Possible UFO (Help analyzing photos please)

originally posted by: DrZrD
It is NOT an insect.

I don't think anyone thinks that's an insect.

The object area is 3 times smaller in the first image compared to the second yet even with similar exposure settings (f/5.9 1/800 @ ISO-400 v.s. f/5.9 1/250 @ ISO-100) the object is 100% saturated in both images. Possible, but not likely, that a modern camera auto-exposure algorithm could be in error by 1.5 f-stops.

You forgot to mention that the first photo has a digital zoom of 2.028169014 and the second a digital zoom of 4.0. And I think that, if the second photo was taken from a different position, it was just a few centimetres to one side movement, let me add this animated GIF to the image Blue Shift posted.

It is my experience that this is not a new phenomena. Over the years others experiencing atypical events sometimes post photographs to ATS that contain similar highly saturated objects.

What does you experience says about taking photos with those setting on a sunny day?

originally posted by: merka
Looks to me like an overexposed photo with an overblown highlight. If you look at the picture as a whole, you'll see that there are highlights all over the place. The grass, the bush behind it. The "UFO" just happen to be a particularly bright spot, possibly something on the ground reflecting light just right for the camera viewpoint.

But of course, there is a possibility that the bush is actually an alien base and those are the smaller fighter crafts defending it.

Obviously

You don't need the flash to directory get a reflection off a window. There is light reflected off the lens.

Note that the photobucket has an additional faked photo on it.faked photo

a reply to: gariac

Yeah, that's one of my photoplasty entries for cracked.com's image manipulation contests, and has nothing to do with the images I'm asking for help with. I've been being very polite and ignoring the insults, but insinuating that my recreational hobby of participating in humorous image manipulation contests automatically means that the photos I've presented here (with camera exif data intact, may I remind you) are fake is a bit out of line even for ATS trolls.

This phenomena is nothing new there are 100's of reports of metallic spheres being sighted, Great photos OP!

originally posted by: JamesTB
This phenomena is nothing new there are 100's of reports of metallic spheres being sighted, Great photos OP!

It's obviously not in any way a "sphere." It's some kind of roughly triangular thing, likely with a flat reflective surface. Like a gum wrapper, maybe.

a reply to: hhott

Well hey, if you make fake photos, best to hide that knowledge. ;-). Not to say I didn't laugh at the photo.

a reply to: ArMaP

Thank you for examining the EXIF data more carefully, I completely missed the difference in digital zoom between the images. Digital zoom combined with automatic ISO could explain the disparate ISO between images separated in time by just 54 seconds. In addition, this newly uncovered information suggests that the distance between the object and camera did not change invalidating any arguments I could have made regarding anomalous excess saturation. In the end, as is all too common, this images could equally be the result of random chance or something interesting.

One example of an old ATS story showing a similar saturated object

Best regards,
Z

On July 11th I sent my friends out to get more pictures of the location at the same time of day as the original photos. Here is a picture that is as close to identical as the originals as she could manage. As you will see, there is nothing in this picture that corresponds to the object.

i57.photobucket.com...

This is a picture of the bridge from which the pictures were taken, showing its height and a bit of the surrounding area. It is taken from the opposite side of the bridge from where the object was in the photo; there is no access by car to that side.

i57.photobucket.com...

And here is a Google Earth view of the location showing the path of the car my friends were in, the location of the car when they first spotted the object, the object's location when first spotted and path until they lost sight of it, the object's approximate location when photographed, the position from which the pictures were taken, and the path of the car that was used as a size comparison when they said it appeared to be "half the size of the car."

i57.photobucket.com...

After looking at the overhead view, I think you will agree that it's unlikely that a person went to that location and removed the object; it's fairly inaccessible, especially when it's been raining like it has been here recently - that whole area is and has been pretty wet and muddy and the river is UP.