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

Rendlesham Forest Incident

Ian Ridpath said:
Completely unnoticed by the foresters who worked out there every day, or the people who walked and rode through there – Rendlesham Forest is open public land, remember.
Click to expand...
If it had stealth capabilities, they might not have seen it...

:)
 
Comfortably Numb said:
If it had stealth capabilities, they might not have seen it...

:)
Click to expand...
Well, some people did see something go down. Some of the civilian witnesses also mentioned the foresters talking about trees being removed and radioactivity. I'm wondering if any of the early researchers at Rendlesham ever made a serious attempt to talk to them first hand, because they are the people who knew the forest best and were most likely to know what was going on. Might even be worth trying to reach any of them surviving today, or their families.
 
Ian Ridpath said:
...is repeating Larry Warren's story, although Warren said it ws Gordon Williams not Halt who did the 'communicating'.
Click to expand...
As noted, I was reading the riveting story for the first time, from a transcript of a 1984 telephone conversation, which I could never publish because I don't have permission to.

I can, however, add that at one point in Bustinza's account and yet more enigmatic, 'exploding balls of red fire', if a dragon had suddenly ascended from the forest, that would actually have made some sense...
 
Carl Grove said:
I'm wondering if any of the early researchers at Rendlesham ever made a serious attempt to talk to them first hand...
Click to expand...
Goodness me! Oh, yes and I know of this for sure, because I am currently re-reading, 'Skycrash', which features some of the earliest case material in that respect!

More on this later, then...:rup:
 
Carl Grove said:
I'm wondering if any of the early researchers at Rendlesham ever made a serious attempt to talk to them first hand, because they are the people who knew the forest best and were most likely to know what was going on.
Click to expand...
Vince the forester was the first person I spoke to, as it happens.
You can hear him in his own words on a BBC3 programme from 2003 here
 
Carl Grove said:
Well, some people did see something go down. Some of the civilian witnesses also mentioned the foresters talking about trees being removed and radioactivity. I'm wondering if any of the early researchers at Rendlesham ever made a serious attempt to talk to them first hand, because they are the people who knew the forest best and were most likely to know what was going on. Might even be worth trying to reach any of them surviving today, or their families.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. One of the things that stands out for me in reading the actual witnesses' / participants' accounts of the first (December 26) is that it consists entirely of military personnel seeing lights in the woods. Except for the later (and possibly spurious) mentions of (a) an unidentified radar hit that disappeared off the scans approximately 15 miles to the east and (b) a documented fireball there's not a single thing relating to weirdness aloft.

The people who ventured out into the forest were stalking lights in the woods, not lights in the sky. None of them were noted as being experienced woodsmen, and in any case they were all outsiders unfamiliar with that particular forest and its surrounding environs.

When unidentifiable lights were observed out in the forest beyond the base perimeter the only hypothesis documented was the notion the lights might have represented a downed or landed aircraft. The idea that the lights in the woods might have simply been lights in the woods of a mundane sort (distant buildings; lightship; nighttime hunters; local farmers) doesn't seem to have been on anyone's mind.

The failure to explain the lights on that first night was the basis for the presumptive woo factor in play during the second round (i.e., Halt and company).

It would be of definite relevance to learn what sorts of nighttime lights were known to be possible sights in the forest four decades ago. The apparent fact nobody thought to investigate this basic background to the events represents a serious flaw in both the investigations and anyone's / everyone's basis for evaluating what may have happened.
 
I checked, but the forester here is talking only of the alleged landing site, which we all agree is pretty unconvincing anyway. I'm really focusing on the earlier stories that do mention something going down and the comments of some foresters to the witnesses. I agree that the Penniston alleged landing site is inconsistent with the evidence, and I am also happy to forget the Halt escapade, come to that.
 
EnolaGaia said:
That's a very good point. One of the things that stands out for me in reading the actual witnesses' / participants' accounts of the first (December 26) is that it consists entirely of military personnel seeing lights in the woods. Except for the later (and possibly spurious) mentions of (a) an unidentified radar hit that disappeared off the scans approximately 15 miles to the east and (b) a documented fireball there's not a single thing relating to weirdness aloft.

The people who ventured out into the forest were stalking lights in the woods, not lights in the sky. None of them were noted as being experienced woodsmen, and in any case they were all outsiders unfamiliar with that particular forest and its surrounding environs.

When unidentifiable lights were observed out in the forest beyond the base perimeter the only hypothesis documented was the notion the lights might have represented a downed or landed aircraft. The idea that the lights in the woods might have simply been lights in the woods of a mundane sort (distant buildings; lightship; nighttime hunters; local farmers) doesn't seem to have been on anyone's mind.

The failure to explain the lights on that first night was the basis for the presumptive woo factor in play during the second round (i.e., Halt and company).

It would be of definite relevance to learn what sorts of nighttime lights were known to be possible sights in the forest four decades ago. The apparent fact nobody thought to investigate this basic background to the events represents a serious flaw in both the investigations and anyone's / everyone's basis for evaluating what may have happened.
Click to expand...
Well, I think the people who did see something on Christmas night (not the night of the 26th) were not talking about vague lights in the sky. The main witness was Garry Collins, who saw a 30' wide object at a height of 60' and it seems that this is also what Boast and maybe his daughter saw -- a largish object, way too big to fit in the alleged Penniston landing site, which I think was created as a diversion. "How did such a big thing land in such a small clearing?" as Boast's daughter put it. If only we could locate her!
 
EnolaGaia said:
It would be of definite relevance to learn what sorts of nighttime lights were known to be possible sights in the forest four decades ago. The apparent fact nobody thought to investigate this basic background to the events represents a serious flaw in both the investigations and anyone's / everyone's basis for evaluating what may have happened.
Click to expand...
@Analogue Boy touched on this recently, wondering if something so simple as a distant Christmas tree could be a factor.

I did actually bring up this very thing some 20 years ago with local researcher, Robert McLean and he thoroughly investigated possibilities.

His findings were certainly helpful and I shall endeavour to locate our correspondence forthwith.

Those unfamiliar and disconcerting,
lights, on the morning of 26 December, 1980, first noticed circa 03:00 from the closed at night 'east gate' sentry point by a routine patrol, checking the gates security, seems to be the foundation and catalyst for all which followed.

Is it now established, a comparative light enigma was observed from that same, 'east gate' location three nights in a row, with the third culminating in Halt being informed, 'the UFO was back'?

Although there exists zero evidence of any such, 'festive' connection, John Burroughs' sketch of his observation in the early hours of Boxing Day and which accompanied his official, written statement, remains intriguing:

Burr_3.jpg
 
Comfortably Numb said:
John Burroughs' sketch of his observation in the early hours of Boxing Day and which accompanied his official, written statement, remains intriguing...
Click to expand...
When you look again at all the different, flashing lights, Burroughs illustrates...

Looks infinity more like a disco...

Who might be having a party/disco in the early hours of Christmas morning...

From Burroughs statement:

"We got up to a fence that separated the trees from the open field and you could see the lights down by a farmers house".

I find this intriguing.
 
Ian Ridpath said:
Col Conrad, Halt's boss, told the story rather differently to Dave Clarke a decade ago, as Dave reports on his blog...
Click to expand...
Obviously, further disconcerting.

As is the following, which has never previously been revealed?

I have been revisiting archive correspondence and came across my copy of a letter, written to Jenny Randles, on 8 June, 1998, from which the following is an extract (my emphasis):

You may be interested in claims Halt apparently made during the April 1994 OMNI interview with Salley Rayl:

“Around New Years eve, I took statements and interviewed the men who had taken part in the initial incident. The reports were nearly identical:

Basically, they reported this: In the early morning hours of December 26, one of the airmen drove to the back gate at Woodbridge on a routine security check. He saw lights in the forest, specifically a red light, and thought maybe an airplane had crashed. He radioed a report, which was called into the tower, but the tower reported nobody was flying.

(...)

As they approached the clearing, they reported seeing a large yellowish-white light with a blinking red light on the upper center portion and a steady blue light emanating from underneath.

(...)

A few of the men moved to within 20 or 30 feet. Each said the same thing independently - a triangular shaped metallic object, about nine feet across the base, six feet high, appeared to be sitting on a tripod. They split up, walked around the craft. One of the men apparently tried to get on the craft, but, they said, it levitated up”.
(End)

Regrettably, Sally would not realise Halt's claims about what those statements truly revealed, when I got a hold of them and published their genuine contents, are categorically untrue and thus the myth both perpetuated and expounded.

Halt knew what was genuinely in those statements; the fruitless pursuit of unfamiliar lights, which culminated in the realisation that one light, as Burroughs told Halt was a, "beacon going around so we went towards it.

We followed it for about 2 miles before we could see it was coming from a lighthouse"

Some might surmise why the truth from, "I took statements", wasn't being 'disclosed' and without publication of those crucial, original testimonies, would never be.
 
EnolaGaia said:
The people who ventured out into the forest were stalking lights in the woods, not lights in the sky. None of them were noted as being experienced woodsmen, and in any case they were all outsiders unfamiliar with that particular forest and its surrounding environs.
Click to expand...

I can't say this enough - many of the accounts, particularly those concerning after they left their base smack of hallucinogenic experiences. I agree with the statement above, but I cannot help but being pretty convinced that they were under some sort of influence...

The eye-like red orb dripping like molten lava. This is what a red light, at night, through a forest looks like on LSD.

I just find it very difficult to imagine how a group of serving military personnel could misidentify things so incredibly oddly without some sort of additional factor involved. It also could explain the variations in experience by men in the same places, looking at the same things. It could also explain the "dreamlike" state that many witnesses reported feeling like they were in.
 
Last edited:
EnolaGaia said:
It would be of definite relevance to learn what sorts of nighttime lights were known to be possible sights in the forest four decades ago. The apparent fact nobody thought to investigate this basic background to the events represents a serious flaw in both the investigations and anyone's / everyone's basis for evaluating what may have happened.
Click to expand...
As noted in my initial reply:

"I did actually bring up this very thing some 20 years ago with local researcher, Robert McLean and he thoroughly investigated possibilities.

His findings were certainly helpful and I shall endeavour to locate our correspondence forthwith".
(End)

Although there was nothing conspicuously relevant to our mysterious new, 'UFO', lights, which were seemingly within the forest itself,
this is is the essence of our related correspondence:

(Start)
Date: Aug 28 2000
From: Robert McLean
Subject: Re: Rendlesham

James,

You asked:

"Robert, as an aside and although I think it unlikely there's a direct connection to the UFO incidents_, can you maybe help answer the following questions:

Are there any churches, or similar, in our 'line of sight', or close to it and do you know if any of them have stained glass windows?".


The two nearest churches are at Butley and Boyton.

I've been keeping an eye out for red or blue coloured lights when walking around the area at night, but have seen none anywhere. I'll be checking for xmas lights nearer the time.

If you stand at the forest/field boundary at the accepted landing site and look at the Orfordness lighthouse beam (or location where it would be in the daytime), there are no buildings or lights closer to the lighthouse beam/location than the farmhouse shown in Ian Ridpath's photo.

Also, if you lay a clear 18" ruler on the OS map between the two points of the accepted landing site and the Orfordness lighthouse, none of the buildings the ruler passes near are visible.

Moving outwards along the line of site from the accepted landing site are:

i) Butley Abbey. This 1050 m to the east and to the left, but is hidden (at least in summer) behind a thin line of deciduous trees along a field boundary not shown on the OS map. The Abbey is a ruin, but parts of the structure are still visible. The farm buildings there are large, but I have not yet had a good look good at them. I will look out for stained glass, but the only coloured light I've seen there is a low pressure sodium lamp (the type that produces the deep yellow colour - Sodium D-line to be technical) at the eastern edge of the farm buildings, this is visible near the unmarked road just east of the buildings.

Because it is only possible to walk about 126 m into the field immediately to the east of the accepted landing site before the lighthouse beam disapears behind the ridge 4 km to the east, the lighthouse beam could never be seen in proximity with Butley Abbey.

ii) Gedgrave Hall. This is 4 km to the east and to the right, but is hidden (at least on summer) behind about 75 m of trees just to the west of the buildings. I have not walked by these buildings yet, but it is on my to-do list

iii) Richmond Cottages midway between Gedgrave Hall and Orford is behind the ridge at Gedgrave.

The direct line of sight also seems to include Orford Castle. However, it's apparently more of a ruin than a building with stained glass windows or one which is floodlit at night (although who knows if circumstances were different for Xmas 1980).
(End)
 
Last edited:
Ian Ridpath said:
And do we have diary entries or other comtemporary documentation? No. It's all 'me too' stuff well after the event.
Click to expand...
It sounds like a coherent and sensible account and I think you are doing the witness an injustice.
 
Comfortably Numb said:
:rcard:

Don't go there...

Just don't...

:)

('Life's complicated enough already'!)
Click to expand...
Yes, but the situation is more complicated than it needs to be because of the constant focus on just three witnesses, two of whom have come up with increasingly implausible stories and the third who may -- or may not -- have mistaken stars for things flying overhead and shooting down beams. The only reason I can see for this focus, and downplaying the evidence of UK witnesses (as just happened) is the touching belief that military people are somehow more reliable, or believable, than civilians, and the fact that they had written statements that can be accessed now. I am just pointing out that in a case this complex you can't just take three peoples' evidence as your only source of "reliable" data -- and that means giving serious consideration to other accounts that throw into question the entire nature of the incident. I can't accept this simplistic division into "UFOs" versus "perceptual and memory errors." There are strong signs that mind control and disinformation have been employed, and the promotion of fake theories. And these are all aimed at the "UFOs = aliens from space" idea. They wouldn't go to such trouble over something trivial. This alone tells us that what really happened had nothing to do with ETs or mistaken lighthouses.
 
https://www.ufocasebook.com/2021/retired-policeman-reveals-evidence-of rendlesham-incident.html

Just read this very interesting article. Get the large/original photo from the link. What's interesting also is if you look closely and examine the image, parts of the saucer do actually appear to be obscured by clouds, that would suggest that the saucer is very high up and potentially a massive craft, that would be very difficult to fake with a polaroid camera!

To whom it may concern,

Hello my name is Richard, I am writing to see if you might be interested in my true UFO story regarding an encounter with a flying saucer back in 1980? With recent claims regarding the Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident, I thought I would strike while the iron is hot, I have always intended to make my story available for public scrutiny before my death and I feel like the time is now right to do so.

Let me take you back to December 26TH 1980, a day that would ultimately change and ruin my life forever. It was a bitter cold night and as a serving police officer I was on duty. I was attending to a report of a possible domestic/disturbance/argument in the town of Woodbridge, located in Suffolk, 7 miles north-east of Ipswich in the East of England.

I was roughly about a quarter of a mile away from Woodbridge when for no apparent reason my police radio was suddenly swamped with interference, static electricity and crackling noises started to emerge from it, so I decided to pull my vehicle over to the side of the road and see if I could figure out what the problem was.

No sooner than I had stopped the vehicle there was an intensely bright flash of green light that lit up the whole interior of the car like a christmas tree. (see image)

Not sure what to make of what had just happened. I got out of the car to see if I could possibly figure out what caused it. Not really expecting to see anything I was completely shocked to discover a huge green-whitish, glowing, illuminated, phosphorescent disk/saucer shaped craft hovering directly above me in the sky, it was an incredible and unbelievable but frightening spectacle to witness, my skin started to tingle and the hairs on the back of my neck stood up.

The saucer was huge, slowly rotating and was making a quiet/soft whirring noise. As a police officer I always carried a polaroid camera in the boot of the police vehicle whenever on driving duties, it's just something that I did.

I rushed to the boot and obtained my camera, I fired off three shots, I then stood there somewhat shaken and continued to view this object. After what felt like an eternity, but was no more than just over a minute or so, the saucer suddenly and without warning soared up high into the night sky at breathtaking and phenomenal speed and was literally gone and out of sight in a nanosecond, I was left standing there thinking to myself what the hell just happened?

Two of the photos came out completely fogged and showed absolutely nothing, but luckily one came out almost perfect and showed the saucer in all it's glory, I have included that original and untouched polaroid with my email.

The time of my sighting was precisely 1.55 AM. It really was like something out of a star trek movie, to be honest, words are inadequate to even begin to try and explain just how fantastic and how mind blowing this encounter was, and the colour of the saucer, it was like no other green I have ever seen, the photo really doesn't do it justice, dont get me wrong it's a wonderful polaroid but to see that saucer hovering in the sky and the sheer size of it, and the phenomenal speed at which it departed, the two simply don't compare, it was a truly mind blowing experience that no photograph could ever capture.

I had a very difficult time coming to terms with what I encountered on that December evening. Back then in 1980 there was no one to turn to, it's not like it is today, what with the internet and a simple click of a few buttons and you are instantly online talking to support groups etc, it just wasn't like that back then, plus I never wanted to tell anyone anyway, I mean would you?

And especially being a serving police officer it just simply wasn't an option, so I just filed it away in the back of my mind and tried to get on with my life. That wasn't to be though, soon after my encounter I started suffering with anxiety and panic attacks and clinical depression, I suffered terrible and frightening nightmares also and it wasn't long before things started to destroy my marriage.

I took time off work but it didn't help, all I did was drink myself into oblivion and sleep all day. Eventually I confided in my wife and decided to seek professional help. I ended up in therapy, I had a psychiatrist, I was on antidepressants, this whole UFO encounter turned my life upside down and eventually I had to leave the police force on medical grounds and unfortunately I have never worked another day since.

I have suffered with terrible physical and mental health problems ever since this thing happened and I know for a fact that all my health conditions are a direct result of my encounter with a flying saucer, I wouldn't wish it on anyone, not even my worst enemy.

That wasn't the end of it, I also received menacing and threatening telephone calls, even death threats a few weeks after my encounter and a couple of months later my home was subjected to an attempted arson attack, my wife believed at the time that this was an attempt by someone to try and destroy my photographic evidence and intimidate me into keeping my mouth shut, it certainly was a very unsettling and frightening time.

I can tell you this also, several days after my encounter a very good friend of mine who was a high ranking senior police officer told me that he was visited at home by 3 men claiming to be military intelligence, he said he was simply TOLD in no uncertain terms that if anyone mentions the word UFO then simply tell them that they probably saw the lighthouse and simply tell them it was faulty at the time, he said they gave him other information but he wouldn't disclose it to me.

I also heard quiet a few strange tales from members of the public in the months that followed my UFO sighting, none of them were ever reported for fear of ridicule, they may sound far fetched to most people but not to me, not after what I saw.

One man told me that on the 28TH December at 3AM he was awoken by his dog barking furiously at the back kitchen door, he said he opened the door and there was a small glowing orb hovering around his back garden, he said the orb shot off and his dog chased after it, suddenly it went silent and when he got around the corner of his garden the orb had fled and all that was left of his dog was a gooey puddle, he claimed his dog had been vaporized, I asked him if he reported it, he just looked at me and laughed and asked me if I was mad.

One woman told me that on the 26TH December at 2.30 AM she woke up and found herself in a forest staring at a glowing pyramid surrounded by several small humanoid entities, within seconds she claims she was suddenly back in her bed. I could tell you more incredible stories I heard and maybe one day when I have more time I will.

For all those individuals out there who simply think that the Rendlesham Forest UFO Incident was nothing more than a flying lighthouse or can be explained away by some other ridiculous explanation, let me say this, spare a thought for all those who were caught up in this, it was real, it happened FACT, end of story.

Hopefully one day soon and especially within my lifetime, I hope that all the information the government have including photographic evidence is released and made available to the general public as we all have a right to know the facts and truth as to what really happened in Rendlesham Forest.

I can't mention any names or say too much, but a very trusted source told me that there are still many witnesses to come forward with their evidence. That person also told me that everyone thinks that the visitors were looking for nuclear weapons, they told me that is complete nonsense and the true explanation is that the visitors had boots on the ground and were doing something in the forest, still yet unknown and one of their team was captured, killed, bagged and tagged by the military and shipped out to a secret location for analysis and to be studied and that's the reason the visitors were seen for several days, at one point shining beams of light down as they were obviously looking for one of their own.

Makes perfect sense when you think about it, why would a biologically and technologically advanced race of extraterrestrials capable of interstellar and probably intergalactic space travel be interested in such things? That would be like NASA suddenly releasing a statement expressing their interest in caveman technology!

I will leave you all with this thought...

THOSE WHO SPEAK DO NOT KNOW, THOSE WHO KNOW DO NOT SPEAK!!!!!

If you are interested in my true story and my photographic evidence and would like to use it for your publication/website etc, then you have my full blessing and permission to do so, all I would say is please keep my name out of the public domain and treat it with the strictest of confidence.

Many thanks,

Yours faithfully,

(Retired Police Officer)

Please get back to me at your convenience, I look forward very much to receiving your reply.
Click to expand...

A big thanks to the gentleman for coming forward with his report and sharing the photograph.

1980FlyingSaucerMedium.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Carl, the event happened 40 years ago. All the documentation has been released. Nothing has emerged to suggest anything unusual happened. You are of course welcome to believe otherwise but you will be wasting an awful lot of your time.
 
Ian Ridpath said:
Carl, the event happened 40 years ago. All the documentation has been released. Nothing has emerged to suggest anything unusual happened. You are of course welcome to believe otherwise but you will be wasting an awful lot of your time.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the civilian witness testimony is of no account? No, I'm not wasting my time, I don't intend to spend a lot of time tracking down the witnesses, I know from experience that it is rare to succeed in that after so long a time gap. But these people took the trouble to come forward and say what they saw, and if it suggests a way of viewing Rendlesham that is different from the usual ET vs. illusion arguments, then I think it worth considering.
 
definitelymaybe said:
As a police officer I always carried a polaroid camera in the boot of the police vehicle
Click to expand...
But why have such a poor piece of photographic equipment if you intend to use it for anything serious, particularly as a police officer?
The Polaroid Land Camera is a technological 'sofa-bed' of a camera. Not good at anything really, except for maybe taking 'fun' pictures at a party, or on holiday.
The flash is just about able to light up things within about 15 feet, it has a fixed focus and exposure, and uses a specific type of film that prints instant pics without the use of negatives, which would make it impossible to duplicates prints or to analyse the negatives for tampering.
During the early 80s a much more sensible thing to have carried around would have been a simple 35mm camera with a separate flash unit which would have allowed for much clearer photographs and the ability to produce multiple prints with various levels of contrast etc.
Also the 35mm film for such a device would have been much more commonly available (did you ever try to buy a pack of polaroid film from, say, a petrol station, at 2 in the morning?)
The Polaroid camera would never have been able to get a clear picture of something flying overhead - I mean, even pictures taken under 'ideal' conditions were poor with those things.
 
Here are examples of polaroid pictures.
See the skewing of dimensions of buildings etc as they become more distant, the 'washed out' colouration, and the obvious poor quality of the print in the areas that the developing fluid didn't quite reach fully towards the corners.
1619554241140.png
 
Trevp666 said:
But why have such a poor piece of photographic equipment if you intend to use it for anything serious, particularly as a police officer?
The Polaroid Land Camera is a technological 'sofa-bed' of a camera. Not good at anything really, except for maybe taking 'fun' pictures at a party, or on holiday. ...
Click to expand...

Polaroid instant-developing cameras were quite popular in police use from the 1970s onward, with a resurgence in the late 1990s. They weren't a substitute for better cameras in producing detailed crime scene documentation, so the quality of the images wasn't the main selling point.

To illustrate their popularity ... The resurgence in the 1990s was largely motivated by the desire to document domestic abuse without delays, and this proved so useful that some police departments broke their budgets keeping the expensive film in stock.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-04-04-me-45289-story.html

Instant cameras had the advantage of producing a physical photo print quickly and in a form that could not be manipulated. Chain of custody became straightforward, because the film wasn't turned over to a developer between the time the photo was taken and it was introduced as evidence.

These cameras also allowed for reliable quick recording of images allowing scenes (e.g., accidents) to be cleared more quickly and transient damage / injury to be documented before being cleaned up or taken away to the hospital.

Timeliness, chain of custody protection and immunity to scene manipulation were the reasons they were popular in police work.

Having said that ...

I don't know whether instant cameras were being used in UK police forces in 1980.

As your examples illustrate, Polaroid color saturation wasn't great to begin with and it progressively faded with age.

If that's an accurate image of the Polaroid print its most remarkable feature is preservation of such an intense color saturation level.
 
A second, truncated version of Richard's email submission is now available at the Unexplained Mysteries site:
Another Rendlesham UFO photo has emerged
Posted on Tuesday, 27 April, 2021
Click to expand...

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/346418/another-rendlesham-ufo-photo-has-emerged

This later version includes an update from the author claiming an "expert" had verified the photo is "untouched" (i.e., un-retouched; not manipulated). As noted above, this isn't new news (Polaroids couldn't be manipulated).

This suggests the image submitted to these two websites was a scan or photo of the original Polaroid print, which apparently was not submitted to either site. This in turn means the images posted online are first- or second-generation copies of the original print.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top