A most famous UFO photo, 1952

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

In the 1952 American UFO wave, this photo was taken by US Coastguardsman, Shell Alpert.   Short bio

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

These are quite real and why I know UFO's to be in existence

[ChrLzs]

From the USAF report (which refers specifically to the first thing I noticed....)

Quote

 

The glowing objects.. are multiple exposures of a simple street lamp, stauchion [sic, probably should be "stanchion"] type. The film was multiply exposed at night, with a dark view field surrounding the lamp. The daytime exposure of the building was carefully oriented to -produce the aerial hovering effect. However, the fraud is indicated because no highlights may be seen in the auto roofs.

It is therefore concluded that the authenticity of the picture, taken by the Coast Guard photographer, is open to serious doubt. 

 

From here:

http://www.saturdaynightuforia.com/html/articles/articlehtml/thephotographerstale.html

There are multiple telltales in the image - if you think it somehow looks odd, in regard to the lighting, you'd be right.  I'll elaborate later if anyone is interested who isn't an FTB like EoT.  The only real question is why someone agreed to back up Alpert's tall tale....

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

How did you know someone backed up Alpert's tale? Actually, there were many that did. One that I know of took a photo from a 180 degree angle to Alperts.

But I bet that one's fake, too, right?

And you always make it sound like you have PROOF  lol

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

These are quite real and why I know UFO's to be in existence

Obviously UFO's are real.  I my self have seen UFO's.  Unidentified Flying Objects.  To deny it would be stupid.  Jumping to the conclusion that they were spacecraft flown here from another world and piloted by people not of this earth would be groundless and  equally stupid.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Obviously UFO's are real.  I my self have seen UFO's.  Unidentified Flying Objects.  To deny it would be stupid.  Jumping to the conclusion that they were spacecraft flown here from another world and piloted by people not of this earth would be groundless and  equally stupid.

Well, call them whatever you want OS. The Project Bluebook ended up calling them unidentified. So there ya go.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

" The above are the only known eye-witnesses to subject objects. "

ROFLMAO... that's because Project Bluebook wanted it that way. There were many who saw them. It isn't tricks with lighting, they're real objects.

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Well, call them whatever you want OS. The Project Bluebook ended up calling them unidentified. So there ya go.

I agree.  Unidentified, as in they did not know what they were sometimes.  Project Blue Book also identified some things too, they never turned out to be other worldly craft.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

@OverSword     Oversword. Exactly. That's why I know Project Bluebook is project propaganda.

Please! If project bluebook wanted to really investigate it, the eyewitnesses alone would take months. and the other photo would sink all their effort.

 

[+OverSword]

4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

@OverSword     Oversword. Exactly. That's why I know Project Bluebook is project propaganda.

Please! If project bluebook wanted to really investigate it, the eyewitnesses alone would take months. and the other photo would sink all their effort.

 

Which other photo are you taking about?

[ChrLzs]

12 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

How did you know someone backed up Alpert's tale?

Because I've been interested in UFO's since a child, and have investigated many, many, many tales.  Still waiting for one that shows a hint of ET as a possibility.

12 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Actually, there were many that did.

How many?  Be specific.

12 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

One that I know of took a photo from a 180 degree angle to Alperts.

Really?  well clearly you know more than I do - can you back that up?  (Why didn't you post that image with the first one?)

12 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

But I bet that one's fake, too, right?

I don't know.  Haven't seen it yet.  Please help me (and everyone else reading this section) by posting it.

Although ... I'm a bit puzzled by your cynicism/smarm - you haven't disputed my comments or asked for further details why I think that image is a darkroom-ed fake.  Do you not see anything odd?  Hint - the lighting (check it versus Alpert's description of the weather that day), the (non-) reflections, the incorrect level of blurring at different distances... and more.

12 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And you always make it sound like you have PROOF  lol

Yes, and I explain my evidence in detail, when asked nicely.  You should try that one day - you might learn some stuff and stop wasting time with silly meta-discussions, handwaves and 'lol's.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Which other photo are you taking about?

One of the witnesses took a photo from a 180 degree angle of the Coast Guards

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

13 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

1. Because I've been interested in UFO's since a child, and have investigated many, many, many tales.  Still waiting for one that shows a hint of ET as a possibility.

2. How many?  Be specific.

3. Really?  well clearly you know more than I do - can you back that up?  (Why didn't you post that image with the first one?)

I don't know.  Haven't seen it yet.  Please help me (and everyone else reading this section) by posting it.

4. Although ... I'm a bit puzzled by your cynicism/smarm - you haven't disputed my comments or asked for further details why I think that image is a darkroom-ed fake.  Do you not see anything odd?  Hint - the lighting (check it versus Alpert's description of the weather that day), the (non-) reflections, the incorrect level of blurring at different distances... and more.

5. Yes, and I explain my evidence in detail, when asked nicely.  You should try that one day - you might learn some stuff and stop wasting time with silly meta-discussions, handwaves and 'lol's.

1. not saying ET here (although it could be)

2. Oh, I'd clearly be guestimating. I'd say 40 just in the Salem Power plant in the foreground.

3. that image as best I know, has never been made public. The man who took the photo is Louis Johnson.

4. Well, lots of folks said "real" , others said "fake". I have to laugh because without examining a thing, I know it's real. The Guardsman did nothing wrongful.

5. Stick to your opinions. Doesn't mean I have to believe them, do I?

BTW, the damn fools that said "reflections in the window" had to be told that the glass plate had been removes for the summer. BS-ers abound. They just have to find a way to say "NO".

 

[Minimalists]

And all this hidden truth has of yet to reveal anything tangible in the way of hard evidence. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 minute ago, Alien Origins said:

And all this hidden truth has of yet to reveal anything tangible in the way of hard evidence. 

 

I was trying to entertain y'all with a great UFO story,, the UNTOLD version. BTW AO, if you saw a shooting star and nobody else if, does it mean you *didn't* see the shooting star just because you have no "tangible anything"? At least this guy has a photo

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

BTW, I should have noted that this photo obviously went viral in its day and was used in every early book in American UFO-logy. It is impressive.

[freetoroam]

13 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

I was trying to entertain y'all with a great UFO story,, the UNTOLD version. BTW AO, if you saw a shooting star and nobody else if, does it mean you *didn't* see the shooting star just because you have no "tangible anything"? At least this guy has a photo

If someone said they saw a shooting star, there would be no reason to doubt them as shooting stars are real. 

And if they say they saw a "shooting star," the fact they are calling it a shooting star indicates they know what it was. They would not need to have a photo of it as their word is good enough. They are not UFO's, especially if the person who saw it has called it by the name we know. 

  

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

If someone said they saw a shooting star, there would be no reason to doubt them as shooting stars are real. 

And if they say they saw a "shooting star," the fact they are calling it a shooting star indicates they know what it was. They would not need to have a photo of it as their word is good enough. They are not UFO's, especially if the person who saw it has called it by the name we know. 

  

Well, freetoroam, how do you know the objects weren't UFO's (they were) and why can't you just believe an honest military guy doing his job?

UFO's are not real to you only because you have never seen one. I understand where you come from, in a way. I'm a doubting Thomas myself. But since I already know that this photo and the objects in it are as real as a heart attack, I don't have any questioning to do.

You don't have to trust me, but you know I cannot be persuaded by anyone, especially if they weren't there. You know, there is something to be said for eyewitnesses. They don't all lie. And they are not in this case, either.

[Likely Guy]

43 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

One of the witnesses took a photo from a 180 degree angle of the Coast Guards

Where is that photo? Louis Johnson is a common name. Did he 'not release it', or the government?

[Timothy]

22 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

BTW, I should have noted that this photo obviously went viral in its day and was used in every early book in American UFO-logy. It is impressive.

If it did go ‘viral in its day’ (whatever that means), that is impressive.

The photo itself, that’s obviously in the eye of the beholder. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

Where is that photo? Louis Johnson is a common name. Did he 'not release it', or the government?

LOL, if I was him, Guy, there is no way I'd ever let the gov know. Of course, no one really felt that way back then about big gov. I don't know why Louis did not release it. Perhaps he feared eternal damnation for him and his family, kids getting teased at school, etc.

I wonder if Alpert regretted taking this pic with all the crap he went through. And yet, what did he get *positive* out of it??? Nudda.

 

 

[Likely Guy]

Oh, this part:

" At 09:35 A.M., the witness, Shell Alpert, took this picture of four roughly elliptical blobs of light in formation through the window of his photographic laboratory. "

When I was 18 I had access to a dark room and produced a fairly convincing photo of me, about 2 inches tall, sitting on a beer can. If the film was sent to a commercial developer, that usually date stamped their prints, it might have more credence.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Likely Guy

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 minutes ago, Timothy said:

If it did go ‘viral in its day’ (whatever that means), that is impressive.

The photo itself, that’s obviously in the eye of the beholder. 

What viral of the day means, it hit the news wires and FLEW around the country, El Pronto.

ChrLzs has a good link. See all the experts that can't come to agreement on it. So just how expert are they? One photo, and it's a colosto rumble. like kids

 

[Likely Guy]

2 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

LOL, if I was him, Guy, there is no way I'd ever let the gov know. Of course, no one really felt that way back then about big gov. I don't know why Louis did not release it. Perhaps he feared eternal damnation for him and his family, kids getting teased at school, etc.

I wonder if Alpert regretted taking this pic with all the crap he went through. And yet, what did he get *positive* out of it??? Nudda.

 

 

Where did you get the Louis Johnson info from? It's not in the OP (unless I missed it).

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

Oh, this part:

" At 09:35 A.M., the witness, Shell Alpert, took this picture of four roughly elliptical blobs of light in formation through the window of his photographic laboratory. "

When I was 18 I had access to a dark room and produced a fairly convincing photo of me, about 2 inches tall, sitting on a beer can. If the photo was sent to a commercial developer, that usually date stamped their prints, it might have more credence.

Guy, that article is wrong - and perhaps the wrong information was given out deliberately. There was no glass in the window. NO reflection.