It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:33 PM
Yes that photo looks suspect....sorry OP, but I gotta agree.... the similarities between the "craft" and other long exposures do look strikingly similar, as much as I would love believing that you found someone who spotted my black rectagle football field ships and photographed one... they are pretty solidly proving this to be just a long exposure... but a friggin BEAUTIFUL example of one. But maybe not, cuz unless my eyes are capable of long exposures, I remember seeing that same type of light pattern on the side of the ship, and it was hovering motionless and CROOKED in the air, so it looked in my peripheral vision just like a plane coming in for a landing or something.... but that particular time I was driving through Ohio early early in the morning, like 2 or 3am, and I spotted it off to my right (I was heading east towards pennsylvania on the ohio turnpike, somewhere near cleveland) with my peripherals something that looked like a plane with its lights on real bright. I was like "man, that plane is sure bright", kept on driving, and then all the sudden the thing lights up like the sun and I look over, and it's this giant glowing crooked black rectangle hovering about a few hundred feet in the air, about half a mile away from me.

This picture gives me the chills, either way.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:44 PM
One thing that bothers me about this is the photographer claiming they saw ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the air when they took the photos. Then explain to me why the "UFO" is PERFECTLY CENTERED in every shot, despite the background being different in all the shots.

I find it unbelievable that he saw "nothing" yet was able to follow it perfectly with his camera for 3 different shots.

Given the similarity between these pictures and other night photographs of conventional aircraft, especially helicopters, that what we have here is a deception. The guy got home, saw how "cool" the smeared photos looked and made up the story of seeing nothing after the fact.

This is not the first time a photographer has claimed this. There was a case years ago in Willamette, Oregon of a scentist who took a photo while driving on the road. When he got home there was an "anomalous' object in the picture he didn't remember seeing. Later it was shown the "object" was nothing more than a blurred roadsign that just happened to look possibly like a UFO.

It is human nature to come upon something like this and try to conflagerate a story to match an accidental photograph.

Sorry folks, this one has to be put in the dubious file until some other evidence supports it.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by deefree]

[edit on 16-11-2007 by deefree]

[edit on 16-11-2007 by deefree]

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 01:17 PM
This looks to me, like a picture taken of a picture, with a fluorescent hanging light reflected on the viewing surface ie. monitor or television.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Palasheea
Thanks for your input.. but once again, I truly do believe that the SF photographs are worthy of further investigation and analysis instead of taking the easy route and brushing them off as simple long exposure effects of a conventional aircraft flying by. To me, that's a cop out -- no offense in attended...

None taken.

Analyze it until your eyes pop, if you must. I have learned that if I commit to the overt analysis of any given thing when reasonable explanations have been provided, I end up taking a chance in seeing things that arent there or thinking things that are irrelevent. So instead of speculating wildly to no good end I tend to tentatively accept the most probable over the extraordinary, then, if new data arises I will see if it merits a change in my opinion.

I dont know if you havent noticed this, though, but you seem to have been doing a good amount of "brushing off" in this thread yourself, so dont start throwing stones now...

BTW, I dont know how you quantify what is a "long exposure" but 2.5 to 4 seconds in the world of photography is a lifetime where the norm of exposures is 1/125 sec. or better.

Sometimes a thing is exactly what a thing is. Very boring and blah, yes, and no POW or WOW to it but I would venture most of the time it is true. Such is life, *sigh*.

Anyway, personally putting this one to bed, again...I guess until someone wakes it up again. Hopefully there will be some new data next time.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Lost_Mind]

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:22 PM
After having reviewed the pictures and read the text, it's very safe to say this guy is full of fecal matter. Anyone who takes photographs which later mysteriously turn up "hidden" UFOS is due for a slightly higher level of suspicion. This guy falls into that category. Let's quickly examine one of his contentions...

"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"

Okay, stop and think about this for a second. It's night-time. It's after 11:00pm and it's pitch-black out. This weird, lighted craft is hovering in the sky, and its huge reflection lights up the water below it, but only the camera was able to pick anything up? He was pretty good at framing this craft that he didn't even see, wasn't he? Is he a psychic photographer? I guess so.

So, the human eye couldn't see this. He saw no craft at the time, but also missed the reflection on the water? How can the human eye miss the reflection on the water? Was the reflection only cast for the benefit of those on the scene with a Nikon D80? Did the aliens not only cloak their craft for him but also the reflection on the water? Those dudes are good.

Give me a large break. He's a stinking liar and this is as fake as WMD in Iraq.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 02:53 PM
I am hard-pressed to accept any photo that just "happens" to capture a UFO. This seems to be the favorite out these days for photographers who are a little unsure about going on the record with their pics. They just say they didn't see a thing at the time they took the photos and they think that somehow absolves them of responsibility.

As a previous poster pointed out - the photographer insists he saw nothing unusual at the time the photos were taken. Yet it is obvious that there is a dramatic, moving light reflection on the water. If you saw this and yet didn't see the light source itself, wouldn't you consider that the least bit unusual?

Man, where is Paul Trent when we need him?


posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:07 PM
To me it's just another picture that goes in the stack of all the other pictures of ufo's yet to be proven as anything but a picture? These pictures here are copyrighted and no one is able to view the raw data that is available. To me that sounds like hiding important evidence that is crucial to proving the picture legit or not. And when I see thousand of other pictures that look the same as the OP's shown here, it makes this case even easier to assume it's an " indentified flying object" made to look like an "unidentified flying object". I have to say that it's a cool picture and to anyone that doesn't know about time exposure " like me " I could be fooled. But thanks to all the members here that do, and they show more evidence than the picture itself then I'm convinced that it's nothing more than a time exposed pictures of a plane or helicopter.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 05:17 PM
I think they are fakes, the d-80 can not focus at night fast enough to have taken that many shots in 30 seconds.. .first off... he says that he did not see it when he took the shot?! then there's no way that the camera auto-focus did either!

The UFO looks to me like reflections of a fluorescent light fixture in a window.

Just my opinion.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:19 PM
I just sent an email to Tom Bauerle, the radio disc jockey from Buffalo's radio station WBEN 930 asking him if he could have someone on his staff notify the photographer of those UFO photo's that he interviewed on his radio program (The Tom Bauerle Show -- ) -- that there's a discussion going on right now on this board about those photo's.

I also invited Mr. Beaerle to pop in here sometime to share with us his own views on those photographs too.

So hopefully I will receive a reply back from him where maybe we can eventually have access also to the uncompressed photographs of that object flying over SF bay.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Palasheea]

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 06:41 PM
I got to go with the copter thought, above is the faa's requierment on anti collision lighting per F.A.R 23.1401, the cycle rate must be more than 40 cycles per minute but less than 100,someone on here might be able to work out the expouser rate from this info(the maths above me ).also the
long white light along the bottom of the craft has a distinct "jog" in it towards the front like the craft moved left or right during the long llision_lighting_spec.htm.

again just my thoughts,most likly a air med or coast gaurd chopper.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:07 PM
sorry just anthor quick thought;high intensity strobe lighting for both the red"anti-collision lights and the white position lights are far more common on aircraft today than a few years ago, so the red lights not streaking could be from H.I.S.L and not from the older "bulb"type lights, i think the strobes would not streak as much as the are on and off so fast compared to the rotating always on bulb type.also copters dont have the red/green right /left wing tip positon lights(non strobing/non flashing) they have no fixed wings.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by Palasheea

Looks like the real thing or a light bulb through glass. Either way, looks real due to no light residue. Great find

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:17 PM
Those are interesting photo's Gorman and I'm glad you think so too!

Here's the embossed version of one of the photo's.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Palasheea]

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:49 PM
am i on everyone's ignore list?
is anyone reading my posts?

the guy who was there with the photographer already called in to explain the anomaly by admitting that he seen a helicopter in the sky prior to the photographs being taken.

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:07 PM
I mean no disrespect. I do believe in UFO's. I have been researching them since I was a teenager. I am almost 39 now. This photo is a fake!!! There is no reflection of it in the water below. If you notice the light that is coming off the bottom of the craft it should have the reflection of the light on the surface of the water. Nice try though. The people who fake them are doing the whole field a diservice.

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 11:19 AM
You've got a good point there Madcow!

There should be some kind of reflection on the water and thanks for bringing that up!!

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 04:57 PM
I have been off for a couple days, and seeing this thread has played itself out for the most part I wanted to give my final comments.

Because we never got the IPTC core for the image, the discussion was never going to end.

I want my friends here to see how great this process is and why this offers such good discussion. We have many sharp people here and each with a database of experience and it seems links and imagery to support theory's.

My one concern is that we educate the group some who might treat the site as more chat than it really deserves. We have a chance to really break down some investigations MUFON would be hard pressed to do, with or without the required PhD. This was a good thread and educational for ourselves (I know I learned something) and those just interested. The biggest hurtle in UFO investigation being taken seriously is our understanding of it. We did good here

On my final evaluation, re-reading the string, is that this was most likely a Helicopter traveling fast enough to allow for the time-stretched shape while allowing a short enough exposure to define detail in the water.

Also, the lights that Interos showed moved in configuration, but one red solid between the upper and lower area remained solid. This is consistent with the FAA requirements (see diagram I posted). The underside of an aircraft has a non-strobing red light that would produce a single red line. The other strobing lights would be as the images show.

The fact that the photographer by his own account said that he was tired after the long trip and in such a state of consciousness might easily not notice an aircraft in his environment as this is a common and frequent sight for anyone in a large metro area. So it did not register when the photo was taken as he saw only a normal blinking light and did not know the camera was recording a slice of time in exposure. It likely was what the group was saying then. A helicopter (aircraft of terrestrial origin).

My final concern is to educate some not really thinking about their terms used here. Let me just list with their meaning.

Hoax= A deliberate misrepresentation with ulterior motive. (I don't think the person knew he was mistaken, so no hoax.)
Mirage= The physics have not been discussed, but do not support that.
Fake=Deliberate fabrication or duplicate of an original. (I don't think this was faked. Just misidentification.)

LoneWeasel was the second post, and nailed it I think. What we discovered in process however shows us the value of a good think on these discussions. and thanks to Palasheea for posting this.

We can do some good stuff here. It is an important area of study, and it looks like the so-called government won't be helping anytime soon, so it is up to us. I think we show good signs of having some impact toward some important research on these and encourage others to keep up the great work here. All great folks.

Now to another good UFO post


[edit on 11/17/2007 by ZeroGhost]

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 05:07 PM
It's an aircraft on long exposure. The red dots are most likely the blinking lights on the aircraft. I cannot see how this is a UFO.

- Naz

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 04:51 AM
After reading the article and looking at the pics, Ifeel there is a problem effecting the authenticity of the shots.

Not seeing the ufo at the time of exposure is not that surprising in many OTHER cases as the shutter speed setting is allowing the capture of the moving image the naked eye can't. Usually when the object is moving directly toward or away from the photographer at high speed.

But multi-shots of the same object at the same time does not allow for multiple shutter speed captures unless the object's stationary and if stationary then it would have been seen. The article interview seemed honest enough, but the multiple-photos don't support the object not being seen in this case, I feel.


posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 04:56 AM
Just a thought,
Has anyone contacted Air Traffic Control for the Bay Area?
It is a bit expensive to phone them from New Zealand.

We should have the date and time of the sighting, what traffic was in the area at the time, planes or helicopters, search and rescue, coastguard, military.

What ever it was it was certainly low for a commercial aircraft.
Is that place on the flight patch/approach to the SF airport?

Just something to ponder!

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in