Yorkshire UFO Trio

[Loonboy]

Here's a classic UFO photograph taken on March 28th 1966 in Conisbrough, Yorkshire, England by a guy called Stephen Pratt on his way home from the fish and chip shop. He saw only on bright orange light, but when the film came out it showed three 'saucers' black against the sky.

[SpaceyKC]

            That must have been quite a shock!  Do you know why he was taking a photo of that particular place?  

       

[Loonboy]

[blue]

Sorry, I think I was unclear. The guy actually saw a Ufo in the sky but it was bright, luminous orange. When he took the photo, it came out as three dark objects, not the single bright one.

As far as I know he has never taken any other odd photos, and never really claimed any fame from this one. By all accounts he was just a boy on his way home from the chippy. lol.

Then again, they do look kinda too 'classic', but I don't know... they look cool.

[/blue] :sa

[Althalus]

2 things about this photo:

1.  The story that i have of this photo, is that Pratt was in his house at the time doing something (I don't know what), when he heard a noise coming from outside, so he looked out the window and saw the UFO's, he ran to get his camera and took the photo above.

2.  What really happened is this, he had just got a new camera and wanted to test it, but could not think of what to take a photo of, anyway what happened was, he was reading a book with an interview with Betty and Barney Rubble Hill in it, and he thought of a way to make his name known, he got some black paint and painted three saucer shaped craft on his window and then took the photo, that is why the photo is misty.  

He told this story recently, can't remember where it appeared tho.

[Guest]

there was and artical about this in a magazine were Pratt says about pianting the ufo on the widow. Not sure what the name of the mag was though illl look it out and post it on here.

[Loonboy]

[blue]

Gosh and golly. You can't trust anyone these days. :s9

[/blue]

[Guest Guest]

Wow, it sure kinda look real, but how can the UFOs be so near and big?

[Guest sorry for the english]

this photo is a little too fake, i do product photography for 5 years, and i can tell this photo is fake, first, the ufos are a little more blur than the scene, that's means the ufo is not far away, but very close objects(5-10cm) it ust some ufo shaped paper sticked on the window, and shot through it.

second, the ufo has less detail than the scene, that's means the ufo are not outside, but inside the room.

i have seen many of these kinds of photos, they are all fake.

[blessedme]

Right- these are not ufo- the boy was bored, he has a camera. He is in the house and suddenly saw something very interesting- and quite beautiful so he shot this picture- Alas the image was badly taken- the light out side the window is too bright- these three moths came out all black- the photo devlopers were the culprits yelling UFO once it was printed- so the little boy sits quietly with his new found fame.

Now he is quite innocent.

[T41PAN]

I too have read the report that the guy Pratt, actually confessed that he painted the 'ufo's' onto the window.

I think it was in some UFO sightings book - I'll check and let you know which one.

[blessedme]

what nobody likes a simple moth story???

[Saz]

            That must have been quite a shock!  Do you know why he was taking a photo of that particular place?  

       

Saz,

He was on his way home from the chippy with his mum, his mum saw the objec and pointed it out to stephen, it was stephens dad whom told him to take the photograph with his brother Malcolms camera, the rest is history, This has never peen proven as a hoax or admitted as a hoax,n after extensive examination of the negative and camera Kodak could not fault it and it was recorded as a Genuine sighting....Fact

[Saz]

2 things about this photo:

1.  The story that i have of this photo, is that Pratt was in his house at the time doing something (I don't know what), when he heard a noise coming from outside, so he looked out the window and saw the UFO's, he ran to get his camera and took the photo above.

2.  What really happened is this, he had just got a new camera and wanted to test it, but could not think of what to take a photo of, anyway what happened was, he was reading a book with an interview with Betty and Barney Rubble Hill in it, and he thought of a way to make his name known, he got some black paint and painted three saucer shaped craft on his window and then took the photo, that is why the photo is misty.  

He told this story recently, can't remember where it appeared tho.

Saz

Your information is wrong in many ways, the Betty & Barny case was after The Pratt sighting and therefore couldnt have inspired Pratt, also you can read the true report of the facts in many places, however, the fact is this wasnt a new camera it was a kodak instematic camera, a cartridge loading film type, I would challenge anyone to make a fake ufo photo with that model, the paralax would make it nigh impossible and for a 15 year old to achieve it with one shot well I rest my case. You have to be aprox 6 feet away to get anything like the focus on the photograph if you get close enough to take a shot as you suggest you wouldnt see the objects in the viewfinder as it is about an inch from the lens, if you took the shot you would miss the objects, unlike The case of Alex Birch which is anoyingly often mixed up with the Pratt sighting, it was Alex Birch whom admitted painting silhoettes on glass, he used a box browny type camera, this type of camera has no paralax resrictions like the Kodak instematic 50 ( what you see is what you get) and even double expsure is possible on the box camera, Please people collect the facts! dont talk rubbish! Research. The best article to read is from Alien Encounters Magazine, headed "The Proof Is Out There"

[Saz]

Here's a classic UFO photograph taken on March 28th 1966 in Conisbrough, Yorkshire, England by a guy called Stephen Pratt on his way home from the fish and chip shop. He saw only on bright orange light, but when the film came out it showed three 'saucers' black against the sky.

<img src='http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/photographs/UFOs/yorks_ufo.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>

Saz

At last someone with the correct account with the exception that it was Stephens mother whom saw the ufo first Stephens dad told him to get his brothers camera to take the one off shot, only one object was visible three turned out on the negative, Stephens brother Kevin saw the UFO shoot off, Stephen missed the departure due to trying to find another position to take another shot. See Akien Encounters Magazine article "The Proof Is Out There" for the full account ..... Available in PDF format from ... Saz

[Saz]

[blue]

Sorry, I think I was unclear. The guy actually saw a Ufo in the sky but it was bright, luminous orange. When he took the photo, it came out as three <b>dark</b> objects, not the single bright one.

As far as I know he has never taken any other odd photos, and never really claimed any fame from this one. By all accounts he was just a boy on his way home from the chippy. lol.

Then again, they do look kinda too 'classic', but I don't know... they look cool.

[/blue] :sa

Saz

The reason the objects look classic is because this format was observed before B Movie representation, it is the most comon version, most people think the shape came from the B Movies representation of UFOs its the other way arround......Saz

[Saz]

there was and artical about this in a magazine were Pratt says about pianting the ufo on the widow. Not sure what the name of the mag was though illl look it out and post it on here.

Saz

Wrong Again!

UFO Magazine published an article in its aniversary edition using the Pratt photograph and name With the Alex Birch hoaxed photo where Alex Birch admitted painting the objects on glass to achieve his hoax, A retraction was made by UFO Magazine in a following adition, however, irrisponcibly UFO Magazine diddnt provide equal space for its retraction and admitted their mix up in a small black boxout, which is why people still get the case totally wrong, suffice it to say I have never trusted UFO Magazine for factual reporting, a Yorkshire Based mag using an US source nfor a Yorkshire based sighting! Please research the facts if you are seriouse about the subject, incidently, Alex Birch later claimed that his sighting was genuine but the pressure was too much and he said it was a fake to get a quiet life, I cant pass judgment but he made it difficult for Stephen Pratt. Stephen Pratt has never said he hoaxed the photograph and nobody has as yet managed to duplicate the photograph using a Kodak instematic 50 camera which has two settings Clowdy & Sunny, let allone with a one off snapshot, remember no digital magic in the 1960s .... Saz

[Saz]

Saz

Wrong Again!

UFO Magazine published an article in its aniversary edition using the Pratt photograph and name With the Alex Birch hoaxed photo account where Alex Birch admitted painting the objects on glass to achieve his hoax, A retraction was made by UFO Magazine in a following adition, however, irrisponcibly UFO Magazine diddnt provide equal space for its retraction and admitted their mix up in a small black boxout, which is why people still get the case totally wrong, suffice it to say I have never trusted UFO Magazine for factual reporting, a Yorkshire Based mag using an US source nfor a Yorkshire based sighting! Please research the facts if you are seriouse about the subject, incidently, Alex Birch later claimed that his sighting was genuine but the pressure was too much and he said it was a fake to get a quiet life, I cant pass judgment but he made it difficult for Stephen Pratt. Stephen Pratt has never said he hoaxed the photograph and nobody has as yet managed to duplicate the photograph using a Kodak instematic 50 camera which has two settings Clowdy & Sunny, let allone with a one off snapshot, remember no digital magic in the 1960s .... Saz

[Saz]

Saz

Wrong Again!

UFO Magazine published an article in its aniversary edition using the Pratt photograph and name With the Alex Birch hoaxed photo account where Alex Birch admitted painting the objects on glass to achieve his hoax, A retraction was made by UFO Magazine in a following adition, however, irrisponcibly UFO Magazine diddnt provide equal space for its retraction and admitted their mix up in a small black boxout, which is why people still get the case totally wrong, suffice it to say I have never trusted UFO Magazine for factual reporting, a Yorkshire Based mag using an US source nfor a Yorkshire based sighting! Please research the facts if you are seriouse about the subject, incidently, Alex Birch later claimed that his sighting was genuine but the pressure was too much and he said it was a fake to get a quiet life, I cant pass judgment but he made it difficult for Stephen Pratt. Stephen Pratt has never said he hoaxed the photograph and nobody has as yet managed to duplicate the photograph using a Kodak instematic 50 camera which has two settings Clowdy & Sunny, let allone with a one off snapshot, remember no digital magic in the 1960s .... Saz

[Saz]

this photo is a little too fake, i do product photography for 5 years, and i can tell this photo is fake, first, the ufos are a little more blur than the scene, that's means the ufo is not far away, but very close objects(5-10cm) it ust some ufo shaped paper sticked on the window, and shot through it.

second, the ufo has less detail than the scene, that's means the ufo are not outside, but inside the room.

i have seen many of these kinds of photos, they are all fake.

Saz

Sorry but thats Rubbish!

Have you seen the origional negative or are you basing your photographic knowledge on a graphic? There was a penumbra test made on the negative for example the hazy outline on each object retracts by a factor of two, meaning there is distance between the objects, if the objects were faked as on glass then it could be argued that it was a focus anomoly, however the fuzzy outline would all be the same thickness. the objects are in the air and water vapor and or heat can cause the same penumbral effect, you say you know photography? then you should know that the distence between the fixed focus lens and eye piece on the instematic is about an inch, you try photographing objects on glass with such a camera at as you say 5-10cm and you wont see the objects at all. I have handled the origional Negative and the camera, I would like to challenge you to achieave the same results with a one off shot using the Kodak instematic 50 fixed focus not an SLR type or digital camera, remember Mr Pratt was 15 years old and not an expert photographer and are you saying Kodak are wrong?

[Saz]

[blue]

Gosh and golly. You can't trust anyone these days. :s9

[/blue]

Saz

Please read previouse comments, The Pratt photograph is genuine, the article reffered to was regarding the Alex Birch Hoax, the editor use Stephen Pratts photo and name but the story was the Alex Birch case. Kodak passed the photo as a genuine unexplained phenomenon, rhe camera in question is incapable of such trickery due to the paralax effect. You can rest assured not evryone is dishonnest .... Saz ... provide an email and I will send a PDF of the true account and hopefully there will be no more such nonsense...

[Saz]

Right- these are not ufo- the boy was bored, he has a camera. He is in the house and suddenly saw something very interesting- and quite beautiful so he shot this picture- Alas the image was badly taken- the light out side the window is too bright- these three moths came out all black- the photo devlopers were the culprits yelling UFO once it was printed- so the little boy sits quietly with his new found fame.

Now he is quite innocent.

Saz

People whom dont know what they are talking about shouldnt write slander, If you cant be sensible then keep it to yourself, this is a seriouse debate.....Saz

[Saz]

I too have read the report that the guy Pratt, actually confessed that he painted the 'ufo's' onto the window.

I think it was in some UFO sightings book - I'll check and let you know which one.

Saz

Read my previouse comments, UFO Magazin retracted the Article as it was mixed up with the Alex Birch Hoax, they Used Pratts name and Photograph, the retraction was made in a following article a small boxout in an obscure part of the magazine, If anyone was guilty of deception it was Graham Birdsall, UFO Magazines editor. That magazine in my opinion did more harm than good to the finding the truth about the UFO subject....... Saz

[Saz]

what nobody likes a simple moth story???

Saz

No!

[Saz]

I too have read the report that the guy Pratt, actually confessed that he painted the 'ufo's' onto the window.

I think it was in some UFO sightings book - I'll check and let you know which one.

Hi YUFOT

Stephen Pratt actually has never done anything of the sort, please get your facts right! it was a chap called Alex Birch you are refering to it was Alex Birch whom confessed to painting the objects on glass and taking the photo, Birdsalls UFO Magazines aniversary edition has a lot to answer for as the poor research methods of UFO Magazine resulted in the mix up, later UFO Magazine placed a tiny retraction in a later edition but not before mileading the public with the mix up, the best thing that could have happend to proper UFO research was the death of UFO Magazine, to add insult injury one of Graham Birdsalls family conections ripped Kevin Pratts UFODATA title from a booklet of eye witness reports and made it his own, starting up a magazine called UFODATA Magazine, it just goes to show how cheeky some people can be. Unfortunatly Kevin Pratt hasnt the finatial clout to take the matter through legal proceedings, meanwhile the unjust dirty tricks carry on from the same Leeds based press without concience, Its like commiting a muder blaming someone else for it then collectiong the reward. Shame on You!

I hope this clears up your mistaken info Trio........ Please excuse the spelling I think the content is more important...Saz