Location: Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Date: May 7th, 1952
On May, 1952 the Brazilian magazine “O Cruzeiro” had a bombastic cover feature:
“EXTRA: FLYING SAUCER ON BARRA DA TIJUCA
O CRUZEIRO presents, on a spectacular scoop, the most sensational documentation ever made about the flying saucer mystery — The strange craft came from the sea, with huge speed and was seen for a minute – Bluish gray color. Absolutely silent, without leaving any trace of smoke or flames – Complete report of the fascinating sight at Barra da Tijuca.
Reported by ED KEFFEL and JOÃO MARTINS”
Comment: A sensational series of five photographs. Too sensational: “Ed Keffel had only five negatives on his camera. He mus have known beforehand what would happen. And he knew. Everything was planned. In only five photos they managed to capture the alleged flying saucer in profile, from above, below and slightly tilted“, noted ufologist Claudeir Covo.
The hoax, made by “O Cruzeiro” magazine, took an unexpected turn with the involvement of the Brazilian military. Far from “cover-up”, they endorsed the case. Air Force officers, headed by col. João Adil de Oliveira, analyzed the images and, because they failed to reproduce them using a model thrown in the air, declared them authentic. The hoax was actually made by photomontage.
A month after the images were publicized, Ciência Popular [Popular Science] magazine, through its director, Ary Maurell Lobo, did their due work and proved that us, Brazilians, were not all that gullible.
“Regarding the ‘flying saucer’ that gave an interview on Barra da Tijuca to the photographers … we emphasize the hoaxes being made on USA and Europe, by throwing small disks on the space and photographing them. Everything published on such periodicals can be easily obtained through this process, or by a special montage, with successive photos. We don’t want to claim that the sensational report was of such criminal nature, but we don’t accept it“, Wrote Lobo on June 1952. He was right about the “special montage”.
By 1963, american astronomer Donald Menzel, fierce enemy of the interplanetary spaceships — or of its promoters — was already nailing the case right on the spot. The flying saucer’s shadows are not coherent with the scenario. The “Condon report”, the Colorado University study about UFOs published on 1968, supported Menzel’s objection through independent analysis. The analyzed image, show at the beggining of this page, indicates that the flying saucer was illuminated from the left, while the scenario, notably the palm tree, was illuminated from the right.
On the 1980s, William Spaulding and Brazilians Carlos Reis and already mentioned Claudeir Covo presented even more evidence that the photos were hoaxed. On the fifth and last image, Covo wrote that “to create such shadow on the object, the Sun must have been inside the Atlantic Ocean”.
We end with the Condon report conclusion on this case:
“This case is presented as an example of photographs which have been described as incontrovertible evidence of flying saucers, yet which contain a simple and obvious internal inconsistency.”
Popularity: 2% [?]Posted in UFO photos,UFOs | 2 comments
Location: Palomar Gardens, California, USA
Date: December 13th, 1952
One of a series of four photographs taken by George Adamski near Mount Palomar, with a Kodak Brownie coupled with a six inch telescope. It shows a Venusian scout ship, in its second visit to the contectee.
All planets of the solar system being inhabited by beings similar to ourselves, besides the Venusians (“Orthon”), Adamski also contacted Martians (“Firkon”) and Jovians (“Ramu”). He travelled to the Moon, where he saw cities on the Far Side, as well as to Venuys and the other planets, including a seminar given to aliens in Saturn.
The main message of the extraterrestrial is one of peace and warning about our nuclear weapons. “Boom!”, Orthon the Venusian said.
Comment: Adamski’s photos are actually pictures of small models. A telescopic image of something at great distance shouldn’t show different parts of the same object focused or not, even if it was ten meters wide, as it’s claimed this ship was. Either the object would show up completely focused, or completely unfocused as seen by the telescope, being almost one kilometer as far.
As Arthur C. Clarke, who exposed the case in 1954, noticed, the focus problem is evidence of a small model photographed at short distance. And in at least one case, with the help of Scotland Yard, he established that the object photographed should have been inside the telescope.
But there’s much more to this case. Adamski’s “photos” are also retouched and include a drawing.
Compare the two images above. They are two versions of the same alleged photograph. See how the upper part of the ship is blurred on one image, and how the bottom part is strangely lit on another. Those cannot plausibily be distortions due to different prints and copies: one of the images has been retouched, and both probably were. We are not looking at a photo, it’s in fact mostly a drawing.
This is much clearer on another of Adamski’s images:
The image at left is supposed to be the altered bottom of the scout ship — the cover over the spheres disappeared. Not by photo retouching, it’s claimed, of course. At right we see a comparison between this photo and a detail of the more well known image at the beggining of this page.
Not only the “altered” image is a copy, it’s also a drawing. No wonder Adamski always refused to offer his original negatives for analysis.
It was later claimed that Adamski’s Venusian scout ship was an art deco hatcher. According to French ufologist Henry Durrant, “it was just part of a lamp of an artificial hatchery, with three ping pong balls at the bottom used as landing gear!“.
Popularity: 4% [?]Posted in UFO photos,UFOs | 10 comments