Ufo over cornwall

Hi This is my first post dont know how u Put in a link but in the national newspaper, the sun and on there website is one of the best ever taken photos

www.thesun.co.uk...

Sorry to say but methinks that's another out-of-focus seagull. The story says the experts are calling it the best ufo pic ever taken in Britain??? These stories get on my nerves. And I think Nick Pope needs new glasses.

Though I might be wrong...

Thanks for posting though, it should start a lively debate. Happy New Year to you.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by wigit]

yeah, that was my first thought to when i saw it, as the guy that took it did nt see it at the time.

Wow good find! The picture is nice and clear (in a sense)! There are many stories that go like that … taking a picture of nature or at a certain view and there it is! A UFO! If he didn’t see it does it me that the ufos have some sort of clocking devises? How come when a picture is snapped do the ufos show up?

Here's one I took, I think it's kind of similar.

reply to post by wigit

---

Thank you for that image wigit, that has helped me put the Cornwall image in better perspective.

In your image I would say the bird is flying left to right and the same goes for the Cornwall one.

Good lord, another internos avatar he is rapidly becoming a one stop shop around here

I really have the idea that you haven't read anything on the subject. You should investigate first before talking about seagulls or new glasses.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This will not come as a surprise for those that already know me, but here goes:

I think it's just a sea bird.

People that are supposed to study UFO photos should learn first how the Identified Flying Objects can look in the various situations in which they may appear in photos.

Only after not being able of identifying an object should they call it Unidentified, but if that person is not knowledgeable enough to identify common objects then he/she should not be considered a UFO specialist.

The expert urologists say it is the best proof yet (Nick Pope & Michael Soper shame on you!).

I think they are taking the p*ss.

Clearly a bird.

One good thing to come out of this is that at least The Sun gave it top story coverage.

[edit on 1/1/2008 by skibtz]

would be a pretty damn seagull that big at 2 miles away, compare it to the size of the ship, that isnt a seagull.

reply to post by Timewavezer0

---

And how do you know the distance between the seagull and the camera?

To know the distance of anything without any external reference and using only one point of view you have to know its size, and to know the size you have to know the distance, it is impossible to know both without more information.

Just by looking at the photo is impossible to know the size and/or the distance at which the seagull was, in the same way that it is impossible to know the size and distance of the ships.

[edit on 1/1/2008 by ArMaP]

says 2 mi, about in the news bit , but you are right, there just going by his word. But just saying that seagull would have to be pretty big.


I have this looming feeling that something is going to show up ,its a gut thing i can feel it. I live in the poconos in pennsylvania and everynight its amazing skies, if you want to see some ufo pictures i can start tonight if its not cloudy.

I hate it when they always say, 'This proves that we are NOT alone'. Who says this can't be manmade?

Heck, by the looks of it, people here are claiming it to be a bird, I am leaning towards that too, but what seems odd, is the distance and the humpback; Wigit, thats a nice picture that could clearly solve many UFO pictures out there, but not this one.

This one, taking account if it is 2 miles away,(if it would be a bird) it wouldn't be blurry, you would see it move along really slowly. And he said that he didn't see it while he was actualy taking the picture. It wouldn't be that detailed, or that big. And about the humbback, with the motion blurr, we can state that the 'UFO' is coming from the left towards the right. Now if this was a bird, for it to have that sort of humpback, it would to be diving, or in a downward motion, but it isn't.

Anyway, my point is I don,t think it's a bird, taking in account the story, the size, the distance, the blurrines, and the shape.

-Jimmy-

The Sun makes lots of claims.....personaly the only things I believe it publishes that even reseambles fact are:
A) Tv listings.
B) The date.

I didnt see a thing in the "more respected" newspapers. The guy didnt see a UFO when he took the photo, but there might have been a few sea-birds flying about and when you are on the coast you dont even notice them.

sorry mate.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by punto]

reply to post by Jimmy910130

---

The "humpback", you so expertly cite as proof this isn't a bird, is it's other wing.

C'mon people, I'm a a believer in UFO's, but I'm not an idiot. This is a bird, quite clearly, and not for the first time.

If you look properly at the picture, you can see the tail, the two wings, the head, beak and a black streak on the belly of the bird.

See this pic of a bird, it is flying in the same manner:

image source: http://209.85.64.50/wallpaper/previews/00778_seagull.jpg

reply to post by Timewavezer0

---

They guy didnt even know the seagull was there until he saw the photo. How would he know how far away it was?

Trust me. I am waiting for the 'Big One' but this aint it.

It is a bird and Nick Pope and Michael Soper need to justify having this story splashed over The Sun just days after the photograph was taken.

These guys are a joke and are harming Ufology.

Unless The Sun misrepresented/misquoted them

Aww. C'mon. The Sun is excellent for the footie.

And it has a couple of other attributes

reply to post by Jimmy910130

---

Forget the 2 miles, its impossible to know at what distance the UFO/seagull was.

If the ships were 2 miles away does that mean the branches that we can also see on the photo are 2 miles away? It doesn't, and we know because we recognise the branches as such and use our knowledge of what a branch looks like and its size to mentally adjust the information given by the photo.

In the same way, the fact that the ships may be 2 miles away does not mean that anything in the photo must be closer than 2 miles, the horizon is farther away than that.

PS: I don't know if the ships are 2 miles away, but I think that the idea for a distance came from the distance at which the ships were at the time.

Oh, for the love...

Seagull. Anybody NOT seeing that is too far gone to bring back to reality.

Thanks for posting this, clio03. I needed a good laugh.

I just had a thought that might shed some light on this "Not seeing it when I took the photo," statement.

He's using a digital SLR of some kind and sees the shot through an ordinary eye piece, not through the electronics of the camera.

If the ship or any object at that matter is cloaked in the IR spectrum, one would not "see it" at all with their eyes through the optics.

However, the CCD would.

Try this experiment at home with your TV remote and your cell phone camera. Point the remote at your face from a safe distance. Then put your cell phone camera in the way of the beam. See the blinking white light? The CCD in your cell phone nativly picks up the IR light coming out of your TV remote that your eyes naturally cannot see.