UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 16

Re: 1929 UFO Photo? - Stanford

From: Ray Stanford <dinotracker@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:45:02 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:51:13 -0500
Subject: Re: 1929 UFO Photo? - Stanford

>From: Larry Hatch <larryhatch@sysmatrix.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 00:24:53 -0800
>Subject: Re: 1929 UFO Photo?

>>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5@houston.rr.com>
>>To: UFO UpDates <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>>Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:59:24 -0600
>>Subject: 1929 UFO Photo?

>>I recently came across an interesting photograph of a UFO that
>>is said to have been taken in 1929. The photo is at this URL:


>>If genuine, it was taken 18 years before Arnold's sighting of
>>craft shaped like "pie plates" in 1947. The potential
>>significance of this is obvious.

>>Does anyone on the list know anything about this photograph or
>>has anyone physically examined it personally or interviewed its

>>It seems to me that it wouldn't be too hard to determine whether
>>or not the photograph is as old as it's supposed to be. If it's
>>74 years old, the passage of time should have had a noticeable
>>effect on the quality of the paper as well as the image, which
>>certainly looks as faded as would be expected in the digital
>>version. And if the photo is really that old, it would probably
>>be very difficult for a contemporary hoaxer to add the object to
>>it without leaving some noticeable traces of tampering.

>Oooh! That's a goodie (presuming its genuine).

>I had no record of it, never heard of it. Maybe it never got
>into the literature aside from the web page.

>There are lots of features called Ward in Colorado,
>(dams, mines ..) but only one town, in Boulder
>County: populated place
>Elevation (feet):  9160
>Estimated Population (2000): 169
>State:    Colorado
>County:    Boulder
>40:04:20N x 105:30:28W

>Boulder county is North of Denver, not too far East of the
>continental divide, mountain country.

>I wonder if the fellow who submitted the old photo can be

I recommend being very careful with this case. The alleged
descendent of the photographer claims his father declared that a
"terrible thunderous bellow" was heard by all those present. If
so, then why do the two or three men in the photo seem to be
looking elsewhere than to the sky, one of them evidently doing
something with lumber, or whatever, and seemingly not trying to
locate the source of the sound, which the reporter claims the
father said those present heard?

Also, one might wonder about all that light-colored stuff
reaching almost to the tree tops (it does not really look like
stacked lumber) in the middle of the photo and the less-well-
focused white image to the right. With so many problematic
images in a photo, can one take very seriously the fact that one
or more of the strange images has a superficial resemblance to a
modern day cartoonist's concept of a UFO?

Consider, also, that the ink writing on the photo seemingly
looks too pristine and rich blue to date from 1929 (if that's
what the claimant is alleging), in my opinion, and judging from
old photos on which my mother had written with blue ink.

Furthermore, did any of you notice what might be interpreted or
misinterpreted as a similar object (but more edge-on) to the
right and slightly lower in the photo plane, that also has some
bright points on or just beneath its seeming edge and has four
seemingly linear extensions down from that edge - the longest or
clearest two of them going down from the right side of the
anomalous image and seemingly in front of the pine tree top.

If anyone really thinks that second image might be a UFO, please
notice that there are similar images to the seeming downward
streaks from the 'second object' that are extending roughly 45
degrees to those of that 'second object', but that 'third
object' is 'in' or in front of the pine tree top to the right of
the pine tree top 'containing' the second 'UFO'.

In short, even in the absence of a negative to examine for
photographic content or for emulsion damage, I think it
realistic to feel that there is a lot of damage to the negative
from which this photo was made and/or to the surface of this
photo, itself. In absence of a negative and considering the
abundant probable 'noise' in this image, it is likely of no
scientific value in determining the presence of an anomalous
phenomenon or phenomena in the sky at the time the photo was
taken, and the actions of the persons shown in the photo seem to
contradict the alleged photographer's report.

I suspect we could be looking at damage to the photographic
emulsion or photo surface damage, or even, conceivably, damage
or debris on a window (of a vehicle?) through which the photo
might have been taken, with the story added after the fact. I
suppose the person who allegedly was about six years of age when
the photo was taken might just have misremembered something told
(perhaps in jest?) or imagined (as a young child) something of a
story to explain the photo's content. Whatever accounts for the
photo - UFO or photo fluke - I doubt this kind of 'trail-gone-
cold' case (especially in absence of a first-generation
photographic negative) will gain us any UFOlogical 'mileage' or
credibility with mainstream science, even if it is fun to
examine such things and imagine what might or might not be
recorded there.

Ray Stanford

"You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of
trifles." -- Sherlock Holmes in The Boscombe Valley Mystery