Where's that damn authentic UFO photo?
Everyone -- and I mean everyone -- wants a clear (distinct), preferably close-up of a seemingly authentic UFO, even Avi Loeb, that interesting scientific avatar.
But none has ever been taken, in all the years of the appearing phenomena when cameras were extant.
But let me note this:
George Adamski, for all his chicanery, provided, if they were real instead of concocted, the essential flying saucer photo that has become the archetypal design for every bogus UFO, photographed or described by UFO witnesses:
And his concocted "mother ship" photos ended up mimicking what some commercial airline pilots said they saw in the sky during routine flights [Chiles-Whitted 1948]:But what about this 1870 photo?:And the 1950 McMinnville/Trent photos, this one seemingly beyond the overhead wires that some said a model auto side-mirror being the flying saucer pictured:LIFE magazine did a story on the incident and the LIFE photo- grapher took photos of the flying disk photographer, Farmer Trent (standing by his truck with his camera and a damaged door from which the supposed mirror was dislodged?), and Trent's son, on a ladder, implying its use for hanging the mirror-disk from the overhead wires:(While I noted, years ago, the flying disk seemed off kilter, tilted, in its flight orientation, I feel the photo is authentic, and my pal Tony Bragalia intended to track down the son for his remembrance of the day. (Tony didn't locate him or got side-tracked.)Some visitors to this blog like the Heflin photo(s):
And while the UFO pictured is simple in design and taken via a Polaroid camera -- an instrument not readily manipulable for creating contrived photos -- there has been debunking material on the Heflin offering [Ann Druffel:https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.552.6587&rep=rep1&type=pdf
So, there are some interesting UFO photos, a few concocted, (almost) obviously, but intriguing in ways that current phone camera photos are not.
RR
