Amazing Photo's of S.F UFO Seen Last Summer

Ok....so I did a bit of research as well as looked at the pics again. If what has been said is correct and the red light on top flashes about every second then based on the pics that would mean that the light is at the tail of the object which is where the aviation standard has them placed for safety. Also in relation to the pics being correctly ordered and the object is indeed flying up and to the left it would mean we are looking at the left side of the object where the red streak of light appears which again corresponds to aviation standards of a red light being placed on the left side of aircraft and a green light on the right side.

As to the light at the back of the object that appears to be pointing diagonally downward there is also an aviation standard of a solid light being mounted to the tail of an aircraft or helicopter. If this object is flying up and to the left and the exposure started where the light is then why would it not appear to be illuminating in the manner it is?

-B

Thanks Vasa... what you're saying makes a lot of sense to me and it sounds like you know what you are talking about.

I'm still amazed at the information that cam left out about that object in its capturing of the lights only of that craft. But learned a lot about long exposure effects by analyzing these photo's. A very worthwhile exercise in my book because next time I see something like this, I'll know what I'm really looking at.



[edit on 20-11-2007 by Palasheea]

yeah, thanks everyone

the average person with no UFO or camera knowledge would be fooled as I was.

Well, for those who still may want it: the second pic specs:

F-stop f/3.5
Exposure time: 1.8 sce
ISO speed: ISO-400
Exposure Bias: 0 step
Focal Length: 18 mm
Max Apeture: 3.6
Metering Mode: Pattern
35mm focal length: 27
Saturation: Normal
Sharpness: Normal
Date: 7/2/07 (Night of 7/1/07 PST time)
Time: 1:01AM (really 11:01PM SF time)

reply to post by laurenrose


Hey, we are all here to learn and of course to deny ignorance. Sometimes the process can get a bit nasty because opinions can be strong and as unmovable as a steel wall but most of the time its pretty civil.

Welcome to ATS. Browse up the site, there is a lot more here than UFOs and Aliens to discuss....does your BF concur with the general assessment here? He is the photographer, right?

Nonetheless I would still let JRitzmann look at the photos and offer up his assessment. Ya never know, he may come up with something none of us has even considered, so keep checking back for any updates.

Well, thanks so much Lauren for sharing whatever information you had on this "sighting". We're all here to learn and grow. I still think Grant has the makings of an excellent photographer and I'm proud to be a member of ATS because, as you can see, we really did put a lot of effort into analyzing his photo's where we still believe that his misidentifying of what that object was that was up there is perfectly understandable.
Lol, they really do look like UFOs to those of us who are not familiar with what some of the more advanced cams are capable of producing in terms of long exposures that's for sure!

I'm still looking forward to what JRitzman has to say about them, when he's got the time available to do that. I'm very curious to find out what kind of craft it is just to keep in my files should another photo of an alleged UFO that looks like it pop up again somewhere on the internet.

I've tried looking all over the internet for long exposures of helicopters but I've yet to see one, so if JR is able to narrow down on what kind of aircraft it is... all the power to him! So far, no one here has been able to do that... as far as I can see.

I hope you decide to continue to participate in this forum! It sounds like you and Grant have at least a passing interest in UFOs! It's a fascinating subject and nice knowing that at least you and Grant believe that UFOs DO exist!



[edit on 20-11-2007 by Palasheea]

Thanks to Havalon for the link

The data is processed from a radar feed, which gives a fairly accurate account of aircraft position and altitude. However, radar data can contain anomalies such as spikes and jags and reflections, which have been corrected as much as possible before being displayed on your screen. Nevertheless, if you see occasional odd jags in the flight tracks, these are likely radar anomalies and NOT true depictions of the flight track. These anomalies are not common, and will mostly likely occur when the flights are nearer to the ground, where radar data can more easily reflect off of nearby buildings.

GREEN Aircraft are those that have been detected as departing from an airport (i.e., their altitude is rising instead of falling).
RED Aircraft are those that have been detected as arriving at an airport (i.e., their altitude is falling instead of rising).
WHITE Aircraft are "overflights", i.e., aircraft that have been detected as flying over the area, not landing or departing. They usually fly at a significantly higher altitude than the green and red flights.
BLACK Aircraft are those identified as "General Aviation" aircraft. These are identified based on a standard general aviation "transponder" code. They are usually smaller aircraft, not associated with any airline. No flight information (airline, aircraft, etc.) is known for general aviation flights.
ORANGE Aircraft are those that cannot be identified as being an arrival, departure, overflight, general aviation, or helicopter. Often these are general aviation aircraft, and in some cases the altitude is not reported and thus its flight type cannot be determined.
Helicopters on the display are those that have been detected as being helicopters. There is no particular information from the radar that identifies helicopter vs. non-helicopter, so the flight pattern is analyzed (based on its speed, altitude, turning pattern) and the flight is "detected" as being a helicopter based on these rules. For this reason, you may sometimes see orange aircraft "turn into" helicopters and vice versa, as the program tries its best to determine the type of flight. Since helicopters can indeed fly in a pattern similar to a small general aviation aircraft, some black/green/red/orange aircraft on the display may indeed be helicopters that have not been detected as such.

More infos here:
live.airportnetwork.com...
Since the tracks fetching is only allowed for the past seven days, i took a "sample" of traffic
of five hours over the area, just in order to rule out the hypothesis that is located on a no-fly zone, and to have an idea of the amount of air traffic, nothing else



Lauren, thank you for your patience
Till the moment that JRitzmann will provide the results of his analysis, we are in the field of hypothesis, as what you are reading now are OPINIONS till someone will be able to prove otherwise.
There are many important clues but no conclusive evidences so far, IMHO.

[edit on 20/11/2007 by internos]

It's a HELICOPTER internos! Darn'it
Here's what they look like:

Please oh please... anyone have an Advil available??

Originally posted by Palasheea

It's a HELICOPTER internos! Darn'it
Here's what they look like:

Please oh please... anyone have an Advil available??

Well, for example, if that shot from the applet would have been taken the day and at the moment of the sighting, we would have been able to RULE OUT the helicopter, since the area of the sighting (the red sphere) isn't crossed at all.
Unfortunately, after 7 days they disallow the access to the data...

There are also a number of other places a helicopter could have come from though....this is a marina with quite a few LARGE boats in it as evidenced by Google Earth. There are also quite a few hospitals in the area with helipads.

Thanks for the photos and keep up the great photography work!

-B

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
There are also a number of other places a helicopter could have come from though....this is a marina with quite a few LARGE boats in it as evidenced by Google Earth. There are also quite a few hospitals in the area with helipads.

Thanks for the photos and keep up the great photography work!

-B

The data comes from RADAR feed:
the problem is that we cannot fetch the data of the day of the sighting.

That seven day limit is a bummer but thanks for navigating that site. I have to give you credit for taking the time to decipher the directions on it.

I for one didn't even want to hassle with it but great that you did where you were able to inform us of that time limit. Now we know -- will keep that in mind should we need to use it again.

Well I have a therory, if the photograher was driving across country and if he was in a motorhome and took the pictures from the trailer door where there is always a porch light which are almost always rectangular in shape is it possible it could be a reflection in anyway? I don'tclaim to know anything about photography at all. this just seems the most sensible answer for. me.

reply to post by laurenrose


Thanks for posting the shot two camera specs, laurenrose. If possible I'd be curious to know if the multiple shots were taken automatically in rapid sucession or manually, and if manually how much time (appx) between the shots?

Dallas

Hi-
Springer sent me a raw image and I've dropped it at a local pilot's house for his take, but he's away like most at Thanxgiving (and soon to be myself).

My take initially is that it's a helicopter, with searchlight. There wouldnt be any assemblance of the body of the copter if the body was somewhat dark, and moving quick enough...which it looks to me as if it was. Light smears wouldnt be unusual, and I also see some in the distance, along the waterline. My question then is, why arent they all smearing. Double exposure? Could be. I wont know until I really get a good chance to sit down with the shot and go over it. I'll be back monday from the holiday and see what I see.

Happy TG all,
Jeff

Originally posted by Palasheea
Check out this news site!
www.wben.com...
It shows photographs of a UFO seen over S.F back in July of this year and the images are STUNNING!

Below is a section of an interview of the person who captured those photo's seen on the above link and it's amazing that considering the size and how clear the UFO is seen in those photo's, he didn't see anything up there at the time when he took them!

An Interview with The Photographer

TB: Did you see anything at the time the shots were taken, or did you only see them when you looked at the shots later?

I noticed nothing that I thought was abnormal. I did, however, take note of very strong winds. Keep in mind I had just driven straight across the country for 3 days from Amherst, NY. So nothing would have seemed too out-of-the ordinary. I only noticed the objects in the pictures upon reviewing my 2,000 or so photographs from the trip at work one week and several days later. The lighting that can be seen on the water, was certainly not visible to me at my time on the dock. I was peering out over the water, shooting direct shots of the landscape just beyond the water. I was basically staring at the water during the time I took these shots. None of the objects or lights in the picture were visible to me. Nothing was of any alarm.

TB: Was there any noise?

Any noise would have been obscured by wind. We were on the bay and it was a very windy night.

TB: How close was it?

I knew of no object at time the photographs were taken.

--------------------------------
replaced quote with 'ex' tags for external material


[edit on 15/11/07 by masqua]

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Palasheea]

It´s an airplane

reply to post by Chris_2008

What about to read the thread before posting?
That image has already been posted four times
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 22/11/2007 by internos]

reply to post by Dallas


I double checked with grant and the pictures were taken on rapid fire: or rather automatically by the camera in sucession: so the estimated 30 seconds suggested before by wben is inaccurate.

And this explains also why there are three photos as opposed to one.

Originally posted by laurenrose
reply to post by Dallas

 

I double checked with grant and the pictures were taken on rapid fire: or rather automatically by the camera in sucession: so the estimated 30 seconds suggested before by wben is inaccurate.

And this explains also why there are three photos as opposed to one.

_____
Hi laurenrose, Thanks for the above info. Combined with your previous post I wanted to include it, and have below:
_____

laurenrose posted on 20-11-2007 @ 12:48 PM

"I also had a question for photographers:

if this is an automatic setting on the camera for low light situations, why would hte first be 3 and the last be 1.8? What determines how long the shutter stays open? ..."
_____

If I get the picture (pun) correctly, The camera was set on rapid fire and took three shots. The first being 3 seconds in duration and the two remaining 1.8 seconds in duration. I know very little about cameras, I use a digital Kodak which is simple to use.

JR may be interested in the above info for his analysis.
My interest is in the spedd of the craft as it was not seen at the time of shooting the pics. v. how the camera did. It seems seven seconds may have passed from the first through the last shot.
If this is true, then the appx short distance the craft covered during the shots may have more than slow enough to possibly be seen by others in the area at the time. Thanks for the additional info.

Dallas

reply to post by Palasheea


Hey I just wanna say Im Danielle from the video "Alien or not!Plz watch!"

I read a message on my YouTube saying that my video was here.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by werstoopid]

reply to post by Palasheea

Thanks for sharing those photos. I liked looking at them. I appreciate the link you shared in your original post too.