Actual UFO Photo

I'm pretty sure that the lower object is an out-of-focus leaf starthinker; or at least, that's how my eyes interpreted it.
 
Starthinker said:
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.

[qimg]http://www.starthinker.com/images/ufo.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Interesting, that the other dark spots have brighter halos as well, and some bright spot in the roof has a darker halo. I suspect this is because of the jpeg compression. would be interesting to examine the original. Compression can produce really weird effects.

Your diagnosis is pretty convincing.
 
It is very small probably roughly the size of the leafs on the tree. Notice the diffused light around the edges. It is backlight from the lighter clouds. The diffusion is a QM effect much like the double slit experiment. The leaves on the tree have the same effect to a lesser degree. If you moved those leafs farther away the relative size of the diffusion ring will grow until the object loses form altogether. A large object wouldn't have that much of a diffusion ring relative to the apparent object size and still maintain that much contrast. Small leafs and trash can float up an updraft due to rising warm air during midday and doesn't require wind at ground level.

Compare the same effect on a larger object;
http://www.tourcart.net/tourmate/img/cloneImages/269.jpg
In spite of much larger apparent size the edges have much less contrast yet the object remains clearly identifiable. By the time an object that large became unidentifiable there would be no identifiable edges at all.

Here's a self picture using backlight for a very strange effect.
http://img423.imageshack.us/my.php?image=meghostgf1.jpg
I hope I'm not a ghost anyway :yikes:
 
It's official now: since nobody has been able to provide a definite and convincing explanation of the picture, the hard and indisputable conclusion is: alien beings are visiting the earth!!.

Wait!,.... any logical fallacy here? :rolleyes:
 
Its obviously a C.H.U.D.

Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller


Crafty, it transmogrified into a bee.
 
Ex-drone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Occam's wrong. I can assure you it isn't a helicopter.

(P.S. I take it you don't know me at all. I don't think there's anything extraordinary about it all. I think it's a very ordinary ........... )

This Guy said:
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!

:)
Click to expand...

Aaaaargh! Flying mice!

SusanB-M1 said:
I would just like to compliment the photographer on a very good picture of a tree!
Click to expand...

I thought it was pretty good for a four year old, too!

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...

I noticed that myself and thought that same thing - maybe I Photoshopped it in when I wasn't looking!

I think the halo is part of the giveaway though and I think Starthinker has it....

Pyrrho said:
"Swamp gas from a weather balloon got trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus." - K
Click to expand...

Damn!

Starthinker said:
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.
Click to expand...

I hadn't seen those, but now you mention it, and I see someone else mentioned the "halo" on them too, I'm pretty sure it's just contaminated developer solution. The bubbly bits at bottom left are a bit of a giveaway - hadn't noticed them before, well spotted. Couldn't really have been on the negative, I don't think, unless it got there during manufacture, maybe.

Odd how it's only one photo, but I agree, the other bits of corruption give it away.

Soapy Sam said:
It's a house.
Click to expand...

A flying house? Are you nuts?

Moochie said:
It looks very well defined. I'd say it was added.

M.
Click to expand...

Well, there's no doubt it was added, but was it added to the sky, the photo, the negative or the machine processing the film?

My bet, after sleeping on it and seeing the comments, is machinery/process.
 
I'm voting for the schmutz on the lens theory. It blew off before the next photo.

But I wouldn't rule out a bug, either.
 
Do they use plastic grocery bags where you live? I've seen them above 5000 feet in thermals. The shape is roughly similar.
 
Yeah jpg's can leave weird artifacts. The edge of the roof looks good though. If you really wanted to know, could have it enlarged from the negative.

Could be from a bubble in the developer fluid though, air can leave a clear spot on the neg, which would turn out black when printed.

I ran it through a really big enlarger and you may be onto something tho...
:)
1061460b29889eebc.jpg
 
Kopji said:
I ran it through a really big enlarger and you may be onto something tho...
:)
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1061460b29889eebc.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrgghh! I've teleported to Roswell! Call Uri Geller, quick!
 
The Atheist said:
This photo was taken by my 4 year old recently.

Lo and behold, once developed, the photo shows a UFO above left of the tree in the picture. The photo has not been amended at all and it isn't a flaw in the paper as we have a second copy printed from the negative. 35mm film for photos.

I can't scan the negative, but it's definitely showing on there and not a flaw in the plastic.

Now, I have no doubt that it isn't little green men from Alpha Centauri, but it is an unidentified flying object. Not a plane or helicopter - we're on the flight path of Auckland Airport and that certainly didn't land there. It's also just off to the north of the flight path, where no air traffic ever goes.
Click to expand...

Well, Well, Well,..... The 4 year old leaves a bit of snot on the lens, takes a pic and good old Athiest turns "woo" !
Time to come out of the closet Athiest, drop the tough skeptic front and let the sensitive new age guy shine through.

" The times are a changin"
 
That definitely looks like a grain of sand on the negative during exposure. As has been mentioned before, the entire camera needs a thorough cleaning. Since it was 35mm negative film, a grain of sand would leave the area below unexposed, with a pretty sharp outline, resulting in a dark spot on the print. Dirt on the lense would be more blurred, if not invisible at all.

The halo around it seems to be nothing but JPG artefacts, you can see the same halo around the leaves.
 
CurtC said:
On a related note, I was involved in the online discussion that sorted out this object: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041207.html

Full size picture here:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0412/strange_pryde_big.jpg

On the main page, you can also find links to the same scene a few seconds before, and a few seconds after, this mystery photo.

Any guesses? I'll not spoil it yet.
Click to expand...

The light thingy is very blurry. In photography, that leaves basically two options:

- It's a very fast moving object
- It's not within focus of the lens
(or both)

Given that the image is a panoramic shot made with a very wide focal length (9.1 mm), my best guess is that a tiny, moving object was close to the camera when the picture was taking.

The data in the linked original JPG also says that the camera (a Canon Powershot G3) fired the flash. Given my above assumption, a small object close to the camera, along with the used flash would explain why it is noticeably brighter than the rest of the image. Simply because it is the _only_ object in this picture which reflects light from the flash. Everything else is too far away for a weak built-in flash.
 
Yes, very good, warheit. Someone did an image subtraction, with the same scene a few seconds before. Since the camera was on a tripod and the time difference was small (15 seconds IIRC), the mystery object showed up quite well as a bug. The dark streak was it flying by while the shutter was open, the brighter part is the bug lit up by the flash. The smoky looking part is the bug's wings lit by the flash.

Someone did an FFT analysis of the dark streak and extracted a wing beat pattern that's not otherwise noticeable.
 
The Atheist said:
LOL. It's NOT a helicopter. Because we're on the flight path, helicopters travel overhead frequently and they're kept to under 500 feet around this area, so it would be clearly visible - he has a photo of a chopper taken from about 10 feet from that pic and it's easy to tell it's a chopper.
Click to expand...

I don't follow how this informs you that it's definitely not a helicopter.

Is your thinking that if it were a helicopter you'd recognize it more obviously as such? That's the sort of assumption that leads to plenty of misidentifications of Venus and even the Moon. (Ditto the assumption that because helicopters aren't supposed to go higher than 500 ft in your area that this time one didn't go higher.)

Otherwise, I'd guess it to be an insect relatively near the camera.
 
Cool, thanks CurtC!

I just did such an overlay, it shows the bug or insect pretty well I think. Click the thumbnail for a larger version.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom