Best Ever UFO Picture ?

reply to post by Badge01


Being a hobbyist of photography I have to disagree. It depends on a number of factors to get motion blur. The main factor is the amount of lighting. As you can see these images were taken in broad daylight.

Do we know how fast the object was moving?

Using the Fuji 100 ASA film, which is equivalent to an ISO of 100 you will need to take pictures in heavy daylight in order to get a good exposure. These pictures meet that criteria.

Most point and shoot 35mm cameras have a shutter speed of 1/100 - 1/200 such as this $15 one.

So the question is, if this was even the slowest shutter speed of 1/100, how much distance was the object traveling in 1/100th of a second?

Well, I don't know where to start, but examples of motion blur abound, it is a real phenomenon and it's not normal for craft flying in the sky to look completely still. If you've looked a pictures where a motion blur is added or removed, it even looks strange to the eye.

Wiki - Motion Blur

...any object moving with respect to the camera will look blurred or smeared along the direction of relative motion. This smearing may occur on an object that is moving or on a static background if the camera is moving.

This means either the camera or the object may be moving. One of the hallmarks of a professional photographer is that he uses a tripod. One of the hallmarks of a beginner is their photos are often blurry. Why do you think that is? Is it the amount of light? It is in a sense in that you look at glints and points of reflected light to measure the -amount- of motion blur. So a completely shaded picture is hard to get a reading.

In the Kennedy assassination they measured it by looking at the glint of sunlight on the door handles, but they could have used any shiny part or small part of the car door, like the keyhole, which was silver metal but not specifically shining or reflecting a glint of light.

In televised sports, where conventional cameras expose pictures 25 or 30 times per second, motion blur can be inconvenient because it obscures the exact position of a projectile or athlete in slow motion. For this reason special cameras are often used which eliminate motion blurring by taking rapid exposures on the order of 1/1000 of a second, and then transmitting them over the course of the next 1/25 or 1/30 of a second. Although this gives sharper slow motion replays it can look strange at normal speed because the eye expects to see motion blurring and does not.

I'm loathe to appeal to authority on this, but I was watching a show recently and the guy doing the video analysis remarked on this same thing and gave the exact same opinion about total absence of discernible motion blur.

So wrt to a series of outdoor, flying object photos, I contend that total absence of motion blur makes the photographs suspect. It appears as though the object is hung from a monofilament line.

Maybe we can get jritzmann in on this. He's the resident image expert.

Thanks for your input. Always good to have a photographer-hobbyist in the discussion.










[edit on 26-3-2008 by Badge01]

Originally posted by VisionQuest
Ritzmann wrote it off as a flying smokeless ashtray, but failed to provide any photographic comparisons. I really don't understand why he would take that approach if he's such a respected member around here.

Is it a UFO? I have no idea. Skeptics get off way too easy these days. We too easily forget that a debunker must also provide proof/evidence to prove something isn't a UFO as well.

I think you should take this screenname for a week and see how "easy" I "get off" when it comes to documenting every photo I'm asked to look at most of which are non internet post shots. Maybe try that 50+ hours of no sleep w/O'Hare...maybe that'd give you a different perspective on how easy I "get off" with providing information on findings. Then I can feed you to the Meierites.

I'm sorry to sound like a jerk, but I really resent some of the comments like this when I'm one guy with a full life as it is, which includes hands on cases that bear much more weight to me as far as examination-time.

This is an old photo, and as I gathered 10 years ago was dismissed as a smokeless ashtray. I never saw an ashtray like it personally (I don't think, it has been a decade or more ago..I seem to recall seeing the photo of the ashtray and going "ahhh"...I wasn't the one who found it though.), but I dismiss it for many other reasons, namely that there is no atmospheric hazing.

It actually reminds one of the Swiss shots, for that reason alone (that and it's a fixed focus camera, again, a Meier similarity (and an oddly convenient one), with very similar results). That lack of haze kills it for me then and there - it's points to a small object close to the camera, and there's no escaping it...I don't really care what it is, I think it's small and relatively close, or it wouldn't appear as absolute black as it does.

The smaller disc entering the bottom, is very much what you'd expect if the small disc was a small model. No hazing, and not perpendicular to the ground or the other object...like it's on a string, and the string mounted off of perfect center (attaching the string to the absolute center isn't easy, especially on the fly before anyone sees you with the model.) I know we cant surmise UFO flight characteristics, but if one is perpendicular I'd hazard a guess the other would too, but who knows. I find it highly suspicious at any rate.

Sorry, too many clues pointing to fakery for me.


[edit on 26-3-2008 by jritzmann]

reply to post by Badge01


Well said and your right, no motion blur does make the photos more suspicious. I think that the appearance of the ufo's doesn't help either. They look like a bad small scale replication of what someone might interpret a ufo to look like. the fact that they seem to be "wobbling" around suggests that they are actually attached to a string like you mentioned.

I was only trying to point out that while it is likely they should have motion blur, it is also possible under the right conditions to not have any.

Has anyone noticed that the portholes on this UFO appear to be be un-uniformed, allmost like they were cut out of cardboard or something.
I'm not saying it's fake, but i do believe UFO's are able to manifest themselves into something which we can comprehend, and our mids fill-in for the things we can't.

reply to post by jritzmann


Hi,

I'm grateful that you could spend the time to add your comments and no, I'm not being sarcastic.

I have no knowledge at all in the area of forensic photography but as a layman I do not understand either the lack of atmospheric hazing or the blackness of the object pointing towards them being a fake.

I know that when many people come to Australia, especially outside the major cities but even in Perth (2 million population) the air quality and complete lack of pollutants or haze is commented on, even more so at the coasts.

As for it being too black, how can that be if it was indeed black ?

I would welcome your further thoughts as to me these pics fall into the category of too good, therefore likely fake, and unless evidence of definite faults can be produced taken at face value they are probably superior to any other pics, the fact there is a series also helping.

reply to post by samureyed


With regard to the wobbling it is one of the more common descriptions of people who have sightings of saucer like UFO's that they have a wobbling motion, often described like a leaf falling.

Therefore any photos that also have that effect would tend to lend credence to their being genuine.

The motion blur stuff to me (admittedly a photographic layman) just doesn't make sense as there is no description of very fast movement from the object so I wouldn't expect there to be any real motion blur ?

The lack of visible atmospheric haze underneath the UFO can be attributed to low sensitivity (100 ASA), low morning light, and low distance. From the clunky general aspect I'd say it looks like a small model.