page

[This article appeared in the BUFORA Bulletin #14 - Oct/Nov 1999]

Of all manner of the wide range of 'anomalous phenomena', perhaps UFOs are one of the most fleeting and elusive? Certainly they are one of the hardest to capture on any visual medium (Well, for most of us anyway!) As Steve Gamble has emphasised at some of the BUFORA London lectures, and in some respects contrary to logic, UFO researchers don't investigate actual UFOs, but the reports of the UFOs that the witness perceives - which is a very important difference.

UFO reports rely on the perhaps flawed recollections of the witness, and certainly a recollection that might vary with the course of time. How much more credence could be given to a report backed up by 'visual evidence'? In the 'early' days of the 'flying saucer' era, we had many still photographic images presented as evidence to back up the eyewitness reports. Some of these photos looked dubious, such as the Adamski 'Scoutships', and similar types of objects photographed by other witness's - yet even some of these have been re-examined favourably by modern digital imaging techniques. Other photos, such as the McMinville photos, and perhaps the Trindade Island photos, still stood up to thorough examination to this day. However, after 50 years, despite all the analysis, have these images really proved the witness's case - not really. Recently, some researchers seek to put a new 'spin' on the interpretation of some of these photos, with experimental stealth-type aircraft are being mooted as explanations for even these 'classic' UFO photos.

Perhaps we might think that as cameras became better (Yet cheaper), and into greater use, that the evidence would be more reliable and conclusive? We only have to think of Eduard 'Billy' Meier and Ed Walters to think of two examples where sadly this is not the case! What about the ever increasing popularity of cine-film through into the 1960s? Again, sadly, some of the dubious-looking Adamski footage immediately springs to mind, although modern verification of original frames suggests that the 'cardboard cut-out looking' ships were indeed large and possibly solid objects some distance from the camera.

Perhaps the age of video provides us with the answers that we seek? We've all seen the commercially-produced videos of UFO footage from round the world, but are they really proving the case for real UFOs, never mind ET vehicles? I don't think that many of would dispute that much footage is of poor quality, and is often woefully out of focus, especially night-footage, when most home-quality camcorders haven't a clue what they are trying to focus on. I think that most of us with a camcorder could walk outside on any night and shoot footage of blurry flashing lights (Its very easy for me, as the main G1 flight corridor for Heathrow is over my village!) A good test of the camcorder's low-light capability is to point it at a bright star or planet, and go to maximum zoom (optical or digital). What does the CCD in the camera actually see? For various reasons, I have had the opportunity to use three different makes of 8mm camcorder, and four different models, but all have produced curious anomalous images that have nothing to do with the object that the camera was pointed at. The reproduced image (Fig. 1) here is a good example, taken with a Samsung 8mm camcorder that I had.

What exactly was I pointing the camera at? This sort of image has been seen many times in supposed footage of a UFO, and sometimes has an even more 'Batman-like' appearance. In this image, we see a distinct cut-out section in the upper half, and there is a clear trail going across to the right, suggestive of a propulsion system! In fact the camera was pointed at the planet Jupiter, and was at its maximum zoom of 30x, and with manual focus engaged. The notch in the top is a quirk of the shutter system on that camera, and the trail is a simple fault in the image processing system, when it sees a bright image against a dark background, and is caused by the scanning system as it scans left to right, the same as normal TV picture is built up (I would ask readers to remember this fact, we will return to it later on.)
We should be very critical when viewing video footage, even more than film footage or still photographs. Video cameras can give images that the can all too easily deceive the eye. I have lost count the number of times that I have heard people describe a 'propulsion trail' coming from poor quality footage of lights or dark objects, that are quite clearly nothing more than processing faults from the camcorder's CCD, as we have already seen in my own footage of a motionless planet - Jupiter.

Surely in daylight, camcorders can produce clear evidence? Well, think of how much daylight footage is still relatively poor in resolution, mainly caused by high magnification of the zoom being used. Take a look at another reproduced image (Fig.2), again taken by myself on an 8mm camera, shot on the first day I a new 8mm camcorder, and unfortunately reproduced many times afterwards.

This seems to show daytime footage of the well-known flying triangle, did I capture an FT on one of their flights across southern Britain? Again, I will remind you that this is a conventional object, so what is it? Does the blurred delta-like shape give any clue? In this case, it certainly does not. What the camera was actually being pointed at was a Boeing 737, flying out of Heathrow airport! Again the camera was on its maximum zoom of 30x, and was set with auto-focus, which was capturing the image very badly. This same triangle or delta shape was seen on countless occasions when I aimed that camera at conventional aircraft, including Boeing 747 'Jumbo-jets', as they passed almost overhead, while the camera was set to auto-focus. When I first saw this image through the camera's viewfinder I was very surprised. Surely an even out-of-focus conventional aircraft, with its fuselage, and broad centrally-placed wings, would look different to this, perhaps even a diamond-shape, but no. all were misinterpreted as a delta-shape. It is becoming clear that we need to look very closely at the witness report against the footage.

And what of 'enhanced' camcorder footage - the classic Mexico City 'hockey puck' type of object immediately comes to my mind. Now, I will stick my neck out here - I freely admit to not being an 'expert' in video imaging, and nor do I have extensive (And expensive) computer image processing facilities. However, looking at footage like that of the Mexico 'hockey pucks' why do I get a distinct unease at they way that they all appear to spin left to right? Remember I mentioned about the scanning lines moving left to right as a TV picture is built up? . I would be far happier if more video footage of rotating or spinning objects, actually showed a rotation going right to left, namely against the scanning motion of the camera's CCD. Are we deluding ourselves in the quest for evidence?

We are now definitely in the 'digital age' of photography, both as still images and video. This in itself brings yet more difficulties in establishing 'visual evidence'. With digital photography, the actual capturing of the image onto the storage medium is only a small part of the process. The very quality of the image is governed by the camera's available resolution, and at this stage is still inferior to an image taken on a photographic film. The camera user may be using 'economy' settings on the camera, so as to squeeze more images onto the storage medium. Unfortunately the resulting image can become very pixelated or 'blocky', so evaluation of any captured UFO can become nearly impossible. Perhaps the major part of digital imaging is in how the images can be processed on an average home computer. And by 'processed', I mean resized, cropped, masked and enhanced. This is to say nothing of the image having its colour, brightness, contrast and intensity adjusted. While this sort of image manipulation might be used by a researcher or analyst in evaluating an image, it is also true that we have the possible situation of images being merged in a way that would take many hours by optical photographic means. In short, the possibilities of changing the images, or outright 'hoaxing' of images are perhaps endless. Those of you who have seen the by now infamous Oliver's Castle crop circle/UFO video footage from 1996 will know just how elaborate video footage can be 'produced' just afew hours (I use the term 'produced' in the context of film-making) on a computer. Certainly digital imaging is a double-edged sword, it can be a research tool, but it can also be used by those who have other objectives.

After 50 years of UFO photographs and images, perhaps we have an interesting paradox. As we strive for that elusive one photo, or clip of footage, that actually proves beyond doubt that a UFO is from 'elsewhere', the methods at our disposal actually cast more and more doubt on what that image might show. The burden of proof becomes heavier as technology gets more complex, and we may yet have to rely more and more on the witness accounts.