Ufology Handbook 080713/The quest for proof

Throughout its existence, the UFO study movement has been engaged in an earnest quest for incontrovertible evidence of UFO reality. Unfortunately, the UFOs transient nature excludes them from detailed analysis under laboratory conditions. Therefore, ufologists are mainly restricted to less direct forms of physical evidence; photographic images and RADAR detections of "UFOs".

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.

Early Photographs of Aerial Anomalies:

Purported photographic images exist of all the notable pre-UFO era aerial anomalies. An alleged picture of the American "mystery airship", taken at Chicago on the 10th April 1897 was later admitted to be a hoax (involving a wire-suspended model), shortly after it was publicized by the news media of the day. There are several alleged photographs of Foo Fighters on record, unfortunately none of which have been authenticated. The only known photograph of a supposed "ghost rocket" was taken in Sweden at about mid-afternoon on the 9th July, 1946. However, this incident (which was observed over a considerable area of that country), was probably instigated by a bright bolide meteor.

One of the first photographs of the modern "flying saucer" era was reportedly taken at Phoenix, Arizona USA at around 4.00pm on the 7th July 1947. The circumstances surrounding this image of a heel-shaped "UFO" (similar in form to that observed by Kenneth Arnold) are somewhat vague; the picture being neither validated nor explained as a result.

Classic UFO Photographic Cases:

At McMinnville, Oregon, USA at around 7.45pm on the 11th May, 1950 a farmer and his wife claimed to have observed a silent, slow-moving shiny disc, with what resembled an off centre "pole" protruding from its top. Two pictures of this "UFO" were allegedly taken during the course of this sighting. The "UFO" shown in these photographs is similar to another "UFO" depicted in a picture taken at Rouen, France in March 1954. The McMinnville pictures were evaluated as authentic by Ground Saucer Watch during the 1970's. Their findings suggest that the UFO was around 20-30 metres in size and about a kilometre (or more) from the witnesses. Sceptics have questioned this conclusion, pointing out possible inconstancies in ambient shadow-features, suggesting the pictures were taken in the morning (rather than in the evening, as claimed by the witnesses). They feel the "UFO" is actually a small model suspended from a wire, whose diameter falls just below the resolution of the computer enhancement methods used to assess the photographs.

At about 12.15pm, on the 16th January, 1958 a Saturn-shaped UFO moving at high speed was reportedly observed - and photographed - from the deck of theAlmirante Saldanha, a Brazilian Navy ship located in the South Atlantic Ocean, just off the coast of Trindade Island. The four photographs showing the "passage" of this "UFO" still remain unresolved (and highly controversial) to this day. These pictures were also deemed authentic by Ground Saucer Watch, but other commentators are highly sceptical of their validity. The cameraman is known to have - quite openly - previously faked pictures for an article debunking some "UFO" photographs taken at Barra de Tijuca, Brazil in May 1952. This suggests that he was sufficiently skilled to have fabricated the Trindade island photographs via superimposition techniques. Furthermore, it is unclear whether this object was as widely observed by the Almirante Sladanha's crew as some reports infer. In recent years relatives of the photographer and individuals also on the ship that day have provided further evidence suggesting the images were darkroom fabrications.

Classic Cinematic UFO Incidents:

In regards to cine films of "UFOs", two originating from the early 1950's and one taken in 1978 still remain noteworthy to this day.

On either the 5th or 15th August, 1950 at Great Falls, Montana, USA at around 11.25am a motion-camera film was taken of two silvery reflective oval objects moving swiftly in a South Westerly direction. It is known that, at around the time of this incident, two aircraft were airborne on the 15th August in the sighting's vicinity. It has therefore been suggested that the film shows these aircraft, their appearance distorted by reflected sunlight. Although the main witness was uncertain of the precise date of this incident, he did claim to have seen aircraft in conjunction with the "UFOs". The situation is made more complex as it is known that no aircraft were airborne near that area on the 5th August (which subsequent research favours as the actual date of this event!). Despite this confusion, three separate examinations of the Great Falls movie all suggested it was authentic, that the objects were some distance from the observers and that their circular shape was actual, not the result of solar reflection effects.

The second classic "UFO-movie" was taken near Tremonton, Utah, USA, at approximately 11.10am on the 2nd July, 1952. It depicts around 10-12 white ovoids of fluctuating brightness "milling around" against a featureless sky (reportedly) over the eastern horizon. These "UFOs" (widely spaced apart in fairly close "groups "of two) were eventually lost to sight as they moved to the west. It is quite possible these "UFOs" were actually gulls reflecting sunlight, although (questionable) estimations of their speed range from 760 to 12,167 kph, depending on their assumed distance from the observers.

At Wellington, New Zealand, on the 30th December, 1978, a Australian journalist and his film-team joined the crew of an Argosy cargo 'plane, to make a short documentary on a "UFO" event experienced by those aboard it some nine days previously. Just after midnight on the 31st December 1978, whilst the aircraft was bound for Christchurch, strange, intermittently visible lights were initially spotted (and filmed), and continued to be seen for a further 50 minutes thereafter. The presences of seemingly unknown objects in the aircrafts’ vicinity were also tracked on RADAR at the same time. Following a refuelling stop in Christchurch, the aircraft took off again, bound for Blenheim. Several minutes into this flight (at around 2.15am) further unusual lights were again observed from the aircraft. At about 2.24am, a large luminous object described as resembling a "flying saucer" was sighted (and spasmodically filmed) for around eight minutes. Other unusual lights were seen almost until the aircraft touched down at Blenhelm at about 3.10am. Again, various RADAR systems (located on the ground and in the aircraft) had seemingly detected the presence of numerous unknown airborne "targets" throughout this "leg" of the flight.

The images taken that night by the film crew were subject to an extensive examination by (among other technical experts) atmospheric physicist Bruce Macacabee, who came out strongly in favour of them being inexplicable aerial phenomena. From the time it was first revealed, various theories have been proposed to account for the New Zealand film. It is variously proposed that the "UFOs" were mundane terrestrial light sources, squidboats, the planet Venus or mirages (either of astronomical objects or ground features). The RADAR images are explained as spuriously returns induced by atmospheric refraction effects, or returns from the ground mistakenly perceived as airborne sources during the excitement of the diverse "UFO" observations. None of these "solutions" have yet to be conclusively proven, but all still remain potentially viable.

IFF's : Infamous Flying Fakes:

Not surprisingly, Ufological history is littered with examples of probable or suspected hoaxed photographs. What follows is a brief worldwide run-down of the more notorious faked UFO pictures.

The image of a domed saucer-shaped "UFO" appearing in five daylight photographs taken at Barra de Tijuca, Brazil on the May 7th, 1952 are strongly suspected to have been fabricated via superimposition. Six photographs taken in New Jersey, USA on the 29th July 1952 are thought to show a hat tossed into the air. Deliberate superimposition techniques were probably also responsible for a "UFO" picture from Taormina, Sicilly (taken in the summer of 1954), that purports to show several people "watching" two inverted aerial domed-discs.

Many of the 1950's "contactees" used photographic "evidence" to substantiate their entity encounter claims. These range from (often unimpressive-looking) images of flying saucers to equally unimpressive images - such as that taken by Howard Menger in 1953 - of a shadowy figure standing before a supposed "spacecraft". The most prominent of the contactee photographs were those taken by the first of their ilk, George Adamski. Some of them are claimed to predate his alleged 1952 encounter with an entity from Venus. This includes a photograph of a dark cigar-shaped "mother-ship" surrounded by several luminous blobs. But his most renowned pictures were a series of close-up shots purporting to show a "Venusian scout-ship", taken just after his 1952 "contact". This image of a bell-shaped "UFO" with an under section comprising of three small inverted "domes" located around a larger central "bulge" has since become famous throughout the world. Whatever the truth behind Adamski's numerous (and highly dubious) claims, UFOs closely resembling his "scout ship" have been allegedly observed (and photographed) by other independent, non-contactee witnesses.

Four photographs of a hat-shaped "UFO" taken at Santa Anna, California, USA on the 3rd August 1965 were once highly regarded within ufology.

However, investigators from the University of Colorado UFO Project were able to duplicate them fairly closely, using a small model hung from a wire. About 10 years later these pictures also failed a computer enhancement test conducted by Ground Saucer Watch. On the 9th January 1966, at Lake St. Clare, Michigan, USA two teenage boys claimed to have photographed a dark lenticular "UFO" with an antenna protruding from its rear. Again, they were widely believed to be authentic. In the 1970's the "witnesses" later confessed to fabricating them, using a model hung from a thread. Much less convincing were three photographs depicting a hat-shaped UFO taken by an Ohio barber on the 13th November, 1966. Almost from the onset, UFO investigators noted major inconsistencies in the pictures frame-numbers (when compared with the order they were reportedly taken), and shadow-features which were inconsistent with the incident's claimed time of occurrence. Several pictures of a white tub-shaped object taken on the June 1st 1967 at San Jose de Valderas, Spain were, some years later, proved to be a model suspended from a wire (via the use of computer enhancement technology).

In comparison with hoaxed pictures, fewer IFO-based photographs have assumed the status of "classics" (mainly due to their less impressive appearance). The "Fortune Photograph", taken on October 16th 1957 near Alamogordo, New Mexico, is now commonly accepted to show a lenticular cloud. A picture of a group of four luminous ovals taken at Salem, Massachusetts on the 16th July 1952 are probably ceiling lights reflected onto a window pane.

The Uncertain & Unconfirmed....

There are also many UFO photographs that remain unresolved to this day, due to the various uncertainties which surround them. A luminated form photographed by a 14 year-old boy at Tulsa, USA (but reportedly witnessed by others) on the 2nd August, 1965 look interesting, but show a somewhat indistinct image against a featureless sky. Another (taken around 1954 near Edwards Airforce Base, USA) of a small disc located behind the tailfin of a B-57 bomber is more clearly defined, but the circumstances surrounding its taking (and the identities of those who photographed it) remain unknown to this day.

Sometimes, confusion can result from inconsistent photographic testing results. On the 3rd July, 1967 at Calgary, Alberta two pictures were taken of a disc reportedly observed by several witnesses. Monochrome prints of these photographs passed a Ground Saucer Watch examination conducted in 1976. In 1977 GSW discovered that the Centre Of UFO Studies possessed colour versions of the Calgary pictures, and (as a result) that organization sent GSW copies of them for computer analysis. The colour print of the first picture passed their scrutiny, but GSW described the second as being "the crudest attempt at a hoax" they had ever seen. Later, these conflicting findings were explained as resulting from the print of the second picture being accidentally blurred during copying (and also to them being separated and assessed at two different locations). This example shows that, for all its advantages, computer enhancement techniques are not absolutely foolproof.

A photograph taken near St. George, Minnesota USA of a UFO (said to have been witnessed by five people) at around 6.10pm on the 21st October 1965, is one example of how several elements of uncertainty can work to the detriment of a UFO picture. Although this image of a fuzzy luminous disc looks quite convincing, again it is taken against a (near) featureless skyscape. Furthermore, the photographers' statement regarding the UFO (which describes a physical, metallic object) appears inconsistent with what is actually depicted in the photograph. Controversy also still rages whether two luminous blobs located just below the "object" are stars, satellites or just incidental marks on the film.

UFO Photographic Cases in the British Isles:

There are a substantial number of alleged British UFO photographs, but few have gained the status of "classics" (due predominantly to most UFO books being written from an American perspective). The vast majority of these, sadly, are proven or suspected hoaxes.

One of the earliest English UFO photographs was reportedly taken by a 13-year old boy at Coniston, Cumbria on the 15th February, 1953. It shows a blurry image bearing a very close resemblance to George Adamski's "Venusian scout ship". As a result, most Ufologists dismiss the photograph as a hoax, but the witness (when questioned in 1995) still maintained it was genuine. The book "Flying Saucers from Mars" (detailing a supposed February 1954 encounter between a Mr. Cedric Allingham and a "Martian" in the Scottish highlands) features several (very unconvincing) pictures of the entities' domed-saucer shaped "spacecraft". These images are, in all probability, extreme close up shots of a small model.

In February 1962 a 14 year-old boy claimed to have photographed a hovering formation of five domed discs at Mosborough, Yorkshire. A decade later the "witness" admitted to hoaxing this picture by photographing an outdoor scene through a glass plate, upon which the group of "UFOs" had been painted. In the evening of the 29th August 1965, at Warminster, Wiltshire (during a "wave" of UFO reports focused around that town) a 19-year old male reportedly photographed a fast-moving domed disc against a featureless sky. The authenticity of this picture remains a matter of notable controversy, although the photographer still claims it to be authentic. Two women at Cappoquin, Eire, claimed to observe a glowing elliptical "UFO" at about 3.15-3.30pm on the 26th December, 1965. One of the witnesses managed to take a photograph of the phenomenon just before it was lost to sight. Its veracity remains undetermined to this day. At Conisborough, Yorkshire, around 8.30pm on the 28th March 1966, a young boy (with four other members of his family) reputedly photographed a "throbbing" hovering orange light. When developed, the resulting picture did not show a luminous body, but a formation of 3 dark domed discs. Today, most British Ufologists agree it is a fake, involving "cut-out" UFO's stuck onto a transparent surface and then photographed.

Approximately 12.00pm on the 26th October 1971 at Enstone, Banbury Oxfordshire, an Anglia Television camera crew (in the course of shooting a countryside documentary) observed a stationary round silvery object, which suddenly ejected a "contrail" as it moved away towards the East. It was later discovered the "UFO" had been observed over a considerable area by other independent witnesses. This event is now believed to been instigated by a high-altitude aircraft illegally dumping aviation fuel. The static phase is attributable to the 'plane coincidentally traversing along the witnesses' line of sight.

On the 11th January 1973 a luminous orange sphere was filmed 6.5 kms S.W of Thame, Oxfordshire at around 9.05am. The same "object" was also seen by some primary school children and a teacher located several kilometres away at the villages of Chilton and Shabbington. Near the time and location of these sightings it is known that a malfunctioning F-111 aircraft had been incinerating "dumped" fuel with its afterburners, prior to a planned (but later aborted) emergency landing. The UFO incidents are therefore attributable to the ignited plume of aviation gas then being emitted by this aircraft (which eventually crashed at 9.46am, some 30km away, near what is now Milton Keynes). Another film, taken in October 1977 close to the Stonehenge Neolithic monument probably shows flares (the region around this ancient site being heavily used for military exercises). However the witnesses have disputed this explanation, alleging the lights caused severe effects on themselves and upon various electronic and mechanical devices.

On the morning of March 16th 1981, at the village of Cracoe, North Yorkshire, several individuals (including two police officers) witnessed a static grouping of three intense white lights, situated by the side of a distant, craggy fell. Six photographs of the phenomenon were taken during the course of this almost 1 hour-long incident. Several years later these "lights" were found to have resulted from solar lumination reflecting off exposed damp quartz-bearing rocks. More recently, on the 5th August 1987 at around 5.00am, a slow-moving dark domed-disc UFO was reputedly photographed in Barnsley, Yorkshire. Photographic analysis from several individuals and organizations (including Ground Saucer Watch) indicates this picture probably shows a cut-out image stuck onto a window. However, this evaluation is disputed by the photographer.

In March 4th 1989 (due to a wave of "UFO" sightings in NW London and SW Hertfordshire mainly instigated by the Virgin Airship) Hertfordshire police redirected a traffic monitoring video camera situated near Junction 6 of the M-1 motorway. On four separate occasions during this period the camera recorded images of unusual moving lights, and also two static aerial light-sources that were continuously visible in the distance. The stationary lights were subsequently identified as Mars & Venus. The moving lights are thought to be aircraft, shuttling to and from Heathrow aerodrome. Around 7.44pm at Corby, Northamptonshire, on the 7th May 1994, a family observed (and filmed with their camcorder for almost five minutes) a hazy, slow-moving silver & black coloured elliptical object with "round bubbles" located around its outer rim. A subsequent investigation discovered the "UFO" was probably a cluster of birthday-party balloons.

"UFO Entity" Photographs Worldwide:

A genuine "UFO entity" photograph would be a major step in proving the physical reality of such beings. Surprisingly, quite a substantial number of supposed UFO entity photographs do exist; unfortunately most (if not all) are probable hoaxes.

The first "UFO entity" photographs originate from the early 1950's, allegedly showing dead (or captured) "aliens" in the presence of one or more humans. One (which first appeared in a April 1st, 1950 edition of a German newspaper) depicts a single-legged "alien" with a bulbous cranium being "escorted" by two American soldiers. This photograph is a proven hoax, involving (somewhat crude) airbrush doctoring of a pre-posed image. The other (said to originate from an early 1950's UFO crash occurring near Mexico City) shows a tiny humanoid being held by two trench-coated men, with two women standing behind them. It is almost certainly a hoax (again perpetuated by a German newspaper), the "alien" probably a image superimposed onto some people grouped around a pram.

At around 9.30am in 31st July 1952, eight photographs were reportedly taken in the Bernina Mountains, Italy of a landed domed-disc shaped "UFO" and an adjacent space-suited "entity". These pictures are generally accepted to be a hoax, involving a scale model backdrop, "UFO" and "Alien". A white-suited figure (not seen by anyone present at the time) appeared in a photograph of a young girl taken in Cumbria, England on the 23rd May 1964. A recent examination of this picture has found indications of the unseen figure having been deliberately placed within it by superimposition techniques. However, the photographer strongly denied.

In October 17th 1973 (following an alleged landing of a UFO just outside Falkville, Alabama USA), a police chief took four pictures of a silver-suited figure, which then reportedly ran away at incredible speed. These images have never been conclusively explained, but could depict an individual attired in a protective fire-proof outfit. Another picture (first surfacing in the 1970's) is said to show a dead entity inside a downed "UFO". In reality it probably depicts a badly-burned human air crash victim; a quite terrestrial-looking pair of spectacles being visible to the left of the body.

At around 7.45am on the 1st December, 1987, a male walking on Ikley Moor, West Yorkshire, England reportedly photographed a green-coloured "entity" scrambling up a hill, to a "UFO" reportedly just hidden behind an adjacent knoll. The resulting image is intriguing, but is notably underexposed. Following this observation, the witness claimed to experience a period of "missing time" of just under 2 hours. Additionally, a magnetic compass reputedly on his person at the time was later discovered to have permanently reversed its polarity. In the course of a later hypnotic regression, the witness recounted an UFO entity contact experience, occurring during the interval of "missing time". Some researchers suggest the picture shows an insurance salesman known to have regularly walked the moor on visits to local clients. The case's main investigators reject this explanation, on the grounds that the salesman was not present at the sighting location during the time and date of the incident.

Since the 1990's several photographs of "dead aliens" have surfaced, most notably in Russia and Japan. All these images (to date) are known to show human-sized manikins, speculative reconstructions of deceased extraterrestrial beings supposedly retrieved from UFO crashes. One supposed UFO entity film - the so-called Santilli Movie - caused a minor media sensation on its first public showing in May 1995. Raymond Santilli, (then managing director of the Merlin Group, a producer of videos, music tapes and books) claims to have accidentally discovered it in 1993, while in America seeking early footage of rock and roll giant Elvis Presley. What is commonly termed the "Santilli movie" is, in actuality, said to comprise of around 20 silent black and white motion film-reels. They were purported taken by an ex-military photographer, who somehow managed to keep the original (undeveloped) film-canisters in his possession for 46 years. They are reputed to show the examination of alien bodies and artefacts recovered from a UFO crash occurring near Roswell, New Mexico, USA in July 1947.

One alleged section of this footage, the first seen by independent Ufologists, show two men in white coats (with one person in the background) inside a poorly lit tent or cabin. They appear to be taking tissue samples from a partially-sheeted body lying on a table. Two other sets of footage seemingly depict the autopsy of a large-headed humanoid entity with six fingered hands, conducted by 2 men dressed in biological/radiation protection suits. During the course of the "dissection", black "membranes" are removed from the entities' eyes, its torso, abdomen and skull are opened up and various (unrecognizable) organs removed. A further section of footage allegedly shows wreckage taken from the entities crashed UFO. This comprises of irregular slabs of metal indented with several life-size impressions of a six-figured hand and "I-beam" like fragments adorned with hieroglyphics.

This footage is generally suspected as being a recent fabrication by many UFO researchers. A number of studies have concluded the "alien" bodies are likely to be custom-made latex manikins derived from a body-cast, with hollow internal sections filled with organic-looking matter to render a convincing "autopsy" effect. The "UFO" fragments are deemed equally questionable; the displayed wreckage being totally unlike that described by the witnesses of the "actual" Roswell debris. Suspicion is further aroused by a shot of an "I-beam" section, upon which are depicted "hieroglyphics" closely resembling the English words "Video TV".

In 2006 a comedy movie called "Alien Autopsy" (sanctioned by Ray Santilli) reputedly told the true story of this footage. This film (and subsequent interviews) claims Santilli did indeed discover a movie depicting the recovery and examination of "alien bodies" from Roswell; footage which deteriorated rapidly soon after he had acquired it. This reportedly inspired him to fake sections of footage in his London flat, to replace the damaged sections, by using many of the methods previously cited by critical commentators - namely a special effects dummy filled with offal acquired from Smithfield Meat Market! Nonetheless, Santilli claims the film presented to the general public in 1995 contains some surviving sections taken at Roswell in 1947 - although he can no longer recall which portions are the authentic ones. While this facile explanation satisfies some, many others remain unconvinced, being more willing than ever to totally dismiss the "alien autopsy" movie as a complete fabrication.