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.

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.

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]

Originally posted by punto
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.

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

And it has a couple of other attributes

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.