PRINCIPLES OF UFO PHOTO INVESTIGATION

CHECK THESE WHEN EVALUATING A UFO PHOTO:

1. Where is the UFO in the photo?
   • Is it the subject of the shot, nice and centered?
   • If not, why not?
   • St George MN (Strauch) 10/21/65 has UFO in corner. Flash didn't fire. Night light.
2. Why was the photo taken?
   • Did the photographer notice the UFO when shooting?
   • If not, check for lens or window reflection, or birds frozen in flight.
   • The subject of Guantanamo 4/21/60 is obviously not the UFO.
3. Is the UFO focus different than the background?
   • If so, UFO was within 15 ft.
   • It doesn't matter WHICH is out of focus.
   • Picacho Peak, Las Cruces NM 3/3/67 is an example of a close object.
4. Does the UFO touch any part of the frame?
   • Is something out of frame holding it up?
   • The Elkwood City PA 7/30/66 milk can photo with the pentagonal object is an example.
5. Is any part of a daylight UFO darker than the darkest part of the background?
   • If so, UFO is close to camera, or background is unusually light.
   • If the bottom is very dark, object is also close to ground.
   • Italy 9/26/60 is an example of close objects. They are much closer than the trees.
6. Are a bright UFO, the frame center, and a strong light source in a straight line?
   • Suspect an internal camera reflection (lens flare).
   • The sun can do this and be out of frame.
   • Something shiny on the photographer and reflecting the sun can be out of frame.
7. Is the negative available?
   • If not, why not?
   • Does the negative show any damage at the UFO image?
   • Many Polaroid photos and all digital photos do not have usable negatives.
8. Was black and white film used??
   • Why? (Old photos: color was expensive. New photos???)
   • The red end of the spectrum prints darker than the blue end.
   • Objects in color are much easier to identify.
9. Do multiple photos show the UFO in the same place relative to a familiar object?
   • The UFO might have been hung from or attached to the familiar object.
   • Mt. Clemens MI 1/9/67 is an example.
10. With multiple photos, did the camera move between shots?
    • If so, why?
    • Moving the camera is an easy way to make a suspended model "move."
    • Zanesville OH (Ditter) 11/13/66 is an example.
11. Does the camera have to be in an unusual place to reproduce the photo
    • If so, suspect trickery.
    • This is a method to change the aspect or image size of a suspended model.
    • Condon case 24 is an example.
12. Could the UFO be a bird or insect frozen in flight?
    • Birds and insects can make some strange shapes.
    • Marseilles France is a photo of a moth on the window.
13. Is the background visible through the object?
    • Double exposure?
    • Reflection in window?
    • Lens reflection?
    • Object not there for entire exposure?
    • Beaver PA 8/8/1965 shows background through UFO, "exhaust" hides background.
14. Could the UFO be a time exposure of something?
    • Many attempts to take eclipse photos make UFO-like images.
    • Multiple identical light trails are from a time exposure with camera motion.
    • Insects flitting around a light bulb make a strange looking time exposure.
    • Fireflies and airplane lights in time exposures give dotted trails of light.
    • Milan MI 3/19/66 is a time exposure of the Moon and Venus.
15. Do light direction and shadows agree between the UFO, background, and story?
    • Can the light come from the direction indicated?
    • Do shadows conflict?
    • Do lighting and shadows agree with the reported time of day?
    • One Barra Da Tijuca 5/7/52 photo has light striking the UFO from the bottom.
16. With multiple photos, do all of them meet the same scrutiny?
    • If any one of the photos fails any test, the entire set fails.
    • If one of the photos is a fake, all of the others in the set must be fakes too.
    • The one Barra Da Tijuca photo disqualifies all of the rest in the set.
17. Do the photos match the story?
    • Are the frame numbers contiguous and correctly ordered?
    • Do the surrounding events in the roll agree with the reported sighting date?
    • Tulsa OK 8/2/65 has object within a set of Christmas pictures.
18. Is the photographer gaining money or attention from the photo?
    • Double check for any form of trick photography.
    • Has the photographer copyrighted the images?
    • Look for an object around the house that matches the UFO.
    • Be especially suspicious if the photographer regularly produces new UFO photos.
    • Note that monetary gain can occur without any trickery being involved.
    • Have "men in black" visited the witness? (But also suspect tabloid reporters)
    • Rex Heflin tried several of these tricks in the Santa Ana 8/3/65 case.
19. Can the object's identity be coaxed out of the photo? Look for hidden details.
    • Turn the photo to different angles. Is it familiar, but at an unusual angle?
    • Look at it in a mirror and turn it to different angles.
    • Print the photo at different exposures. Solarization and other exposure errors?
    • Make photocopies of the photos on different machines at different settings.
    • Try using strong light to bring out faint details.
    • Use various color filters to analyze color photos.
    • Blow up the image and look for details.
    • Digitize the image and look for edges and supporting strings or wires.
    • Is the UFO a failed photo of a non-UFO subject?
    • St George MN (Strauch) 10/21/65 UFO under blue filter is a night light bulb.
20. Look for the obvious, the obscure, and the obsolete.
    • Is the UFO something that was not in general use when the photo was taken?
    • Is the UFO a part taken from something else?
    • Is the UFO several common objects fastened together?
    • Is there writing on the object that can be read when magnified?
    • Itapoan Brazil 4/24/59 object is a drive wheel from a Collaro record changer.

Photographs printed in magazines have these additional problems:

1. The photo is usually cropped and enlarged. The entire uncropped photo should be shown, because valuable information is available in the remainder of the photo. A close-up can be added to show detail.
2. Sometimes faint images that are not part of the UFO photo are accidentally added because a printing screen is reused.
3. In some tabloids, subliminal images have been found embedded in UFO pictures. They are not there in other publications of the same shots. THIS HAS TO STOP! It is more proof that tabloids are interested only in selling trash, not truth.
4. Printing photos that are easily proved fakes by the above methods only hurts the search for any real data that may exist in UFO photos, unless they are printed to expose them as fakes.
5. If a series of photos was taken, all of them should be printed, not just the best ones.
6. Where the photographer did not notice the object, SAY SO!
7. Sometimes the photo is enlarged too much, and the grain of the film is perceived as detail.
8. If photo enhancement is used, print the unenhanced photo also.
9. All of the following information should be given:
   • Name of photographer
   • Location where the photo(s) were taken
   • Direction the camera was pointed
   • Date and time
   • Equipment used
   • Focal length of lens, aperture, and shutter speed or exposure time
   • Film and processing used

IDENTIFYING UFOs MENU