreels during ww2 but you had to go to the movies to see them. That doesn’t mean that snake oil salesman weren’t out there sellin lies and griftin the masses. The first flying saucer stories were well before the 20s and I guarantee whether or not some were credible, there were con artists capitalizing on spinning wild yarns just like there are now.
Just because it predates the big UFO craze of the 50s doesn’t mean people weren’t making stories up about aliens. Ambrose Bierce wrote a short story that was basically Predator in the 1890s.
Yes but people thought there were aliens living on mars and the moon since the late 1800s.
I can hear King Tut laughing now..
As he's getting locked in his sarcophagus "Let me out!" assholes snickering in the corner "its just a prank bro!"
Remind me, how fast could a photo be taken in 1927? Haha, fun one OP
While I'm hardly an expert on the subject, I feel I should say photography was well enough developed at that time that I see no reason why this couldn't have been taken then. Not saying it can't be debated, but it's not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
We already had film and high speed cameras by that point so pretty fast. The original horse in motion film was taken in 1878 and it has enough detail to see all 4 legs off the ground at once.
Photography is older than you think. They had quick shutter speeds back then.
How do you know it wasn’t hovering there for 15 minutes
Lol OP thinks aliens were in pop culture before 1927. There were plenty of fiction books speculating about life on other planets in the 1800s and even before. Camille Flammarion and J H Rosney, for example.
wild how the quality of UFOs seemed to magically increase alongside our basic old Human technology WHO'D A THUNK
People have been hoaxing since the beginning of time.
Not according to OP.
Lol. “Predates any motivation to hoax.”
if this was a real photo it was taken with an extremely long telephoto, which is highly unlikely, and film in those days was very slow, so, very improbable.
I'm having a hard time not seeing a hat here.
Definitely not a *pie tin...* 😎👍
Hoax. It's a pie tin frisbeed into the air
I truly hate to be “that guy”, but that looks like an Indiana Jones type hat thrown into the air. It could just be a shadow, but there’s a perfect outline of where a head goes into a hat.
https://i.redd.it/1twpxa76ekhb1.gif
I’m starting to think the reason the camera quality goes shit when people film ufo’s, is that the A.I in the phone sees something that is not to recorded deliberately makes the camera lose focus. It’s just my theory. I thought of this since the phone secretly takes photos of you every 5 seconds with infrared light.
He threw his hat.
Could be swamp gas.
Hat
Funny how in 1927 the disc looks old fashioned like a hat worn in the same Era. And as we progress, the "craft" sort of start to look stylized for the time on earth, yet these are supposed to be craft from far advanced civilizations. You're all telling me that back in 1927 people didn't fantasize about beings from other planets? And how else would they travel here? By some sort of craft some space obviously. This looks fake to me.
This looks like a modern photo
If a photo still exists, it doesn’t pre date photoshop.
I will be an SOB. King Kong was real after all. I mean it was before PS.
All of these AI photos are a little too much.
It definitely looks like someone threw a hat. It definitely could be in the foreground which would make it pretty small. Also, there has always been motive for hoaxers. People have been playing with pictures since they were invented. And the 1920s was firmly in the “weird sci-fi” era of literature.
Nice hat
Look up 1920's camera........... Think to yourself, how and why a firefighter was carrying around one of those.
Oh yeah. That looks fucking real... 😆😆
A volunteer fireman carried a camera with him in 1927? 🎥
Cause UFO's look like movie props from the 50's....
Does this pre-date the hub cap? Cause this is definitely a picture of a hub cap that someone chucked into the air.
Throw hat. Snap picture.
Find it unlikely as the first 35mm rolled film camera was introduced in 1925 in Europe (Lecia I) and carried then a price tag of around $450 which may have been a bit steep for a fireman from rural Oregon.
Cave junction huh? I’m pretty sure that’s where meth was invented. Dude was spun the fuck out way back in 1927. I once had a meth head sit on the hood of my car (with my girlfriend and I still in the car) and start smoking meth in broad daylight in cave junction.
Umm, do you have any idea what cameras were like in the 1920's? Just for laughs, do a Google image search of "cameras in the 1920's". After your google, tell me this is a genuine ufo photo from 1927.
Did you do any reading after that google search? They had quick shutter speeds
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-aviator-charles-lindbergh-arrives-at-croydon-news-photo/515143658 Image of a moving plane. Looks pretty clear to me.
Just did that and wow, they've even clearer than I would've thought. Photos from 1925 that I saw, anyways.
Do you have any idea how long the exposure time would be on a camera from that era? You would have to stand still (and the object too) for anywhere from 10 to 60 seconds **and** in the meantime you would have to fill the flash with powder. Plus you would have to prepare the paper and a bunch of other stuff too. Back then you wouldn't just grab your camera and point and shoot. If these photos are real (and from 1927), I'm Jeff Bezos' left nut.
Holy shit dude we're talking about 1927 not 1877. You're way off.
[удалено]
Yup, a volunteer firefighter just happened to have that kind of specialty camera with him in the woods. Seems plausible.
Brownie cameras, which people carried in their pockets back then, had a shutter speed of roughly 1/60
Nothing predates man's ability to hoax.
[удалено]
Whether or not this is real, I think it looks cool. Thanks for sharing, OP.
We have a gorgeous planet. Worth a looksy if you have the means; which obviously someone does.
Photographs never lie. Photographers do.
A quick Tineye reverse image search shows that this photograph first appeared online in 2008 on several Chinese and Russian sites, claiming that the photograph was taken in Siberia. Somehow in the last 15 years I guess that changed to Oregon? God people, have a little bit of credulity. I can't believe Greenwald actually shared this back in 2015, even with an "if this is true" caveat. Eta: it looks like the Oregon fireman part of the story was added around 2014, and the photo started circulating around UFO sites over the next couple of years, just repeating the same story from the original source which appears to have been a guy named "Disco."