Real or artifact?

Hello, being that I am relatively new poster on ATS it has taken time for me to find this particular forum to submit this here for your scrutiny, because of the VAST amounts of subject matter covered on this outstanding web-site (easy to get lost in different subjects for days)!

I realize your time is precious as is to most of us whom are contributing members of society, so I shall be as brief as possible.

I started a thread (the actual one that brought me out of "long time lurker" status) on a series of pics taken on my cellphone.

UFO over the rainbow

For times sake I'll slap up these poor (quality) but interesting photos, but what I'm looking for is not necessarily identification of this object, but more to the point, is it actually in the photo (behind the clouds at one point) OR could it be an artifact or blemish ?

Object in question is in center top of photo. (PIC 1)


Object "reavealed" aprox. 30 seconds later (PIC 2)





Again I appreciate your time and will be happy to clarify or provide any additional information as needed.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by 1nL1ghtened]

[edit on 1-6-2007 by 1nL1ghtened]

looks more like a smudge to me. was this a digital photo or a film photo? if its film then i think its just a film processing mistake if not then i dunno

I don't know much about the technical details, but it looks like a drop of rain.

Was it just on these 2 shots? It looks like it's moved slightly on the second posted pic. If it was just on a few shots, and there's no schmootz your cellphone cam lens, then it might be a real object in the sky imo.

Doesn't look like a bird, balloon, aircraft to me... I think an insect would appear much larger than the anomaly also. Maybe a tiny raindrop on the lens?

Thanks for the pics!




edit clarify

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Stale Cracker]

Originally posted by Stale Cracker
Was it just on these 2 shots? It looks like it's moved slightly on the second posted pic. If it was just on a few shots, and there's no schmootz your cellphone cam lens, then it might be a real object in the sky imo.

Doesn't look like a bird, balloon, aircraft to me... I think an insect would appear much larger than the anomaly also. Maybe a tiny raindrop on the lens?

Thanks for the pics!

edit clarify

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Stale Cracker]

I agree with your view and thought it odd that it had appeared to move in position (or possibly just the clouds) between the two photos. I had moved position slightly to the right of the spot PIC1 was taken, about a 30 or 40 second lapse between each pic.

ooks more like a smudge to me. was this a digital photo or a film photo? if its film then i think its just a film processing mistake if not then i dunno

As I stated in the original post I was using my cell phone camera being the batteries were dead in my regular digital camera. A regular Motorola V3 Razar so film processing marks not gonna float.

I don't know much about the technical details, but it looks like a drop of rain.

I was standing about 5 feet under a fully covered porch and it was NOT raining at the time.


I appreciate everyones input and I am looking to further elaborate on this with possibly the help of a photo analysis expert or someone who knows a hell of alot more than I do...(which should'nt be hard)

So seeing on how this died I guess the JRitzmann forum is not the place for this post to be...

If you had insisted that you were under a mental compulsion to take those pictures, and that for many nights afterward you had dreams of Elvis Presley wearing a horned headdress and talking to the ghost of Richard Nixon, you would have had a lot of feedback. The pictures would have been analyzed nine ways from hell, and you would have had a cult following too boot.

This is a sensationalist bunch here, and the mundane doesn't spark much interest in learning. They're all too busy looking for that one true smoking gun that will make them, and their skills, famous.

Sorry. I wish I could help you, but I am so far from an expert that it's not even funny.

I was following this thread, hoping to learn something. Looks like we're both out of luck.

Wow, a little DEMANDING aren't we?

You posted these images TWO DAYS AGO mate, people have LIVES and they are busy. Maybe a little PATIENCE and COURTESY would go a long way here.

These experts are VOLUNTEERS and the fact you have access to them at all should be treated with respect and appreciation.

Springer

Springer, I seldom disagree with you, being as you most often come across as pretty level headed, but this time I think you missed the point.

The sensation factor has a lot to do with how soon, if ever, a subject is noticed. That's human nature. The OP would have gotten more response if there had been some sensational claims with the pictures.

I was pointing out to this person that in this day and age, we all seem to be suckers for the "awesome" things, and just average anomalies almost get overlooked in the hunt for biggest and most extravagant. I was not wanting this poster to think that his pictures were of no importance or merit, but to realize that they would not garner the immediate attention he thought.

And this view holds true. The minute those C2C pictures hit, they went to full steam, and haven't slowed a lot, even though most people gave up on them being more than a good hoax within hours. That's the sensationalist factor at work. We may seem to be all about the truth, but we're more likely to look for it in those ares that grab the attention, rather than in the sifting of details.

And hoaxers know this. Why do they put such things out there, otherwise?

Looks to me to be a drop of rain dripping off the eave of the roof youre under. It's admittedly a poor shot and low resolution, and thats about all I can surmise from it.

Please be aware I cant drop everything to respond to these type of non-descript photos at the drop of a hat. I'm not trying to be a UFO shot snob, but these kind of photos which dont show any kind of structured object/focally obscured object dont really merit much examination. These days with work what it is I have to pick my time devotions carefully. Hope you understand.

Ok we'll chalk this one up as inconclusive. Thank you for your time, and in the future mabey this thread can start a precedence.

Since everyones time is precious, its probably NOT a good idea to post:

* Grainy or blurry pictures.

* Small, obscure dots or points of light.

* Steaks of light

* Crappy pictures from camera phones.

I mean this is the politest of ways but I have come to the realization that if any real analysis is to be made of pics or photos these criteria really do need to be adheard to as to not waste valuable time and or rescources.

Thank you so much JRitzmann for your time and helping me and hopefully others to query a little bit more intelligently.

Originally posted by 1nL1ghtened
Since everyones time is precious, its probably NOT a good idea to post:

* Grainy or blurry pictures.

* Small, obscure dots or points of light.

* Steaks of light

* Crappy pictures from camera phones.

I mean this is the politest of ways but I have come to the realization that if any real analysis is to be made of pics or photos these criteria really do need to be adheard to as to not waste valuable time and or rescources.

Thank you so much JRitzmann for your time and helping me and hopefully others to query a little bit more intelligently.

No problem whatsoever. And youre right, unless pictures and video are of a structured UO, there really isnt much point in obscure lights and blips. My own time has gotten truly rare these days with opening a new business, and I more or less dropped off the radar for awhile...but I've got things running fairly well and I'll have more of a presence (hopefully) these days.

My apologies for the tardy reply.
~Jeff

This picture just screams 'DROP OF WATER ON A WINDOW" to me...

Sorry.

reply to post by JimmyBlonde


Yea well, unfortunately...this picture was taken on a porch...WITH NO WINDOWS. But thanks for your post...its a blurry picture and quite inconclusive.


Edit: For typo..

[edit on 16-9-2007 by 1nL1ghtened]