Wednesday, November 20, 2013


Let's walk this path again.

Photo #1b: Manchester, GA, 1973. NICAP liked this one greatly.

Photo #2b: St. Lorenzen, Austria, 1971. GSW liked these photos by Nagura.

Photo #3b: Roswell, NM, 1949. Mysterious thing from Hynek's files.

Photo #4b: Varnamo, Sweden, 1974. Clas Svahn was impressed by this witness.

Photo #5b: Faribault, MN, 1967. Sent to Hynek at Northwestern.

Photo #6b: Blue Springfield, MO, 1974. {new to me}.

Photo #7b: Corsica, 1971.

Photo #8b: Colfax, WI, 1978.

Photo #9b: Cincinnati, OH, 1974.

Photo #10b: Belotic, Yugoslavia, 1973. One of those prejudice-inspiring {"looks too much like a hat"} cases.

Photo #11b: Kenora, Ontario, Canada, 1969.

Photo #12b: Yungay, Peru, 1967.

Photo #13b: Wall Tap, NJ, 1966. Blue Book case.

Photo #14b: Bareau Bay, NSW, Australia, 1972. Ozzie Air Force case.

Photo #15b: California, maybe. 1950. Uhhh, What!? John Timmerman had this passed onto him rather surrepticiously and, as it looks like the legendary concept of the AVRO disk rocket plane, I thought you'd like to see it.

Photos, photos. What a conundrum.

As I plough through these files,  I'm coming to the "wrong" conclusion vis-a-vis received wisdom. Instead of facilely writing off UFO photos [and even UFOs themselves BECAUSE OF LACK OF GOOD PHOTOS], I'm beginning to think that this is not so damning at all.

To begin, what would we need to expect a good [whatever THAT is] UFO photo? A list:
1]. A Close Encounter. Narrows the field quite a bit;
2]. A Close Encounter in Daylight --- we've discussed this here. CE's are almost all at night. See the old post about The Law of the Times;
3]. A CE which hangs around and stands relatively still. Not many of those;
4]. A handy camera with at least one shot already loaded in it;
5]. A person who can use that camera well; helpful to the rest of us if that person is not alone and is a reputable character;
6]. A person not so stunned or mesmerized by the CE that he/she actually and immediately thinks of grabbing that handy loaded camera and shooting a non-shaky picture.

Meditating on that for awhile, I become more amazed that there are any potentially "good" photos at all. If I add my belief that Close Encounters are displays under the controls/plans of the ones doing the displaying, then my hopes become slim indeed.

So as I look through my set of photo files, and as I try to strip away my inappropriate prejudices about shape and clarity, I wonder if it is not a viable hypothesis that we may in fact have quite a few, a respectable number, of UFO photos --- even though they, as all other UFO evidence, cannot "prove" whatever one would like about a detailed UFO nature.

So as we walk off into the setting Sun... Wait!!.... is that a Setting Sun UFO parked there in the central European countryside??

.... or are the gnomes opening an entrance to Faerieworld?....

.... or is it the Treasurecave of the Dragon? ..... or....  well, forget it.

Maybe there will be more to say on this topic. I'll have to muddle about to see.

Peace and a Happy Thanksgiving. {Even to you Across-the-Ponders}.


  1. Very interesting, but there is one damning fact that worries me. Back in the 40's and 50's few people owned cameras and fewer still walked around carrying them ready to shoot a picture. Today most of us walk around with a camera phone, which takes pictures of infinitely better quality than an old box brownie. So where are all the super modern photographs of UFO's?

    1. This is of course part of modern UFO theory, but according to the analysis of Mark Rodeghier, whose report to the SSE I described here in the blog, and according to much research of my own which I've shared with Mark over a decade or so, the percentage of Close Encounters has tanked since about 1980. Both Mark and I believe that this dramatic behavioral difference is most likely due to something that has changed about our ability to detect and test.

      I and Mark claim no more than the graph-able data, but it is at least a reason to meditate. As to Susan's statement below, my family's experience might be similar as far as owning a camera, but none of them carried a loaded camera around with them unless they were on vacation "going to the zoo".

    2. I read the post and slides of Rodeighier a while back, but does he (or you, Professor) present any ideas as to why the shift post-1980, beyond 'something' changing? In other words, what the 'something' might be--? Technology in general--? Not all UFOs got the memo, in any case, since we still have CEs, I believe, but far fewer. Some ignoring protocol, perhaps?

    3. neither Mark nor I can read alien minds, so our opinions aren't worth much. Both of us think that the phenomenon is a display which cleverly treads a line which leaves us reason to believe that it may well be real, but refuses to deliver enough strong evidence to achieve universalized belief. The CEs went down, especially the CE2s, when the UFO community had significantly powered up for laboratory testing and the ability to line up significant numbers of professionals who could sign on to the validity of tests. This could be coincidence. The opportunities for clear close photo shots seem to have gone down with the mass acquiring of hand-held tools which include photo capability. This too could be a coincidence. My reading of the recent literature shows me that no UFOs "missed the memo", as I see no impressive photos nor CE2s despite plenty of more distant observations and a minor amount of loner evidence-poor CEs.

    4. Ah, I meant 'missed the memo' as in CEs (of whichever type) still happening, but you're right, photos seem to get MORE impressive with more 'primitive' or less-widespread methods of recording them! In any case, Professor, your opinion is worth quite a bit, coming from someone who has studied, mused on, and disseminated so much relevant material!

  2. ^ My parents, uncles, aunts, grandparents, great-uncles & great-aunts all had their own cameras decades ago. Personal cameras were ubiquitous as wearing a wristwatch.

    ~ Susan

  3. As long as we're wondering where the good cellphone UFO photos are, let's wonder where the O'Hare Airport incident (2006) cellphone photos are. This was allegedly caused by conventional phenomena: a tricky shadow when a runway light failed, a balloon, a mini-example of a hole in the clouds where snow or rain precipitated locally. As we do know there was a lot of on-going, sometimes quite serious chatter about a UFO, these normal phenomena should have been photographed, thereby clinching the debunking case. But apparently, ordinary hypotheses don't require ordinary evidence. There is more to think about in this case than first seems.

    Frank John Reid

    1. Yes-- I seem to recall at the time we were assured photos and videos would 'surface soon'-- I'm still waiting!-- And this in a place with hundred (if not more) of videocameras, thousands of people with cameras/phones, security agents aplenty, airplanes on the tarmac, a control tower, etc.

  4. The #5 photo sequence was apparently shot by a lady during her trip with her husband and son (hunting rabbit). They heard a grumbling / whistling noise all around them and suddenly the UFO appeared and circled their group , the lady was carrying a polaroid so she shot a few sequence. The photo was mentioned to A MUFON investigator by a friend of the lady's neighbour and the invesstigator tracked the lady down and interviewed her.

    the curious part about the interview, the lady admitted after the incident she suffered a lot of sleep paralysis and shadow people visitation in her bed room..

    theres a video on the mufon investigation on history channel : extreme close encounters

  5. this is the quote from the history channel episode.. now the place and date dont match but the phodo sure did.....

    MUFON CASE FILE: US0000-1962-0001
    Rabbit Hunters UFO Encounter
    Elk Creek, SD 1962

    A 64-year-old widow explains to a MUFON Field Investigator that 30 years before, her family went on a rabbit hunting expedition. She had just purchased a new Polaroid camera and was excited to use it during the outing to obtain a few nature photos.

    As the family made their way through the wooded area, a piercing mechanical shriek came from the sky above them. Alarmed they listened and heard the shriek drop to a steady rumble. The sound becomes elevated and the family felt like it was closing in around them. None of them could distinguish the origin of the sounds.

    The witness stated that she then turned around and viewed a metallic flying saucer-like object hovering in very close proximity.
    She slowly raised her camera and started to snap photos, as she did this the UFO began to move and slowly hovered around the family in a counter clockwise motion.

    During her testimony the witness stated as she snapped the photos the object began to emit loud sounds that she referred to sounding like “an old furnace clanking and banging” leaving a dark cloud of smoke throughout the woods. Then the UFO flew off in a straight line.



Blog Archive