Skip to main content

Where are the flying saucer pics?

My UFO photo, possibly concealed by the MOD/FBI*
On Sunday I appeared on that interesting internet literary radio programme, Litopia After Dark (it's the 21 October show, not yet uploaded when this post was published). I was slightly thrown as I expected to be talking about publishing and books, but because of the closeness to Halloween, the topics were primarily the supernatural. At one point this strayed into the matter of flying saucers. One of the other guests was asking, if a flying saucer landed on your lawn and an alien came in for a cup of tea, what would you do? Would you tell people?

This started me on a different train of thought. Flying saucer photographs. As Fermi once asked about  visitors from another world, where are they all? You might say that there are plenty of photos of flying saucers. In fact I recently reviewed a whole book of them. But in a way, these emphasise my point.

Most flying saucer pictures are really, really bad or look fake (or both). I know a little about such fakes as I went through a phase of making them in my teens. (Just for fun.) Broadly there were two kinds. A relatively detailed model, suspended against the sky with fishing line, which typically had to be a little out of focus to cover up that this is what it was, or a hubcap or metal plate, thrown high in the sky, frisby style.

The trouble with this second approach is that the thrown object usually travelled at an angle that made its flight look totally unrealistic. And fascinatingly, several of the 'UFOs' in the book I reviewed had exactly the same problem - they were flying at a weird angle, just like my hubcap. I was also amazed that the book included a famous picture of UFOs over the nighttime Capitol building in Washington. It does look impressive. A formation of flying lights apparently close over the dome of this impressive structure. That's what you see in the book. But if you take a look at the uncropped version of the photo, there are a series of street lights on the steps in front of the building. In exact mirror formation to the 'UFOs'. The UFOs are just the camera producing a reflection of the bright lights on the dark sky.

The point that occurred to me during the radio show was this. The reason UFO photos are universally so awful is that the vast majority of the people who claim to have seen them didn't have cameras with them when they come across a UFO. So it's just that 1 in a 1,000 time someone did have a camera that we get the shots, and there are sufficiently few that most are rubbish. At least, that's the argument. Only it's not like that anymore. These days I never go anywhere without a camera and video camera. It's on my phone. And the same goes for many millions of others. So why haven't we seen a sudden burst of vast quantities of good photographic/video evidence of UFOs and little grey men?

Sadly, the answer seems straightforward. Because they were never there in the first place.

* I had hoped to illustrate this with one of my old fake UFO photos, but my albums are in boxes in the loft and the relevant albums weren't in any of the easily accessible boxes. Coincidence? Or conspiracy?!?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou