Amazing Photo's of S.F UFO Seen Last Summer, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times


reply posted on 15-11-2007 @ 05:34 PM by Uniceft17
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!



The UFO should call whoever did his paint job, it looks pretty cheap.

Someone could have easily done this in Microsoft Paint.


reply posted on 15-11-2007 @ 05:57 PM by ZeroGhost
reply to post by Uniceft17


Yea, I got clients that would hire such talents (after me and Palasheea)

Nice guess, but we have decades of experience with applications light years beyond Paint. And, No, sorry, cannot be done with MP.

Bubb-eye!

Oh, the last image I posted was FAA graphic. I am toying with doing it in 3D animated for MUFON and ATS. Anyone pay????

Have a Nice Planetary Rotational Unit!

ZG


reply posted on 15-11-2007 @ 06:15 PM by Nola213
I'd say that's what this forum is for. Sharing information and learning. Palasheea is learning about long exposures, as I am as well.

It also seems to be that that these short UFO cigar shaped craft with lights are in the high minority of "long-exposure" pictures." At least the dozen or so that have been posted.

Imo. Only one shown so far, has even come close to the one originally posted by Palasheea, so I'm not ready to pass this off as long exposure, and thus debunked. Needs further investigation.

A more likely scenario to me was this object isn't as nearly as big as it apears to be. Maybe a lit ip balloon tetther down over the restaurant to attract customers. I believe it was on page 2, someone pointed out there are 3 spotlight aiming up at this object to make it even more visible.

But then how does this explain for the photographer saying he did not see this object when he took the pictures? Either he's is straight lying, or just a prankster, or genuinly did not see them who knows.

But again if this image was due to long exposure why is evything so clear, the water, the people in the dockside restaurant?

Again theres just that one other pic that looks almost idetical to this posted by defuntion on page three. Why not assume that this is a craft and 2 people have caught it on film at 2 seperate occassions?

Again there's just too many if's on this one to close it, or write it off as long exposure, imo.

Either way it is pretty interesting. But there's alot of different possiblities as to what could be occuring here.




[edit on 15-11-2007 by Nola213]

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Nola213]


reply posted on 15-11-2007 @ 06:20 PM by TheExaminer
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!



All I see is a long exposure. Its possible that the light was too faint to "clearly" see the aircraft that passed by when the shutter was open.

Try it again on an aircraft you can see and compare the two.

The light that flashes on the left side of most aircraft is red. There are other configurations, but I'm positive that's what I'm looking at. The center landing light is also on, thus the white blur as well.

I'll bet my time on an Aircraft Carrier on it.




reply posted on 15-11-2007 @ 06:59 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by ZeroGhost


I don't have time to read all the pages so forgive if someone else noticed.

If you read the article you will notice that it was mentioned the camera was placed on top of a pier or a post and it was a VR Lens from Nikon. A VR lens is the same as three stops difference in addition to being on a rock solid surface. I use one for Wildlife Shots as I'm getting up in age and my hand is not to steady. With a VR lens I can shoot with a 300mm in fairly low light and get sharp images. Without the VR Lens I could never do that. They also have a setting for Tripods (the newest ones) and for shots where you are following an object in motion. Nikon Rules, no matter what Cannon says I'll assume if he is buying VR lenses he also used a remote shutter switch like I would. You will also note how bright the building lights are. You can not do that with a short exposure after dark without major, easily visible grain and noise even with a digital camera. At a 3200 ISO equivalent the grain would be huge. Those are very clear shots which means under 600 ISO on that camera I believe. I'm basing this on the performance of a D200 so it may be more like under the 250 ISO setting Nikon's have to get that little color noise.

Actually Digital Cameras are far better at low light than film. In particular the new Nikon's. More than a couple of Northern Lights Photographers, who never appologize, owe me one over that issue. They now all use digital for their shots I've seen in recent years.

Note: The Bear in my Avitar is shot with a VR 300 mm Lens in the late afternoon while in a fight with another juvenile Brown Bear in the water. Notice even though the light was low I was able to stop the Bear and the water drops without problems. Try that with a normal lens.




[edit on 11/15/2007 by Blaine91555]


reply posted on 15-11-2007 @ 08:43 PM by internos
As i said in my first post, without the original image
any statement cannot be conclusive, imho: only after extracting EXIF data we would be able to obtain answers to some questions that still are unanswered.
Anyway, i noticed that the object has never the same shape;

I've used these three photos:


In the first series, we can see that the small lights in the top of the object are never on the same line:
in the second one, we can see that its curvature is never the same:
this would mean that if it's an actual object not long exposed would be a flexible one, and with mobile lights, IMHO.


That being said, we still don't know if the photographer would helpfully share the original shots: imho,
if he is, we'll be able to make further investigation based on actual data instead of an interview, and that would mean a sign of genuinity
if he isn't, it's an hoax or he wants somehow speculate on the pictures, and in both cases we shouldn't be interested at all to his stuff.
My humble opinion is that this is a long exposure photo of something which actually was in flight there, maybe an helicopter, maybe not, but of course its actual shape is not the one that we see in the photos, imho;
but since i can't prove it, this is only an opinion
I wonder how is possible to take several shots of such an object without noticing it, that's odd to say the least.
Anyway, i have no evidence here, and i'll consider it an UFO till it will be proved otherwise
thanks again to palashea for sharing this find.


[edit on 15/11/2007 by internos]


reply posted on 15-11-2007 @ 08:56 PM by NGC2736
reply to post by MadSigntist


I gotta ask, is a MadSigntist someone who writes curse words on billboards?

If nothing else, we're learning a lot about exposure. I never knew that it could be so incremental that only something like a plane would blur, and yet almost nothing else seem odd.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



Egg found in Martian Meteorite
  Posted 17 days ago with 126 member flags
Bad Ufologists-Lets clean the closet of any skeletons
  Posted 8 days ago with 52 member flags
Death by UFO!
  Posted 14 days ago with 49 member flags
UFOs during Satellite launch
  Posted 8 days ago with 49 member flags
Tracey Taylor - "Aliens Gave Me a Special Gift"
  Posted 7 days ago with 31 member flags
DIVINE INTERVENTION: ETs Defeating Old World Order
  Posted 15 days ago with 29 member flags