• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Interesting Photo I've Found

Swifty

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
34,021
I bought a UFO book from 'Strands' (in Cromer) charity shop for 20p on the 14th of this month. The only reason I bought the book was because of a photo that had been put inside it showing what looks like a glowing UFO.

Of course, it's just as likely to have been faked by someone, maybe a double exposure or perhaps even recent computer trickery. The hand written in biro note at the top reads 'Blickling Lake Dec 97 4.00pm.

This is my first attempt at uploading a video to youtube so hopefully it works. I'll be popping back to the EDP newspaper office today (I left the pic with them yesterday with a view to them maybe publishing it so I can track down the photographer and hopefully the negatives) ..

 
Last edited:
Interesting, but my initial reaction is that it shows some kind of camera artefact. The scenery shows depth, but the 'UFO' seems totally flat. The greenish lines on the right also suggest some kind of reflection.

Just possibly the original photo showed a snowy scene, and the (glossy) print was rephotographed for some reason, which is when the artefacts got added from odd reflections. So the print you have could be the photo of a photo!

I suspect the 'UFO' is some kind of Caustic curve, although exactly how it was produced I don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caustic_(optics)

Presumably you know about Blickling Hall in Norfolk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blickling_Hall
The OS map shows a large lake stretching away to the north of the hall, used for fishing. The estate is owned by the National Trust, so you can probably visit, and maybe pin down the original photographer's position. This may not tell you anything, but it's an excuse for a day out! :)
 
To me it looks like it could be lens flare but there are no bright lights apparent in the scene so there may have been one off to the side. I could also make out some texture in the object which I've seen before in out of focus bright objects.
Could it have been a snowflake close to the camera which was illuminated by flash? The shape of object could be cause by the camera aperture - the number of diaphragm blades would determine the shape and a two bladed diaphragm would produce a squarish shape.
 
rynner2 said:
Interesting, but my initial reaction is that it shows some kind of camera artefact. The scenery shows depth, but the 'UFO' seems totally flat. The greenish lines on the right also suggest some kind of reflection.

Just possibly the original photo showed a snowy scene, and the (glossy) print was rephotographed for some reason, which is when the artefacts got added from odd reflections. So the print you have could be the photo of a photo!

I suspect the 'UFO' is some kind of Caustic curve, although exactly how it was produced I don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caustic_(optics)

Presumably you know about Blickling Hall in Norfolk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blickling_Hall
The OS map shows a large lake stretching away to the north of the hall, used for fishing. The estate is owned by the National Trust, so you can probably visit, and maybe pin down the original photographer's position. This may not tell you anything, but it's an excuse for a day out! :)
Click to expand...

It's just as interesting to me Rynner if it's a fake (which it almost certainly will prove to be) .. note the date .. 27th December, so it's possibly a Christmas tree decoration that, yes, has been double exposed for a lark and perhaps yes is a photo of a photo .. I did a couple of photography courses at college so have worked in darkrooms, this would be relatively easy to fake. If you notice, the picture has also been strangely cropped with the white borders only on the top and right hand side of the picture .. the cuts are 'straggly' telling me that this was cut using a scalpel. My instincts tell me that the description hand written at the top might be the only honest thing about it, I'd need to check the weather conditions in North Norfolk on the 27th of December 1997 online to find out if it is indeed Blickling lake at all! ..

I can't remember if Kodak paper was available to the public for darkroom printing in '97, my gut says it probably was because that was just before the mainstream digital photography 'revolution'.

I'm not sure what to make of the green lines to the right of the object, I hadn't thought about it being caused by a reflection .. I was thinking maybe it was developing chemicals or even an accidental light spill during the developing process.

What I'd like to see done (before I have to do it myself) is someone who knows what they're doing to use the computer programme that can measure distances and light and shadow to decide if it's a close up object or further away .. if anyone knows if there's one free to use online then please post me a link .. I suspect even basic chrome apps could show more detail.
 
It's probable that the photograph was taken in 1997 but the print is more modern.
 
I can distinctly make out a dodgy geezer in a baseball-cap taking a good gulp from his mug. :clap:

I'm struck by the fact that without the UFO, the picture seems to lack a clear subject. Dusk in mid-winter by a frosty lake? Maybe it looked more promising at the time the shutter was clicked. I don't think your average flash-unit would do much to illuminate such a scene. The object is the main source of light in the picture, so I would expect it to be reflected by the objects in the vicinity. If you obscure the object itself, can you see any sign of its effect on the landscape? It does seem very flat.

I did notice a certain similarity between the picture on the book-cover and your extra. I wonder if it was an attempt to emulate the style for some planned contribution to the genre?

I looked up the lake when you first mentioned the photo. It is as famous for its birds as for its fish but the symmetry is a bit fearful for it to be a boid or a flying ray! :confused:

Edit: Doesn't the date read 1996 not 1997?

Here is the weather forecast for Friday, 27th December, 1996. It seems to fit with snow in the SE singled-out for comment. :)
 
Last edited:
JamesWhitehead said:
I can distinctly make out a dodgy geezer in a baseball-cap taking a good gulp from his mug. :clap:

I'm struck by the fact that without the UFO, the picture seems to lack a clear subject. Dusk in mid-winter by a frosty lake? Maybe it looked more promising at the time the shutter was clicked. I don't think your average flash-unit would do much to illuminate such a scene. The object is the main source of light in the picture, so I would expect it to be reflected by the objects in the vicinity. If you obscure the object itself, can you see any sign of its effect on the landscape? It does seem very flat.

I did notice a certain similarity between the picture on the book-cover and your extra. I wonder if it was an attempt to emulate the style for some planned contribution to the genre?

I looked up the lake when you first mentioned the photo. It is as famous for its birds as for its fish but the symmetry is a bit fearful for it to be a boid or a flying ray! :confused:

Edit: Doesn't the date read 1996 not 1997?

Here is the weather forecast for Friday, 27th December, 1996. It seems to fit with snow in the SE singled-out for comment. :)
Click to expand...

A flash unit would only light up objects close to the camera and would have no effect on the rest of the scene, which is why I think the object may have been something like a small snowflake close to the lens. The closeness would result in it appearing as a bright out-of-focus blob and the shape of the blob being determined by the camera's aperture blades.
 
JamesWhitehead said:
I'm struck by the fact that without the UFO, the picture seems to lack a clear subject. Dusk in mid-winter by a frosty lake?
Click to expand...

I think so too. It is also difficult to see what has been focussed on, apparently not the trees which are the only thing you can really see in the photo. To me, that slightly fuzzy look of being taken through glass which means the UFO could easily just be a lamp reflected off it.

Neat find though!
 
drbates said:
Surely someone with access to their own darkroom wouldn't have the flash on for a landscape shot like that?

Plus you'd have to be VERY lucky to get a solitary snowflake in the centre of the frame
Click to expand...

The camera could have been a simple compact camera with no controls over the flash, if the scene was dull it would flash. They could have given the neg to someone with a darkroom to do a bigger print possibly centering the object.

At the moment it's all speculation but fun. Hopefully Swifty can track down the photographer so we can get more info. I'm intrigued.
 
Whatever the object is (or if it is even an object at all), the surface of it is 'bubbled' for want of a better word, it also seems to have a flat surface running along the bottom of it. Unfortunately our scanner is difficult to readjust back to dealing with my girlfriends scanner once I've used it for my laptop but I'll try at some point to take a still zoomed in pic of just the object to show those details of texture when I get it back from the journalist ..
 
JamesWhitehead said:
Edit: Doesn't the date read 1996 not 1997?

Here is the weather forecast for Friday, 27th December, 1996. It seems to fit with snow in the SE singled-out for comment. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks James but the date definitely reads 97, theres even a 'slash' through the 7. Another interesting thing is that the book I found it in (the one in the vid) was published in '97 so as you've pointed out, maybe the creator of the image used the book cover for inspiration ... or maybe they saw something weird and bought the book soon after to try and make sense of it. I'm still going with fake although I'd like to see an uncropped version of it.
 
Swifty said:
Thanks James but the date definitely reads 97
Click to expand...

Well, you have the photo but it still looks like a 6 to me.

The problem with 1997 is that there was little or no snow! :)

I've also noticed a feint white horizontal line as you zoom in on the UFO. It could be a scratch or it might indicate a glass or acetate slide placed over that region. Could the green stains be a refraction effect occuring on the vertical side of such a slide? :confused:
 
Last edited:
JamesWhitehead said:
Well, you have the photo but it still looks like a 6 to me.

The problem with 1997 is that there was little or no snow! :)
Click to expand...
.. another possible indicator that it's a fake ... either that or the person that wrote it got their dates mixed up. Thanks for looking that up mate. :)

edit: (100% it's a seven .. the ink has either rubbed off in places or the pen was crap to begin with but holding all of the text at an angle to the light shows the indents crisply on the picture)
 
Swifty said:
I bought a UFO book from 'Strands' charity shop for 20p on the 14th of this month. The only reason I bought the book was because of a photo that had been put inside it showing what looks like a glowing UFO.

Of course, it's just as likely to have been faked by someone, maybe a double exposure or perhaps even recent computer trickery. The hand written in biro note at the top reads 'Blickling Lake Dec 97 4.00pm.
Click to expand...
I'm more interested in the why of the person who stuck the photo inside the book. Was it their book and they forgot they'd placed a ufo photo of theirs in it when they gave it to the charity shop? Did they have a ufo photo and tuck it inside a book already in the shop?
 
It's funny what does get left inside books - and records etc. Somewhere in the Weird Sex thread, I described the surprise I had when I unfolded a paper hidden inside an Elgar record!

Post 903 here, if you really want to know! :eek:

From time to time, I find that someone has used their original receipt as a bookmark - or included it in the sarcophagus of a cassette-case. There is something both delightful and melancholy in discovering that someone was buying an Almodovar movie at 9.45 am in the HMV branch in Ashton-u-Lyne at a certain date in 1994.

I have also been known to stalk research previous owners of my books who have written their names and addresses in the front. I was especially fascinated by the woman who appeared to be contemplating the murder of her husband.

My own bookmarks are less dramatic - often an old shopping-list or train-ticket but it might yield a clue as to when I last gave up on that book. :D

But - to return to topic - I think it would be a very low-key way to create a deliberate hoax, given the fact that people now seem to lack all curiosity. UFO enthusiasts could be a bit more inclined to detective-work, of course and it could be like a message-in-a-bottle thing. I'm more inclined to think it was a private experiment that got forgotten.
 
Last edited:
I have that book - it's a compilation of UFO articles from the magazine The Unexplained IIRC.

If I wanted to fake a photo like that, I'd paint the UFO over an existing print, then take a photo of it. I dare say there are far cleverer ways, though.
 
But if anyone does go to Blickling Hall they could probably ask about Met records there. With big gardens and the place being under the National Trust for so long it's likely that they would keep weather records there. Even if it was 20 years ago, those records might clarify the 1996/7 question.

Even better if someone still there remembers any midwinter UFO sighting! Or anything relevant....
 
To me, the picture looks like a light flare from a prism inside the camera.
Sorry to be dull.
 
Perhaps: but even if geopedantry is wasteful worldly wordiness, any liabilty to label ably is probably a positive practice.
 
After re watching my vid, I've got to agree that it says 96 .. I think I got muddled up with the pic being taken on the 27th of December and the year being 96 which would tie in with James's link to the correct weather conditions for 1996. Sorry all! .. I haven't got the photo in my possession at the moment. The journalist's name was written on a North Norfolk News compliment slip as 'Miles Jermy' by the lady on reception after I asked her for it, their office phone number is 01263 513232 if anyone fancies phoning them to check on progress with this pic or offer tech support and the like. With any luck I'll get a bill board poster again, we got a couple of posters after the Mrs found the 'Jesus' pebble :) ...

I'll still be happy owning the print if it's found to be a fake or a camera/developing fault. If it remains unexplained, I might mail it to FT magazine with a self addressed return envelope if Dr Sutton is interested enough.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/miles-jermy-59615973
 
Last edited:
rynner2 said:
Norfolk!! That's the opposite side of the world to Cornwall!
Click to expand...

nah... it's all down south isn't it? :p

anyway, you could just sail us along the coast :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top