CLAIM-953223reported
“David Bodner reported a bright fluttering/pulsating object and obtained a long-exposure photograph.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Elkhorn photograph; uploaded PDF pp. 310-311
← ENCOUNTERS DIRECTORYHOW TO READ THIS →SUPPORTS HOW TO READ THIS →SUPPORTS HOW TO READ THIS →CONTEXTUALIZES HOW TO READ THIS →SUPPORTS HOW TO READ THIS →SUPPORTS CONTEXTUALIZES HOW TO READ THIS →SUPPORTS
E-009617LANDMARK CASE · HIGH CORROBORATIONDATE PRECISION: exactRECORD COMPLETENESS: 100%
Elkhorn Long-Exposure UFO Photograph
1973-10-17Elkhorn, West Virginia, United States
Seventeen-year-old David Bodner reported a bright fluttering or pulsating object and obtained a long-exposure photograph. Hall also notes a superficially similar Columbus, Ohio photograph from the same night without proving a connection.
// LINKED CLASSIFICATIONS:Unresolved Structured Object(C-000265)→Scientific & Observational Types(P-000101)→
Claims are displayed with the source wording, locator, relationship and verification state. Competing claims remain separate rather than being averaged into a single answer.
SOURCE COMPARISON
Encounter · Hall Volume II Encounter Claim
SUPPORTS
CLAIM-954042reported
“Hall’s chronology places the October 17 Elkhorn photographic event within the broader 1973 peak.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Elkhorn within 1973 wave; uploaded PDF pp. 357-357
Multiple claim rows are intentionally retained when sources disagree. ANOMALY does not silently reconcile competing values.
SOURCE COMPARISON
Encounter · Hall Volume II Evidence Claim
CLAIM-953224reported
“Hall notes a superficially similar Columbus, Ohio photograph from the same night.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Elkhorn/Columbus same-night comparison; uploaded PDF pp. 310-311
SOURCE COMPARISON
Encounter · Hall Volume II Source Caveat
CLAIM-953225reported
“The source does not establish that the Elkhorn and Columbus images depict the same object or phenomenon.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Elkhorn comparison caveat; uploaded PDF pp. 310-311
SOURCE COMPARISON
Hall Volume II Photographic-Evidence Framework · Hall Volume II Source Framework
CLAIM-953200reported
“Hall retains the 1964 principle that a still photograph is only approximately as reliable as the person who took it and the documented circumstances surrounding it.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Photographic evidence witness-reliability principle; uploaded PDF pp. 297-299 · PRIMARY SOURCE
SOURCE COMPARISON
Hall Volume II Photographic-Evidence Framework · Hall Volume II Evidence Claim
CLAIM-953201reported
“Hall evaluates six factors: witness character, strangeness, camera technical data, direct testimony/circumstances, completeness of analysis and peer review.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Hall six-factor photographic rating methodology; uploaded PDF pp. 297-299 · PRIMARY SOURCE
CLAIM-953230disputed
“Hall discusses an anomalous October 1978 DMSP weather-satellite image obtained through an Elmendorf AFB weather center. Bruce Maccabee reportedly ruled out several image artifacts but could not fully exclude a satellite or space-debris object.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · October 1978 DMSP weather-satellite anomalous image; uploaded PDF pp. 312-313
Multiple claim rows are intentionally retained when sources disagree. ANOMALY does not silently reconcile competing values.
SOURCE COMPARISON
Hall Volume II Photographic-Evidence Framework · Hall Volume II Source Caveat
CLAIM-953202reported
“Hall stresses that a technically authentic image does not by itself establish the identity or extraordinary origin of the photographed object.”
The UFO Evidence, Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report
SRC-009500 · Image authenticity versus object identity caveat; uploaded PDF pp. 297-299 · PRIMARY SOURCE