Interview: Pilot David Hastings's Mojave UFO Photo [1985]

[Paul_Exeter]

Definitely one of the better photographic evidence cases:

 

[eburacum]

Something weird in that video. Hastings talks about an object which only appeared in one photo,
but the video definitely shows three different versions.

I suspect that whoever made this documentary edited the photo in order to show the 'movement' of the object, even though there was only one real image (I suspect the real image is the one on the right, and the other two are fakes).

Note as well that Hastings saw nothing when he took the photo, so it is very likely to be some kind of optical distortion, perhaps an internal reflection inside the plane or the camera. The actual sighting Hastings described (a vast, fast-moving but poorly-defined shadow above the plane) was nothing like the photo. In short, as evidence it is somewhat lacking.

 

[Sid]

Something weird in that video. Hastings talks about an object which only appeared in one photo,
but the video definitely shows three different versions.

I suspect that whoever made this documentary edited the photo in order to show the 'movement' of the object, even though there was only one real image (I suspect the real image is the one on the right, and the other two are fakes).

Note as well that Hastings saw nothing when he took the photo, so it is very likely to be some kind of optical distortion, perhaps an internal reflection inside the plane or the camera. The actual sighting Hastings described (a vast, fast-moving but poorly-defined shadow above the plane) was nothing like the photo. In short, as evidence it is somewhat lacking.

Couldn't help but have a better look at the photos 'eburacum,' and noticed after comparing each one, it seems that the photos are indeed of the same object - but each 'shot' is taken at a slightly higher altitude that the plane is taking, and that of the object that he is seeing appears as lower down . . . and oddly enough, it drops down to occupy the exact same space as that ghostly image in frames 1 and 2 that is visible floating just beneath it (as I've boxed in the photos).

*In this photo (1) it is taken at it's farthest *In this photo (2) the plane getting closer to *In this photo (3) the object covers exactly the
distance from object: object, which makes the object appear same space as the ghostly background image: to drop down:

 

[eburacum]

No; that's not right. Hastings only took one photo; the other two are fakes, or more accurately mock-ups. I could have done better.

 

[Sid]

No; that's not right. Hastings only took one photo; the other two are fakes, or more accurately mock-ups. I could have done better.

I was but outlining the things I noticed in those three photos - not justifying them, real or otherwise.
Just to add to the confusion - this article states that he went to the back of the aircraft then took two photos? And that the brightly lit object (what bright object?) cast a large shadow. So possibly, two photographs could be original and one might be added from those two, "very confusing!"
http://www.noiegliextraterrestri.it...demmo-un-ufo-sul-deserto-del-mojave-1985.html

 

[eburacum]

He also said that the object only appeared in one photo.

 

[eburacum]

Here's the picture in colour.

I assume that this is a genuine colour picture, and not a colourised picture.

There is one other picture which shows (more-or-less) the same view, but with no shadowy shape in the frame. I haven't seen this second picture, but it apparently can be found in David Clarke's book The UFO Files.
Here's an interview with Hastings in the Huffington Post:

"This speck suddenly grew extremely quickly until we saw this huge shadow go over the top of us," he recounted. "But the most amazing thing about it was there was no noise and absolutely no movement or turbulence at all. We looked at each other, saying, 'What the hell was that?'" At that point, both pilots felt that something was in the air off the port (left) side of their plane, but they couldn't see anything there. They agreed that they were able to sense something moving outside. Hastings walked to the back of the plane, grabbed his camera and returned to the cockpit where he snapped two pictures out the window. All he was able to see in the camera viewfinder was the left wing of the plane and the ground below. It was only after they returned to San Francisco and got the pictures developed that they knew they'd encountered something extraordinary. "One picture showed what we expected to see -- the aircraft wing and the ground," said Hastings. "But in the second one, there was this [cigar-shaped] thing.

So Hastings could not see it when he took the pictures, and only one of the two pictures showed the 'object'. That sounds like a glitch or reflection to me.

One commentator on Reddit has suggested that the picture above shows two arms holding a long, flat camera of some sort. That's possible; do we actually know what shape the camera was?

 

[Erinaceus]

The 110 film format was popular around that period and most of the cameras were long and flat. Some had a folding or hinged built in case which made them look longer. They used film cartridges and the negatives were about a quarter the size of 35mm film.

 

[maximus otter]

One commentator on Reddit has suggested that the picture above shows two arms holding a long, flat camera of some sort. That's possible; do we actually know what shape the camera was?

He describes it only as an “ordinary still camera.”

Not many clues there, but it’s not how l’d describe a happy-snappy Instamatic-type 110 camera.

maximus otter

 

[Sid]

He also said that the object/ufo "left a shadow behind it." But in this enlargement (below) it shows that the 'shadow' is much more than it appears to be at first glance. It shows that it has colours within it - and it also shows that is has multi-levels of build in it's makeup.

 

[Erinaceus]

He describes it only as an “ordinary still camera.”

Not many clues there, but it’s not how l’d describe a happy-snappy Instamatic-type 110 camera.

maximus otter

I've just watched it again and he mentions a 36 exposure film. 110 wasn't available in that length.