Your Favourite UFO Photo

[oldrover]

This is my favourite, largely because it was photographed along the route I used to take to the pub on a Friday evening. The photographer lived a few doors down from the pub, and apparently he was seriously trying to say it was genuine. Naturally I assumed he was taking the piss.

 

[henry]

id have been inclined to buy him a few drinks if the occasion presented itself

 

[Coal]

There you go.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Wow - that's a lot of UFOs.
:abduct:

 

[Coal]

Wow - that's a lot of UFOs.
:abduct:

Probably one out there somewhere.

 

[SkepticalX]

The 1950 Paul Trent photos are still my personal yardstick for UFO photos. They represent a 50-50 proposition (they are either fake or they depict a non-terrestrial craft of some type) and that is probably about as good as it gets with UFO photos.

The Rudy Zagora pics taken in Austria in 1971 are pretty interesting. Here is the best of the series:

Here is one snapped in 1996 in Hungary that I think is interesting as well:

It's hard to read too much into any UFO photo but they certainly do make you wonder sometimes.

 

[dr wu]

Someone mentioned the Trent pic..so....

 

[dr wu]

From South Africa.....1956

 

[dr wu]

The Rex Heflin pic 1965

 

[henry]

last two dont display ?

 

[dr wu]

They display for me.....not sure why you don't see them.

 

[henry]

rex heflin photo/analysis here

 

[EnolaGaia]

They display for me.....not sure why you don't see them.

Because you're remote-linking them from a site with secure connection requirements henry's browser (and / or security settings) can't handle.

 

[dr wu]

Because you're remote-linking them from a site with secure connection requirements henry's browser (and / or security settings) can't handle.

I simply copied and pasted them.
Do you see them?

 

[EnolaGaia]

I simply copied and pasted them.
Do you see them?

What you copied and pasted were the URL's for the images' locations on other websites, not the images themselves.

Here they are (prefixes removed to prevent auto-linking) in the order in which you posted them:

iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mcminville1.jpg?w=809

www.thoughtco.com/thmb/V0x8SA2PoNkNM-8IPd0vjMm-RvU=/768x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/1956safrica-56a99c9f3df78cf772a8df37.jpg

www.thoughtco.com/thmb/NOfIFyFkkmhpFdaVAHA3FCWb1zE=/768x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/1965santaanna-56a99c9f5f9b58b7d0fd52d0.jpg

When this FTMB page is opened, the browser issues calls to those other sites (both of which use secure https connections) to obtain the image files.

If you see all 3, your security settings are low enough to permit your browser to simply pull in all 3 images just for asking.

Henry's browser (and / or configuration) is more restrictive, but permits automatic remote linking to the first site.

My basic browser setup is even more restrictive, so none of the 3 appear unless I throw a different or differently-configured browser at them.

 

[henry]

whats the south africa 56 one ?

 

[INT21]

Interesting.

..If you see all 3, your security settings are low enough to permit your browser to simply pull in all 3 images just for asking...

When I first looked at this thread I was using Firefox. And could not see the offending pictures.

So I tried my Avast browser. And I can see them all.

I suppose I should change the settings on the Avast, but it will be handy to use it for this kind of situation.

Meanwhile, back to Firefox.

INT21.

 

[SkepticalX]

The South Aftrican pic is one of a series taken by Elizabeth Klarer. The photos are rather compelling but they have been marginalized somewhat because of Elizabeth's contactee stories. She's gone now but she never recanted on her story.

As for the Heflin photos, high-resolution scans of them have been in the hands of UFO researcher, Ann Druffel, for many years. She wrote an analysis of the photos back in 2000 but she has refused to release the scans to others, pending additional analysis.

If she is still alive, she has to be in her early 90s. Hopefully, when she goes, other people will finally be able to have a look at them. As it is, here is a link to her 2000 report: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.6587&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

[henry]

As it is, here is a link to her 2000 report: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.6587&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Download Limit Exceeded
You have exceeded your daily download allowance

 

[dr wu]

What you copied and pasted were the URL's for the images' locations on other websites, not the images themselves.

Here they are (prefixes removed to prevent auto-linking) in the order in which you posted them:



When this FTMB page is opened, the browser issues calls to those other sites (both of which use secure https connections) to obtain the image files.

If you see all 3, your security settings are low enough to permit your browser to simply pull in all 3 images just for asking.

Henry's browser (and / or configuration) is more restrictive, but permits automatic remote linking to the first site.

My basic browser setup is even more restrictive, so none of the 3 appear unless I throw a different or differently-configured browser at them.

Ok..Thanks for the info.....I don't think that has happened to me before in posting pics.
OFF topic: Should someone's browser settings be so restrictive..? I have no problems with mine the way they are.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Ok..Thanks for the info.....I don't think that has happened to me before in posting pics.
OFF topic: Should someone's browser settings be so restrictive..? I have no problems with mine the way they are.

The point lies in the fact that by posting in such a manner as to include elements (e.g., images) accessible solely via separate links to multiple third-party websites you're forcing FTMB readers (or, more accurately, their browsers ... ) to successfully perform an arbitrary number of calls just to assemble the entirety of whatever you wanted to present.

Failures in accessing all such remotely-linked elements may result from a number of mismatches or blocks, and these impediments don't necessarily have anything to do with readers' browsers or configurations. Such impediments can - and often do - lie on the server side rather than the client side.

For example, an increasing number of websites prohibit remote linking to individual elements (e.g., images) within their webpages. In such situations, posting a URL to an image rather than the image itself is setting up the audience for failure, because the sole option you've given them for accessing the element cannot work.

 

[dr wu]

^I'm not sure I get that....but then what would be the correct way to post those ufo pics I shared?

 

[EnolaGaia]

^I'm not sure I get that....but then what would be the correct way to post those ufo pics I shared?

There's no absolutely 'correct' way to go about it, but some tactics are more likely to work for your entire audience (and remain workable over time ... ) than others.

The 'safest' way to ensure your audience can see what you're alluding to (out on the 'Net ... ) is to snag the image onto your device and upload it to FTMB when you generate the post.

 

[henry]

yes for images, download and upload, we came to that conclusion during photobucket fiasco ... that way the site retains jurisdiction

 

[henry]

seen some of the south african ufos on google, must say theyre not especially interesting

 

[GNC]

I see the Cocoyoc UFO photo is now online, but in terrible quality. If you ever get to see it in a decent reproduction, you'll see why it's one of my favourites, doesn't look like anything else.

 

[dr wu]

I looked at that Mexico Cocoyoc ufo online at youtube.....that;s one strange looking ufo...almost looks like a blimp with tentacles. Could it be a very large homemade balloon?

 

[Schrodinger's Zebra]

I see the Cocoyoc UFO photo is now online, but in terrible quality. If you ever get to see it in a decent reproduction, you'll see why it's one of my favourites, doesn't look like anything else.

Ooh, hadn't heard of that one... just did a quick search and found this, is this the one?

https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/cocoyoc73.htm

There's a cool close-up showing its little legs or tentacles Very unusual, as you say.

 

[INT21]

dr wu,

Isn't there an old photo from Russia of something like a large octopus above a building ?

INT21

 

[GNC]

Ooh, hadn't heard of that one... just did a quick search and found this, is this the one?

https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/cocoyoc73.htm

There's a cool close-up showing its little legs or tentacles Very unusual, as you say.

Yes, that's the one. I like it because unlike a lot of flung hubcaps I'm not very sure what it could possibly be if it were manmade. It does look like a blimp, but with legs or fins like that? Not likely. And what would it be doing out in that part of Mexico?