About old fake UFO photos

Currently, UFO photos will not surprise anyone - the Internet is simply littered with them. The bulk of them are various kinds of photo artifacts, or are so unintelligible that they can be easily explained by natural causes. But the pictures with the classic "flying saucers", which were popular in the late 1980s - early 1990s, have almost gone out of fashion, but still roam as reliable in many publications.
But even with these photos, which were once examined for authenticity in various ufological organizations, not everything is so simple. Nowadays, most of them hardly stand up to the "lice test", and even on the example of considering banal explanations. The history of one of these series of photographs was reviewed in an article recently published on the website "Ukraine Anomalous".

These photos were taken on February 4, 1990 in the village of Solnechnoye, Sumy region in Ukraine. Their author was a student of the 7th grade Dima Girenko, who shortly before this incident signed up for a photo club and took up photography, fortunately his father gave him a camera. That day, after school, the boy decided to take pictures in the yard, when he suddenly became an eyewitness to the appearance of a UFO in the sky, silently gliding in the air from the side of the Lavrika tract. According to him, the object with a metallic sheen in shape resembled two closed wide-brimmed hats. Having made a semicircle, the object hovered in one place not far from the farm, and then, sharply gaining altitude, disappeared into the cloudless sky. Some time later, he reappeared, described a semicircle over the farm and released the "chassis". During the entire observation period, Dima managed to take as many as 14 pictures of a fairly good quality for a novice photographer.

Solar UFO on the cover of the book

A local physics teacher, Nikolai Stepanovich Zagursky, who led the photo club at the school, supported the successful young photographer. The pictures were displayed on the school stand. They are still kept in the teacher's family. The special correspondent of the newspaper "Rural Life" A.B. Bobrovskikh subsequently transferred the slides from the negatives to the Moscow Radio Institute of MAI, where an examination was carried out and a conclusion was issued on May 23, 1990. The conclusion was signed by Candidate of Technical Sciences V.E. Bocharov, scientific collaborators O.G. Semenov and S.N. Ulanov.

According to the conclusions of the examination, the object captured in the pictures was not the result of retouching, but was captured on film through the lens. In the fourth paragraph, if we omit the nonsense, it is said that the surface of the object had very low reflective properties, which, apparently, tried to explain the contrasting black color, out of perspective, and the lack of volume. Well, the rest is nothing but oddities. Having considered only one version with a rational explanation and ignoring possible others, the experts finally classified the image presented for analysis as an "anomalous phenomenon". Moreover, "for further detailed reconstruction" of which "it is necessary to have an additional number of frames." Either slides were not submitted for examination from all frames, or 14 were not enough. (The full text of the conclusion can be found in the article by Vlasov A. on the website "Ukraine anomalous").

Some researchers (for example, Valentin Dinaburgsky, Paul Stonehill) agreed with the presented conclusions about the authenticity of the images, trying to explain the strangeness of the captured view of the object by some of its physical properties and weather conditions. Moreover, as you can understand, the main argument is the credibility of an eyewitness with references to decency. But for others (Kuzovkin A., Shurinov B., Chernobrov V.), these pictures aroused suspicions of forgery. Here's what Alexander Kuzovkin wrote about this story:

Now about the photo in the newspaper "Pravda of Ukraine" dated 03/21/90, which, as its Sumy correspondent writes, was taken by a schoolboy Dima Girenko from the village of Solnechny in the Akhtyrsky district of the Ukrainian SSR as a result of his UFO observation. Unfortunately, it should be noted that among the UFO photos provided by eyewitnesses, from time to time there are direct hoaxes. Statistics of such cases say that, as a rule, their authors are teenagers. Fake photographic materials make it difficult to study the UFO phenomenon, but professional expertise allows you to make conclusions about the method of obtaining them with high accuracy. An important sign of a hoax is also the refusal to provide negatives for analysis. In the image under consideration, the object has a clear, very sharp contour. His image does not contain any additional details - semitones, shadows, etc. The object is much darker than the panorama. This is the case if the image is made by the overlay method: a panorama of the area and a separate "mock-up" of a UFO, cut out of dark paper and pasted on glass, are exposed separately on one frame of the film

Quote:

Moreover, it does not always require such time-consuming procedures as superimposing two frames during photo printing or double exposure. You can simply photograph the landscape through glass with a "plate" silhouette pasted on it or painted on it. It is not difficult to verify this by setting up your own simple experiment, which was performed by Andrey Vlasov.

An experimental photo of A. Vlasov

This explanation fits perfectly with the case of Dima Girenko's photographs. Trust in the authors of the pictures is a subjective matter, and facts always remain facts. Therefore, the conclusions of the examination should have said about the possibility of fabricating such images, and not about an "anomalous phenomenon".

---

About author:

Serg Toporkov Ufologist, Ph.D., blogger, I go on my own expeditions for UFOs. I use scientific methods to investigate the UAP phenomenon. Write to me

---

Related tags:

ufo  fake  disclosure  analysis  1990