Best UFO photo of 2006 from Poland - has this been debunked?

My first thought at viewing the photos was punkin chunkin.

Listen you guys don't know that China is now making inexpense UFO's.

I'll bet if you look where it was produced it will say "Made in China" stamped on either end of the stainless bowls and I am not making this up.

What more proof do you need?


P.S. The ducted tape used to fuse the bowls together was "Made in Mexico"



[edit on 21-1-2007 by Realtruth]

The object looks like two metal bowls stuck together. Notice that the top of the object is flat, which further concludes that it's a bowl. The comparison to the object and the background should also be taken into account. It's very clear for an object to be so far away, and yet everything else in the background is blurred a little more.

Okay im feeling that the ATS crowd has about 95% panned this one... this is realy funny when listening to the the guys over at the Nautilus Foundation(Polish Ufology Group)

"Regarding finding out about the case: the president of our Foundation, Mr Robert Bernatowicz, has read about the case in one of Polish tabloids. The newspaper was making a laughing stock out of it and Mr Bernatowicz went to the village to check the facts. Upon researching the case he found out that with almost absolute certainty it was a genuine close encounter case."

Its pretty clear, but that leads me to being suspicious of it.

Its obviously small, so it could be a drone or something. It also looks kinda man made in my opinion.

Another way to get around the motion blur ... take a digital slr or other similar camera with a long burst mode (say 3-5 shots in rapid succession) with hi-speed compact flash memory. You are pretty much guaranteed to get a motion blur-free shot if you time it right. I don't own one (I sell them though so I know more than the average consumer ha). If anyone has one please try and recreate. I will see if I can borrow one and try this out myself. I am 99% certain that I can replicate this picture.

Now does that make it necessarily a fake? No, but it shows that it can indeed be faked. And as someone else mentioned, it is definitely not photoshopped and therefore any misalignment of shadows would be something considerable (in this case though it seems like they are always in the right place).





[edit on 21-1-2007 by Fiverz]

Yes this absolutely looks man made - also the eyewitnesses described it as darting around like a bird or something which would go with the theory of it being some kind of drone or maybe something made in China?

Originally posted by Fiverz
I am 99% certain that I can replicate this picture.

Now does that make it necessarily a fake? No, but it shows that it can indeed be faked. And as someone else mentioned, it is definitely not photoshopped and therefore any misalignment of shadows would be something considerable (in this case though it seems like they are always in the right place).

not that i believe these pics are real or anything it's just a mystery to me and this would undeniably prove their fake.. it just has to be reproduced once.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by kronos11]

I am 100% convinced this one's the real thing...

It's really two steel bowls taped together, and flying in mid-air. Anyone can do that easily with the right shutter speed on his photo camera.

The best clue is, look at the focus on the "ufo", compared to other background objects.

The tree line off in the distance, the telephone pole ot the right, and the field below.

That should give a rough estimate of the distance and size of the "ufo".



something like this, maybe?





source:

housewares.hardwarestore.com...



[edit on 1/21/2007 by Mechanic 32]

[edit on 1/21/2007 by Mechanic 32]

This is the findings regarding the size from ufoinfo

. The size of the object excluded using small kitchen bowls, and even if we did indeed have to do with a hoax, somebody must have very carefully prepared a huge object. If one was not a "complete moron" at primary school and if one has a slightest idea about spacial geometry, one could quite easily calculate - based on the pictures - that the moving object was at least 2 metres in diameter as otherwise the pictures would have shown a small, unclear spot. We have demonstrated this surprising effect of objects "shrinking" in the open space during our experiment on 15 August (please read on). Of importance to us was also the description of the witness who saw the object moving nearby at the distance of approx. 20 metres. Witness Maciej T. has stressed that the object was more or less the size of a small car. The only thing that could happen was that somebody has made a model of the object (a solid construction, incredibly shiny surface) which they catapulted from a launcher. Such a hypothesis has also been rejected as the time needed to reload the catapult (cleansing the objects of any soil, stretching the ropes) would be much longer than 21 seconds, and this is the amount of time between pictures 7 and 8 - more about it in a moment.


. There are absolutely no footprints on the snow. Such footprints would have to appear when somebody is trying to throw the object up. One would have to approach the object, take an appropriate position etc. However the photographs show a field covered with pristine snow with the only prints visible being those of a cat or a fox running through the field. The experiment we have conducted on 15 August has shown beyond any doubt that even just a few attempts to throw something up requires trampling on quite a large area. It is not even worth talking about two consecutive successful (= sharp) pictures as this is... impossible.


. Picture P1080006 shows the object at an altitude of several dozen metres. The object - as the witness describes it - has flown towards the plane which was producing a condensation trail behind it. Despite a considerable distance the rim around the object is still visible which confirms the object must have had quite big dimensions. To throw anything to the height of 50 metres (that is our estimated altitude of the object on this photo) is beyond human capabilities, although it is probably possible using some sort of a catapult or a launcher. It is the height of a 20-storey building.

quite lengthy but it makes sense and this is what puzzles me. note it was also suggested the object was changing size in flight? what appears to be rippled duct tape around the sides, could be some kind of field disturbance? i don't know, you would just think in 2007, even in Poland, if they were going to stage a ufo hoax they would have created something a little less discernable than two salad bowls held together by duct tape.

Originally posted by kronos11
This is the findings regarding the size from ufoinfo

That's all fine and well. But has ufoinfo EVER successfully debunked one of their own stories.

I looked through their site, and I haven't found anything yet.

I think that for them to debunk one of their own would run contrary to their marketing strategy.

Now if you find an outside source that backs up their claim, I will listen.

Until then, the mixing bowl, duct tape theory sounds pretty plausible.

mate they look like bloody 2 tin bowls stuck togather and then thrown into the air!!

Its two bowls glued together, notice how the bowls are at an angle and never parallel to the ground, this indicates them being thrown up into the air rather than something hovering because the rim would be level with the ground if it was hovering.

Originally posted by enjoies05
Old thread about it - www.abovetopsecret.com...

I remember that one. I still think it's fake.



[edit on 21/1/2007 by enjoies05]

Agreed.
Fake.

Originally posted by kronos11
This is the findings regarding the size from ufoinfo

...


. There are absolutely no footprints on the snow. Such footprints would have to appear when somebody is trying to throw the object up. One would have to approach the object, take an appropriate position etc. However the photographs show a field covered with pristine snow with the only prints visible being those of a cat or a fox running through the field. The experiment we have conducted on 15 August has shown beyond any doubt that even just a few attempts to throw something up requires trampling on quite a large area. It is not even worth talking about two consecutive successful (= sharp) pictures as this is... impossible.

...

quite lengthy but it makes sense and this is what puzzles me.

Makes sense? I disagree. Even a half-blind old grandma can see on the photos that the snow coverage is spotty at best and the ground is most likely frozen. The photographs clearly does NOT show a field covered in "pristine" snow and the "investigators" are talking out of their asses to explain it.

Someone walking carefully over the ground wouldnt leave a single trace.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
first part of the story that grabs my attention :

the alledged " energy feild " that imobilised both vehicles , did not affect the camera

next - despite an alledged 8 minuite encounter - only 5 , or was it 6 photos ??

also during that full 8 minuites - not a single attempt to get closer - or a better vantage point ?

PS - i wonder what was actually on that missing image file ?

1.The camera is probably a wind up camera.
2.The 2 old men were on there way back from a wedding.
3.Would you try and get closer to a UFO??? Because i don't know what i would do!!

Originally posted by cw034
My first thought was....LOOKS LIKE A WORLD GLOBE THROWN INTO THE AIR!

Jees!! I was wondering where that world globe of mine had disappeared! So that's where it is!!

Jokes apart, it's too good to be true! But, WOW if it is!! But this particular UFO model looks pretty dated to me!! Is this all those ETs can come up with??

Originally posted by SKUNK

1.The camera is probably a wind up camera.

incorrect - it is cited as being a digital olympus - and an alleged exif header for one of the image files is published

2.The 2 old men were on there way back from a wedding.

huh ??

3.Would you try and get closer to a UFO??? Because i don't know what i would do!!

yes , I would get closer

they OTOH just seemed to have stood there

niether running away , or investigating - the intervals between the images makes little sense [ to me ]

so what precicely were they doing ?

Talk is cheap. I wish some of you people who keep saying that it would be easy to fake a photo of a ufo like this one would do it. I have yet to see one person who brags about how easy it is to fake a photo of a ufo actually produce a photo that is anywhere near the quality of this one. I think if any of you people who make such claims actually tried to fake a photo of a ufo such as the one in this photo it would be so obvious that you had faked it that it would be laughable! It's cheap to make claims that you don't back up.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by SkyWay]