Actual UFO Photo

The most reasonable interpretation of this single, limited quality photo is that it is a helicopter. Your counter that local flight rules preclude it from being a helicopter is not convincing. You have not excluded the possibility that the pilot was not following the flight rules or had a waiver, and you may be wrong in your speculation of the flight rules themselves. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you think you have something extraordinary here, then you require more than this photo. Occam says helicopter.
 
If it's not a helicopter (I think it is) then it's definitely a flying mouse. I would contact a GOOD pest control company ASAP!


:)
 
I would just like to compliment the photographer on a very good picture of a tree!
 
Suspect Beady's Got It Right

It's probably impossible to ever know for sure what it is, but if you've looked carefully at the negative and there's not an obvious flaw in the plastic film or emulsion, and it only appears on one picture in the roll, chances are the artifact was made by a bit of opaque crud that was on the film at the time the exposure was made.

The crud blocks out the light and you get a nice silhouette of it as an integral part of the exposure. When the film is wound forward, the crud falls off never to be seen again. This is not particularly uncommon though the artifacts are usually smaller (assuming what you posted is a full-frame picture).
 
Hi Atheist,
When I zoom in on the tiny part of the jpg with the object, it seems to be framed as if it were photoshopped into the rest of the image, can you propose a reason for that effect?

1061460a684d39cad.jpg
 
"Swamp gas from a weather balloon got trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus." - K
 
Kopji said:
Hi Atheist,
When I zoom in on the tiny part of the jpg with the object, it seems to be framed as if it were photoshopped into the rest of the image, can you propose a reason for that effect?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1061460a684d39cad.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

It looks to me like either a bit of something on the lens, which would tend to get a halo around it. It also looks a bit like a picture of something with the Sun on the other side of it, but from the shadows on the house it looks like the Sun is in the wrong place. My vote is just for a speck of dirt on the lens.
 
The Atheist said:
The lunar module didn't look all that airworthy, either.
Click to expand...

It didn't have to be - the operative word being airworthy. However, it would have gone down like a lead balloon in the Earth's gravity. If it did manage to hover, the astronauts would have gone through the floor. An unaerodynamic shape doesn't matter in space, but it makes flying difficult in an atmosphere.
 
The Atheist said:
UFOs often are, eh? That unique interstellar proulsion stuff. The lunar module didn't look all that airworthy, either.
Click to expand...

Kind of picking nits here, but the lunar module did not have to be airworthy, as it was never meant to be used in an atmosphere.

Virtually no atmosphere = no need for aerodynamic shapes

Guess I should read the entire thread before replying next time.
 
Last edited:
I'm no photography expert but I see other defects in that picture, dark and light spots near the lower left corner and something that looks like a hair coming out of the tree near the middle right. Maybe these things come from the same source.
 
I thought it may be a humming bird as there is another that kinda looks like down below by the tree. Otherwise Beady has it nailed. Notice a hair and other dust on the exposure? I sure do. Just because it's on the negative doesn't mean it isn't crud. It just means the crud washed off before the negative was developed.

ufo.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom