Editing Ufology Handbook 080713/The quest for proof (section)

==UFO Photographs and Films:==

Photographic images of "UFOs" are a valuable form of evidence; even through (in isolation) they cannot conclusively "prove" their reality. In cases where photographic evidence exists, researchers are freed from a total reliance on eyewitness testimony. Providing the UFO-image is not taken against a featureless sky-scape, a picture can aid the reasoned assessment of a sighting in a variety of ways. For example, the alleged time of a sighting can be verified (or refuted) through objective analysis, by examining the shadows and lighting present within a photograph. In the case of a series of pictures, prevalent lighting can also be used to determine how far apart in time they were actually taken. At the very least - once photographic defects and hoaxes are eliminated - a UFO picture indicates that something was physically present during a particular incident.

In regards to evidential value, a proven sequential series of still photographs are more useful to UFO research than a single image, with changes in a "UFOs" motion and viewing angle being apparent. Motion-picture evidence is even more cherished, with its ability to permanently and objectively represent a phenomenon's trajectory; potentially the most anomalous aspect of reported UFO behaviour.  The introduction of camcorders and similar image capture devices from the mid-1980 onwards resulted in many motion images of supposed "UFOs" being submitted to investigators. They often, however, lack the fine resolution of even average-quality still cameras. This is further compounded by the fact that most are not designed to record images of distant light-sources at night, as is often the case with UFO incidents. Other drawbacks are less obvious. For example, "auto-focus" settings often have difficulty in precisely resolving distant points of light; the image (as a result of incidental defocusing) assuming a spurious diffused circular or diamond shape.

The circumstances underlying many photographic incidents often conspire to markedly reduce their evidential value. Often, the "UFO" appears as a mere dot of light against a featureless sky. The virtual lack of spatial references in such a picture makes reasoned assessment of it almost impossible. Furthermore, many nocturnal UFO photographs are often severely distorted by camera shake (involuntary hand tremor), causing the "UFO's" image to resemble an erratic, convoluted luminous swirl. Finally, it is commonplace for UFO pictures to be poor in photographic quality, the features within a picture being indistinctly defined. However, this is not automatically a point against its authenticity. It should be remembered that the majority of UFO pictures are taken by non-professional photographers at night, using basic equipment under stressful circumstances.

Contrary to popular opinion, most claimed UFO photographs are not hoaxes, but actuality depict IFO phenomena such as birds, meteors, missile tests, vapour-trails or weather balloons. Additionally, a host of equipment defects and effects can generate spurious UFO-like images. For example, an irregular white or dark "blob" may appear on a print during its development (either the result of minor chemical staining or dust contamination).

Reflections of a bright light-source (i.e. a lamp or the camera's own flashlight) onto a window and lens flare (an off-angle reflection of the sun upon a camera lens) have both instigated a considerable number of spurious "UFO" photographic cases. This is also the case with accidental double exposure with film format cameras, where images from two different "shots" are superimposed onto one negative. This results from a photographer (or camera) not winding on the film after taking a picture. A good indicator that a photographic defect is potentially responsible is that nothing untoward was observed when the picture was taken (the anomalous image only discovered on the film being developed).

Hoaxing is also a notable source of false "UFO" photographs. Although less numerous than images of IFOs or photographic defects, they are featured more often within the UFO literature due to their more sensational appearance. Hoaxes may be perpetuated for financial reasons, but are more often simply attempts to "fool the experts" or gain publicity. It is relevant to note that many UFO photographic hoaxes have been perpetuated by children. A diversity of fabrication techniques are available to the would-be UFO faker. A crude - but often surprisingly effective - method involves photographing a background scene through a window (or other transparent medium), upon which a cut-out paper (or painted-on) "UFO" is placed. This produces a fairly convincing (if somewhat dark) UFO-like image. Small model UFOs are also employed in pictorial hoaxing attempts. A frisbee, hat or hubcap thrown into the air, or attached to a (out-of-picture) support by thin wire can both produce fairly convincing still photographic images. These effects look convincing because a small model placed close to a camera has the same apparent angular size as that of a much larger (and more distant) object.

In regard to film format cameras, the photographic darkroom also provides hoaxes with additional methods of fabricating "UFO" pictures. Deliberate double exposures (superimposing the image of one film negative onto another) produce realistic-looking fake UFO images. Digital format images are even easier to manipulate in this manner, especially with the introduction of powerful, inexpensive personal computers combined with image processing software. It is relatively easy (especially if the fabricator possesses good computer skills) to create a realistic digitally-generated "UFO” and to superimpose it onto an actual "background" image; or place such an image within a totally synthetic picture with convincing landscape and lighting details.

Fortunately, there are many ways of detecting most hoaxing techniques, especially with film format cameras. A "close-up" model will appear to be quite sharply defined, but the background will be somewhat out of focus. An unnaturally dark image also indicates the same situation, as less light falls upon it in comparison with an object a greater distance away. A cut-out UFO stuck onto a glass plate is nearly always surrounded by a noticeable whitish "halo" running round its edge. In regards to a double exposure originated "UFO" image, its "contrast" nearly always markedly differs with that of other features on the photograph (the UFO and the backdrop being shot under different lighting conditions). A good way to check for all kinds of hoaxes (in particularly superimpositions) is to examine the negative, to determine whether it shows any sign of tampering. If possible, the whole reel of film that contains the "UFO" image(s) is examined, both to determine if they appear in the order claimed by the witnesses and for comparison with the other (non UFO-related) exposures.

Unfortunately, the sophistication of modern computer generated imagery is such that it is much harder to detect – and prove – hoaxing in relation to digital images. Nonetheless fabrication can be demonstrated through finding evidence of image alteration such as the use of cut and paste effects and/or digital “airbrushing”. Features within a “doctored” image may also exhibit inconsistencies in scale, composition and lighting; while an examination of the original picture file’s processing history can detect the use of image processing software.

The widening and growing sophistication of the Internet over the past 10 years has created a further medium for relatively cheap audio-visual expression. The appearance of so-called "social sites" such as  "Youtube" has resulted in the appearance of numerous short digital format movies - depicting everything from supposed aircraft gun-camera footage of a "flying triangle".  Another example features footage reportedly taken by lunar astronauts on board "Apollo 20”; an anomaly in itself given the moon landings terminated with Apollo 17! The general consensus is that such "evidence" is only proof of the considerable CGI skills of their makers; and that even more convincing hoaxes will appear in future as CGI techniques improve with time. In the internet age, as before, claimed UFO footage is only as good as its supporting witness testimony... 

Without doubt, computer imaging is the most powerful photographic analysis technique available to Ufologists. This technology, once very expensive and accessible to only a few, is now with the advent of powerful home computers becoming more widely available. A scanned or digital image can be enlarged, ambient contrast altered or specific picture elements colour-coded in order to better define features such as shading. An images’ edge profile can be enhanced, useful in detecting the presence of wires (or attempts to hide them in regard to a digital image). Furthermore, precise scalar and other measurements of features within a photograph are possible; potentially able to determine whether a “UFO” has been "dulled" by atmospheric haze, suggesting it may represent a substantial and fairly distant object.

In the late 1970's Ground Saucer Watch (GSW), an American UFO study group who pioneered the computer analysis of UFO photographs, examined 1100 alleged "UFO" pictures with these techniques over a period of six years. On the conclusion of this survey only 45 pictures from that sample were deemed to be authentic.