UFO photo collection

S

ScRaMbLe

Chaos Inc.
Registered Senior Member
Here's a gallery of UFO photos that I found. Some of them are obvious fakes, but it makes for interesting viewing anywayz. One thing that strikes me as interesting is the identical shape and design of many of them, even though they are photographed at different time periods. How could they all be fakes unless all the "fakers" had access to the same model?

http://www.iwasabducted.com/ufogallery/
 
<i>Some of them are obvious fakes...</i>

Why mix up obvious fakes with real photos?

The most logical conclusion would seem to me to be that they are all fakes.
 
I say "obvious" only because it seems like some of them are too good a photo to not have recieved more attention, so I logically assume someone of higher expertise than myself has previously discredited them. I'm in no real position to judge whether any of them are real or fake, my point is that several of the photos, taken at different times and places, appear to be of the same craft, or at least of the same design. One shouldn't automatically assume everything found on the net MUST be fake. As the saying goes, it only takes one white crow to prove that not all crows are black. James R - have you looked at all the photos? or did you just look at the first couple and assume you knew what the rest would be? If you look at ALL the photos you will see some striking similarities between various crafts. Or you could just rubber stamp them as one and look the other way...
 
Last edited:
I looked at two:
http://www.iwasabducted.com/ufogallery/baghdad.htm
and
http://www.iwasabducted.com/ufogallery/ufo107.jpg

It seemed fairly obvious and most probable that the former was a piece of debris from the statue falling and the latter was a reflection of the streetlight in the glass of an automobile.

Both of those explanations stood out to me as obvious first choices, though there are other explanations, including (albeit highly improbable) alien craft.

I have to agree with JamesR, why mix spurious photographs with real ones. The obvious answer is: there are no real ones, therefore why bother with the rest of the site?

And so-called ufologists wonder why the "can't get no respect!"
 
Ok, I agree with both of your logic, but this poses the question, what if someone actually did take a genuine photo of a UFO which was of good enough quality to see that it definately was a craft of some kind... How could they possibly go about proving it was genuine? Any photo would be automatically assumed to be fake, just as you two have done. Calm down tho, I dont have any such photos, just a hypothetical question. But seriously, a UFO could land on the front lawn of the white house, little grey men could climb out and crank up a BBQ and people would still say "smoke, mirrors and a weather balloon"... We just won't believe it coz we've cried wolf so many times...
 
Firstly, one picture won't prove much. Fakers put a lot of effort into making a single picture, but their descriptions of the craft often entail it performing some fairly complex manouvers over a period of some time. The photgraphic record is never consistent with the reported activity.

So, in your hypothetical scenario, I'd expect photographs of the craft flying, landing, aliens disembarking, and setting up that bbq. All from consistent viewpoints, with the White House, or other landmark clearly visible in the background. Another witness caught in some of the photographs, who can be contacted, recognised, and who also has pictures with the viewpoint, with a corroberating story, would be nice.

But this is not what we get. We get single, blurry images, in tight zoom, without any points of reference, for scale, or location.

btw Skinwalker;

http://www.iwasabducted.com/ufogallery/ufo107.jpg

my friend's mum had that lampshade, so I think it's a reflection in a house window, looking back into the room, ....!
 
I know some of the photos that are presented at the site. The photos of the Belgian UFO's are known to be real, and have appeared on "Unsolved Mysteries" in at least two broadcasts. They have been theroughly examined by the Belgian military and are considered authentic by Belgian authrorities.

To me, this website is the work of a believer who has accepted whatever photos they consider the most specacular or most impressive. Some are fakes but their faith blinds them to that. Some are real though.

The very name of the website: iwasabducted.com is probably the most glaring proof of this. The guy wants to believe, and isn't taking any care which photos are real or fake. He is so sure of what he believes he doesn't care for skepticism or inquiry. Does this mean he is a hoaxter? NO. It just means he isn't being careful.
 
To assume they are all fakes if some are fake is a question of the validity of the source, yes. However, is that an issue of overexcitement or deliberate deception? The former would be a sincere mistake. The latter is dishonesty.

It's up to you to decide.
 
Its a fake I made yesterday. The photo was taken looking out over my neighborhood and I pasted the UFO in. Shows how easy it is, only took me about 30min to make! The hardest part is blending the colours so it still looks real on close inspection, then blur them a bit so it doesn't look overly perfect :D
 
A photo like that would have been impossible to fake 50 years ago, but nowadays yeah... you can make a photo show anything you want with time and effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top