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

Haha...No, just a crazy artist. Athough I did leave my mark around SF when I was
a kid in the 70's.

So what abou the red lights?....Should'nt they have the streaking effect too?

reply to post by MadSigntist


I'm glad you had a reason for that name, I was gonna' call your third grade teacher if you had just said, "What's are you talking about, "

I thought the lights would streak if the rest of it did. But maybe they blink, and just happened to be in time with the picture. It's all I can think of. But if that's the case, how did they get that effect in more than one shot?

reply to post by MadSigntist


A possible explanation is that still lights and flashing ones have different appearance in case of long exposure, as you can see in this example which has been posted before:




[edit on 15/11/2007 by internos]

this appears to be a light fixture inside with the camera pointing out to the water through a window...the reflection being captured on film...reason? the lights being reflected onto the water from the promanade appear to be as bright as the light from the "craft" itself. because of the size of the craft, a broader "footprint reflection" would show up on the surface of the water itself

as someone that lives near 3 major airports, a photographer and someone who has taken many long-exposure pics at night.... there is no doubt in my mind that these shots are just long-exposures of a plane or more likely a helicopter. specifically, a helicopter with the search light on.

the first red light is obviously flashing at intervals, the second red light is always on. the white light is the landing light or search light. i theorize it's a search light because of the appearance that the light has changed directions in the pictures, althought hat effect could be there for other reasons.

the waves probably aren't blurred because it's only a 3-4 second exposure. at night, that's not a lot of time for the waves to move around. that said, the waves don't seem to be perfectly clear either, i'm seeing the possibility of the movement in these exposures.

i guarantee if we get the original pictures the exif data will show a shutter speed upwards of 3 seconds. there is no reason to believe it's anything but a plane/copter except for the story accompanying it.

The fact that 1000 if not more photos of suposed "Ufo's" have been touted on here, and about all of them have been "judged in the thread" as hoax's of various levels begins to have a bit of a "self fulfilling prophecy to it"

what i mean is that the majority will see the pic, then remember and become of the mindset, ahhh what would qualify to debunk this, what is beleivable enough to qualify as a possible debunking claim, the close the book on this one. (because that is all you have ever known or done with these threads)

getting a majority to agree on a debunking does not mean squat. obviously some pics are obvious fake's but the simple fact that the majority agree it is fake does not make it so, not by a long shot, it just gives many peace of mind.

it is a good thing the world is made of followers and sheep, other wise if everyone was a critical thinker as the real truthseekers need to be, govt's probably would have enforced some kind of tyranic rule (to maintain control), or there would have been a revolution along time ago.

"secret elders of a gentile race
this world has seldom seen
talk of days for which they sit and wait,
when all will be re-vealed. - led zep "kashmir"

IN a timed exposure, the peaks of the waves would not be so sharp.

Originally posted by cpdaman
The fact that 1000 if not more photos of suposed "Ufo's" have been touted on here, and about all of them have been "judged in the thread" as hoax's of various levels begins to have a bit of a "self fulfilling prophecy to it"

Isn't the purpose of a forum to give everyone the opportunity to have commentary? If you'd like to start your own website with thousands of UFO photos, your take, and not let anyone offer their thoughts, be my guest... but that's not what this message board is about.

Originally posted by cpdamanwhat i mean is that the majority will see the pic, then remember and become of the mindset, ahhh what would qualify to debunk this, what is beleivable enough to qualify as a possible debunking claim, the close the book on this one. (because that is all you have ever known or done with these threads)

That's never been my mindset. I saw what I thought was a very obvious explanation for the photo and offered my opinion, hoping that my experience with planes and photography could offer some validity to the explanation. And how can you assume the mindset of all the other random people who visit and participate in this forum? Yeah, there's some people who think it's their purpose to debnk any "proof", just as there's people who think it's their purpose to offer solid "proof". But assuming everyone is always on one side of the issue or the other is unfair.

Originally posted by cpdamangetting a majority to agree on a debunking does not mean squat. obviously some pics are obvious fake's but the simple fact that the majority agree it is fake does not make it so, not by a long shot, it just gives many peace of mind.

That goes without saying though, doesn't it?

Originally posted by cpdamanit is a good thing the world is made of followers and sheep, other wise if everyone was a critical thinker as the real truthseekers need to be, govt's probably would have enforced some kind of tyranic rule (to maintain control), or there would have been a revolution along time ago.

Followers and sheep? Are you trying to discredit the non-believers of this photograph by insulting them? All this prompted by a few people pointing out that the photograph shows what appears to them as a long exposure of a helicopter?

Your passion is amusing!

Originally posted by zarp3333
IN a timed exposure, the peaks of the waves would not be so sharp.

They don't look sharp or at all out of the ordinary for a long exposure to me.

This seems to be a mirage to me. As we know, a superior mirage occurs when an image of an object appears above the actual object, due to the refraction or bending of light waves from the object down toward the eyes of the observer. Downward refraction occurs because air closer to the ground is colder, and therefore more dense, than air higher up.

Sometimes, distant objects appear to float above the horizon, and objects that are below the horizon may come into view. In what is called the ‘towering effect’, rays from the upper portion of an object are bent more than those from the lower portion. This results in the object appearing to be stretched as well as elevated.

But hey! What do I know? It may be something more than a mirage. A UFO probably? If it is, then all I can say is WOW!

Cheers!

It has none of the energy signatures of an actual UFO. Sorry it is a clear cut hoax. Just another cruel red herring. These will 'crop' up more and more in an attempt to deny disclosure, to deny the reality of the existence of the real phenomenon which is undeniable. This is a sad attempt at fame with the Haitian UFO hoax as its mentor/guide...

reply to post by Palasheea


I have a question. Are these UFOs too?

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

Yes, It was an aircraft of helicopter, simply because it shows all the traits of a time exposure image, and it is VERY easy to hoax a UFO using this technique.

FAKE.

Oh yeah, by the way:

www.wben.com...

The updated story from the website (which was posted about 3 weeks ago). It says that a phone conversation with one of the men there during the photography DID NOTICE A HELICOPTER in the air at the time.



[edit on 16-11-2007 by bizone]

I re read my post again. somehow its still all mish mashed towards the top. Sorry duuuude.

Originally posted by azzllin
Washington was a security camera no chance of a long exposure as it records real time well for security,

www.stevequayle.com...

LOL then I guess those cars on the road must have been moving REAL fast

Originally posted by bizone
Oh yeah, by the way:

www.wben.com...

The updated story from the website (which was posted about 3 weeks ago). It says that a phone conversation with one of the men there during the photography DID NOTICE A HELICOPTER in the air at the time.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by bizone]

bizone,
In your post above, you gave your own SLANTED paraphrase of that update TO FIT YOUR OWN BIASED OPINION that that object seen is a long exposure of a plane. (Actually you totally re-worded what Adam said)
Adam, the guy who was with the photographer on that day said that he himself saw a helicopter flying over the bay sometime PRIOR to when those photo's were taken -- NOT DURING the time when those photo's were taken.
All Adam was saying was that a helicopter was seen sometime that day flying over the bay PRIOR to when the photographer started taking photograph's of the bay that day.
Adam did NOT say that there was a helicopter flying over that bay DURING the time the photographer was taking those photo's.




[edit on 16-11-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter

I have a question. Are these UFOs too?

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

Yes, It was an aircraft of helicopter, simply because it shows all the traits of a time exposure image, and it is VERY easy to hoax a UFO using this technique.

FAKE.

Would you be so kind to point out to us those helicopters seen in those EXTREME LONG EXPOSURE photo's on those links?

I would really like to see which one of those long exposure things over those airport runways seen in each link is a helicopter.

Can you show us the helicopter in each photo??

None of these photo's have captions saying that what's in each photo is a helicopter.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by zarp3333
IN a timed exposure, the peaks of the waves would not be so sharp.

the waves were exposed in a moving section, too, the light you see on the water is not how it looked in real time. as the reflected light moved across the water that section of illuminated waves was captured.

the resulting image is what you see, a large section of illuminated waves, these were not lit up all at once.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

internos,
You've brought up some great point here internos! Those images you have in the above post only adds to the mystery of the object seen in those photo's.
Lol, it seems like the more we try to analyze these photo's, the more questions pop up where we are even more at a loss to say what that object is with any certainty. I know that I could not detect any vague outline or color tonalities, or embossed features that would indicate a conventional aircraft when I tried to analyze the photo's in photoshop... nothing could be seen other than what we are already seeing in each photo.. so this is very perplexing especially because what we are seeing in these photo's ,as they are, are large enough and distinct enough to be able to get more information about them somehow in an image editor if there was other information from them that could be gleaned... but this is not the case at all. That object is shaped and detailed exactly as we see them in those photo's -- and that's strange -- very strange.

I do hope that we can eventually have access to the original uncompressed photo's and also to somehow persuade the photographer to come to this forum to talk about his photos and the object seen in them.


[edit on 16-11-2007 by Palasheea]

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by planetfall

Originally posted by zarp3333
IN a timed exposure, the peaks of the waves would not be so sharp.

the waves were exposed in a moving section, too, the light you see on the water is not how it looked in real time. as the reflected light moved across the water that section of illuminated waves was captured.

the resulting image is what you see, a large section of illuminated waves, these were not lit up all at once.

Oh, I wondered about that too and thanks for pointing that out planetfall!

But having said this, I'm still not exactly sure what you are saying here... lol.

-- edit -- Oh, ok, I see what you're saying.. good point! Never thought of that before!

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Palasheea]