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

UFO Files Top Tens

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
33,634
Any thoughts on the UFO Files Top Tens from the experts? Some enter into the spirit of the thing better than others, but all highlight interesting cases, both classic and obscure.

Although I found that Great Falls Montana Footage from 1950 on YouTube and it looks like a couple of planes flying by.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKH3uQdtBsE
 
Don't write Heflin's photos off so quickly. I recommend this very thorough report on the case from Ann Druffel:

http://ufos.homestead.com/heflin.pdf

I tend to agree about Great Falls. Nothing there that couldn't be explained by a pair of F-86s. There is allegedly some footage missing that has a better (i.e. larger) view of the objects. This footage has "disappeared". From the clip I've seen, there doesn't appear to be any missing scenes, however.

S
 
Can anyone supply a link to the 1990 Pitlochry Photograph mentioned by Nick Pope?
 
frank_poulankh said:
Can anyone supply a link to the 1990 Pitlochry Photograph mentioned by Nick Pope?

I was looking for that too, but found nothing but references to it. No photo. I wonder if anyone's actually seen it?
 
gncxx said:
frank_poulankh said:
...
I was looking for that too, but found nothing but references to it. No photo. I wonder if anyone's actually seen it?

I was wondering that as well, I don't recall ever seeing it in any UFO magazines or books.
 
frank_poulankh said:
Can anyone supply a link to the 1990 Pitlochry Photograph mentioned by Nick Pope?

From what I gather, there is no photoavailable, not on the MoD sight. But regardless of the Times suggesting that they had a photo of this particular UFO, a request response PDF suggests there was none.

link

Original Times news story about the MoD, putting up all this information

link

If you find the Photo, please post a link it sounds intriguing!


edited by TheQuixote: fixing links
 
Pitlochry photograph 1990

Nick Pope has very kindly provided me with more information about the Pitlochry photo. We're no nearer to a copy of the real thing I admit but, by the looks of it, it seems nobody is!

Thanks for your email. First of all, here's the MoD's response to a Freedom of Information Act request that mentioned this photograph:

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8B65AF18 ... foreq3.pdf

The issue also arose in a Parliamentary Question tabled by Martin Redmond in the House of Commons in 1996, which can be seen at the bottom of the following link:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 724w28.htm

Coincidentally, I've just written an article for UFO DATA magazine that mentions this photograph. As the July issue is on the point of coming out, I don't see any problem with copying you the relevant extract:

The Disappearing Photograph

When I took over responsibility for investigating UFOs at the MoD, one wall of my office was dominated by a spectacular image of a UFO. It was silver-coloured craft, perhaps no more a couple of hundred feet above the ground, if that. It looked diamond-shaped, but may have appeared triangular when viewed from underneath - this was something I'd come across in other investigations, and was a feature of some reports in the Belgian Wave and the Cosford Incident. A colleague told me the story surrounding the image. Apparently the UFO had been seen near Pitlochry in Scotland in 1990, and the photo had been sent to the MoD for analysis. I'm not able to go into the details of this analysis, but the conclusion was that this was a real object, perhaps 25 or 30 metres in diameter, as I recall. The image on my office wall was a blown-up copy of the original photo and served as a reminder of why UFO sightings needed to be investigated thoroughly. The photo came up occasionally in the course of my dealings with other specialists, one of whom had the same image on his office wall. "Take that, for example", he said to my sceptical boss on one occasion, pointing at the image. "It's not a fake. It's big. If we could just understand a bit more, we could maybe learn something about its aerodynamics, its propulsion system ...". His voice trailed off and the possibilities were left hanging in the air, like the UFO itself. One day, however, my Head of Division came in and removed the photo from the wall, locking it in his desk drawer. Despite the US denials, he had somehow convinced himself that Aurora did exist, and that this is what the photo showed. I alluded to the photo briefly in my first book, Open Skies Closed Minds, and this led to Martin Redmond asking a question about the photo in Parliament, and to various ufologists making FOI requests about it. The MoD's responses stated that the photo could not be located. This is a shame, because this might have been the best evidence we had in relation to the triangular-shaped UFOs. Did our best chance of ever resolving the mystery somehow slip through our fingers?

Apologies if I've misused the quote function.
 
Well, the MOD say the original negatives were returned to the Scottish Daily Record. Perhaps someone could contact them to check if they still have them?

Alternatively, since the sighting was originally reported to the Scottish Daily Record & they forwarded the story and the photos to the MOD, isn't there a chance the story and one or more photographs were published in the paper at the time? Has anybody checked the archives?

Just a thought.
 
Nick Pope is not a trustworthy source. This one sentence alone is a major problem:

"I'm not able to go into the details of this analysis, but the conclusion was that this was a real object, perhaps 25 or 30 metres in diameter, as I recall."

No reputable photographic is going to declare a photographed object to be a real object -that is not what they do. They examine the film and/or negative, not the subject of the photograph or negative. The absolute limit to what a photograph analyst can tell you is that the film or negative was or wasn't tampered with, damaged, or some other image-affecting effect. A professional photographic analyst will also qualify his/her assessment by admitting "as best as I can tell". But they do not opine on the reality of the subject of the photo.

Intelligence analysts examine photographs for signs of whatever they are charged to look for (terrorist camps, missile sites, etc.), but those are mundane things known to exist.

Pope is mistaken or lying, and his "I'm not able to go into the details of this analysis" is the exact sort of dodge that would be jumped on by ufology had a goverment official said it, evidence of a cover up. However, when a pro-UFO advocate (with a financial interest in UFOs) says it, no one from ufology bats an eye.
 
Back
Top