Flying saucer spotted over Portsmouth, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 23 times

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 03:43 PM by avriel

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Wow, thats an awesome picture, so very clear

The only problem I have with it, is whether or not it would be that visible within the fog. I guess it depends on what height the fog was at on the night. Anyone able to dig up the weather observations for portsmouth on that date?

That's not fog it's sand there may be fog mixed with it. But it just looks so much like sand. I know it's the this is a foggy part of the world..I've just never seen yellow fog. And it's easier to see in the sand because sand reflects more light...Unfortunately you get sand in your eyes.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by projectvxn]

This area of Portsmouth has yellow/orange street lighting so the fog would show up as orange. I will take a look at the view from this area tomorrow on the way to work. I am sure that this picture was taken facing towards the Spinnaker tower. If this is the case then what could be seen is the aircraft warning light on the top of the tower. If I can I will attempt to get a picture in daylight facing the same direction

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 03:43 PM by avriel

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Wow, thats an awesome picture, so very clear

The only problem I have with it, is whether or not it would be that visible within the fog. I guess it depends on what height the fog was at on the night. Anyone able to dig up the weather observations for portsmouth on that date?

That's not fog it's sand there may be fog mixed with it. But it just looks so much like sand. I know it's the this is a foggy part of the world..I've just never seen yellow fog. And it's easier to see in the sand because sand reflects more light...Unfortunately you get sand in your eyes.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by projectvxn]

oops sorry double post

[edit on 12-2-2008 by avriel]

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 03:57 PM by wintercb1

It has been extremely foggy over the U.K recently, I have woken up the previous two mornings, and not been able 2 see more than a foot or so out of my window! Can't call hoax yet, but wow if its real and that clear, good find O.P!

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:00 PM by Areal51

...

[edit on 12-2-2008 by Areal51]

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:02 PM by Areal51

reply to post by dshut69

You're only partially right. It's generally true that street lamps shine the light downward toward the street. However, what I spoke of was light from the street lamps being reflected upward.

In the photo there is light from the street lamps that is being reflected upward toward the unidentified flying object (UFO) from at least three different things. First -- there is light that is being reflected upward from the road surface of the parking lot. Second -- there is light being reflected in many different directions - including upward - from from the droplets of water in the air, the moisture, that constitutes the fog. Third -- above the parking lot, the sky itself is aglow with the light from the street lamps below, and that light, too, is being reflected onto the underside of the UFO.

Many light sources, i.e. the street lamps, plus two single reflective mediums, the road surface of the parking lot and the sky, plus the fog which really represents countless reflective mediums, i.e. the individual tiny droplets of water, equals greater light dispersal than the original light sources (street lamps) would be capable of.

It's okay that you do not believe that the photo depicts a true event, but you shouldn't condescend about wasting time and fakery. The person who posted the OP is not only communicating with you. Others appreciate the effort, for whatever reasons. Also, your analysis is only a response to what I said, which is not the same as analyzing the photo itself. You cannot dismiss the evidence based solely on what someone else has said. You have to deal with the evidence itself.

Anyway, try two things. First, find a shopping mall or major highway and drive 2-5 miles in any direction away from it. If you remain level with with either location, or climb to a higher elevation, you will still see the light being reflected in the sky from the street lamps below. The sky will glow providing you with the approximate direction to either location. That phenomenon is called skyglow, and it is commonly used to refer to light pollution. Second, take a few digital photographs in poor light settings, resulting from low natural light or incorrect camera settings, and the resulting photos will result in the same orange tint/coloration that the photo from the OP depicts. I personally have taken digital photos in poor light settings, and some of them turn out orange just like the photo in the OP.

Here is someone having the same orange photo problem addressed: photo.net...

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:24 PM by avriel

OK I have found an image that I took from the top of a multi storey car park that overlooks where this photograph was taken. The photograph is taken facing the same direction as the OP image of the UFO. the trees or bushes on the left of the original image are just out of shot to the bottom left of the my image. Looking at the original image I think I was wrong to say that it is facing the Spinnaker tower. If the bushes are on the left of the image then the picture was taken facing North East. An important point is that we drive on the left here in the UK, and the road on the left of the car park is a dual carriage way with a central barrier seperating the two directions of traffic (You can see it slightly at the top left of my image) Therefore if the person taking the image was travelling South west he must have pulled into the car park and then turned 180 degrees around before taking the photograph. If he was traveling North East then he had to travel up the road, go around the roundabout, travel back down the road and into the car park before turning 180 degrees and taking the photograph. Either way it took a little more effore than just pulling into the car park, it must have been a pre-meditated action.
Here is the image I took as mentioned

I, as promised in my last post, attempt tomorrow to get an image from roughly the same place as the original image in daylight.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:37 PM by Nohup

Originally posted by Nailer
If someone had video and picture proof of a UFO that was clear as day and witnessed by a large number of people , there would be some jerk saying "its all fake" because they believe we are the only life form within a Billion miles.

Well, it's not just that, you know. But it's just an image. I don't know if it's fake or not, but even if it's real, bright and clear as anything, what does it mean? Does it prove anything other than there may have been something odd in the air that night? Nope.

I think we all agree that there are UFOs. And we have some pretty good photos of them. A lot better than this one, actually. You can take this particular photo and run wild with it an say it's proof of extraterrestrials visiting us from other planets if you want. But there's nothing to clearly indicate that.

It's a puzzling image, but that's all it is. It's not proof of anything. It's just a curiosity. End of story.

If you could just step back a little bit and not get so wound up about people being skeptical, you might be able to see where the real debate is. It's not about the images -- although you have to admit there are a lot of hoaxes around. It's about the proof and explanations always (always) dead-ending before we get any answers.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by Nohup]

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:50 PM by Becker44

reply to post by Nohup

You can take this particular photo and run wild with it an say it's proof of extraterrestrials visiting us from other planets if you want. But there's nothing to clearly indicate that.

This is one of the single greatest lines written on ATS.

I'm a true believer in craft not of our own visiting and perhaps interacting on our planet. Nohup does a remarkably logical job of explaining the radical believers most difficult task.

It's akin to a debate about the existense of God. The devoutly faithful are faced with the same dilema from atheists.

Personally I think a "still shot" is never going to do it. Believe me some of the best graphics people in the world have tried their darndest.

Video and witnesses will end the debate once and for all. I've got a good 40 years left and I'm hoping for the truth.

Star for the old codger Nohup! lol

Becker

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 04:56 PM by Areal51

reply to post by Nohup

The other thing is that we are always limited by the natural fact of most people not being present at most UFO encounters. There were a lot of people in attendance at the Super Bowl, and many more watched it on TV, but I take it on faith that the Super Bowl actually happened. I was not there and I didn't see it on TV, I only read a news report. I suppose if I wanted proof I could watch a replay of the game, or the NY Giants could show me the Vince Lombardi trophy, other than that, I'm take it at face value that it actually happened.

My point is that when you witness a UFO there is no proof to show anybody later. Even a photo only counts as evidence. Even if an alien spacecraft were to take someone on a tour of the solar system, allowed them to record close encounters with Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, even the Sun, I'd bet that hardly anyone would believe that the footage was real once that person showed it upon return. Those of us who have had an encounter with a UFO know that it is a pity that many more folks were not around to witness it. With the exception of a few credible mass sightings, most folks are generally left in the dark.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 05:05 PM by Nohup

Originally posted by Becker44
Personally I think a "still shot" is never going to do it. Believe me some of the best graphics people in the world have tried their darndest.

Many times I've outlined what it would take for a complete proof I would go for. It's not difficult, really. It's the same proof that I would convince me that anything with a certain degree of uncertainty exists.

* Multiple photos/videos from different witnesses at different places and times -- NONE of them anonymous.
* Physical evidence that is directly tied to the images. Alien tech would be good, a live alien would be best.
* Agreement by all experts doing an analysis of the above that it's E.T.
* Confirmation of the experts by government and university folks. Including the most die hard skeptics. (If Michael Shermer and Penn and Teller okay it, I'm pretty much sold.)
* The opportunity - if I really wanted - to actually go touch the thing/evidence with my very own fingers.

That's not too much to ask, is it? I mean, we're not talking about trying to prove somebody has a glass of beer somewhere. This stuff is uncommon. Outside the box. My mind is open. All I need is something a little better than a photo - no matter how clear - for actual proof.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 05:43 PM by Blaine91555

This histogram means the photo was filtered at 100% with luminosity preserved; either in the camera or in post work. The lack of noise in the photo in general means a high end camera and that it was processed while in an uncompressed raw format. Since the light source is the top of the object; I'm surprised to see the bottom of the object so clearly illuminated. It could mean the bottom of the object is at least partly transparent or translucent. When I sharpen to the point of ridiculous it shows a grid pattern like that of a light diffuser. A good guess would be it was shot out the front window of a car and the object is a reflection of the cabin light in the vehicle with the diffuser giving it that appearance.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 05:49 PM by Nohup

Originally posted by Blaine91555
A good guess would be it was shot out the front window of a car and the object is a reflection of the cabin light in the vehicle with the diffuser giving it that appearance.

Ooh. I was going to suggest a possible reflection, maybe in glass. There aren't enough of them to indicate they were reflections of the parking lot lights, but through a window, a single light behind the photographer might just do the trick. Maybe. I don't suppose the photographer could provide us a photo of his overhead dome light? That could be "illuminating."

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 06:04 PM by danny-arclight

Originally posted by dshut69
Street lights illuminate downwards, not upwards - allowing light to escape upwards is inefficient, theres no need for it.

Therefore I suspect this is a fake & the artistic addition of a UFO with the same colouration as the street lamps gives it away for me.

Please could the original poster admit it so we can stop wasting time with fake pictures & spend our time on useful anomalies.

Hi, hope I have quoted the right person, and you find this post helpful - the picture was originally published in the Portsmouth News (UK) you can see a copy of the article here: Portsmouth Evening News - this was published on: 12/02/08 (and also the Mail on Sunday - a UK-wide tabloid paper) - so the photographer, unless it is the guy who took the photo - is not to blame for the picture being posted on this forum itself.

As for sand, which someone else alluded to in a different post - we are sadly lacking in sand here in Portsmouth UK (although a little is creeping through as the sea erodes the shoreline).

Also, in response to another post - it has been foggy in this part of the world recently, although whether the weather was foggy on this day, i cant be certain.

In response to another post above, apparently there were sighting of UFOs on the Isle of Wight recently (about 1 1/2 miles off the coast of Portsmouth) according to the article.

Finally, Portsmouth went through a spate of UFO sightings a few years back.

Background to Portsmouth: Portsmouth is a naval town with a lot of naval activity and RAF activity in the area, with visiting nuclear powered ships, submarines and other naval vehicles also - it is covered with undoubtedly sophisiticated radar equipment and as well as military bases in various parts of the city, including the naval base to the west of this location, and the 'listening station' on the hill overlooking the city (Portsdown Hill), to the direct north of the location - not that this is any significance, Im sure.

While I would like to think the photo is real, and its very interesting (although Im no expert at picking a fake!) there are inevitably other factors involved in things like this as always.

Dan (a Pompey resident).

PS personally, I have to admit that I think the guy may have thought the location looked like something out of 'close encounters of the 3rd kind' and though he would doctor the photo to put the UFO in - then realised it was so good he would have everyone going - although I would love to believe it was real.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by danny-arclight]

[edit on 12-2-2008 by danny-arclight]

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 06:24 PM by Areal51

The link at the Daily Mail has been killed. Did anybody save the story to their hard drive? Here's a blog reporting on the same story: mostimpartial.blogspot.com...

A photographer who stopped on a whim to take some pictures at night might have chanced upon a real UFO.Cynics will dismiss the orange-tinged image showing what appears to be a flying saucer as some kind of technical wizardry to trick of the light.But experts are already saying it could really show a UFO in flight above the UK.

Hab Rahman, a keen photographer, was stunned to see the image in the background when he looked again at some pictures he had taken at night.The 28-year-old, from Portsmouth, Hants, was driving home from work through thick fog when he decided to stop and get some snaps of the eerie setting.He pulled up and went to take the shots from a car park near Commercial Road, Portsmouth, just after midnight.It was not until he got home and transferred the shots onto his computer that he spotted the mysterious glowing object.Mr Rahman said: "I didn't spot anything when I took the picture but then later on when I looked a bit closer and zoomed in, there it was.
"I've never really believed in UFOs but this is a bit weird and quite freaky.
"I'm not really sure what to make of it but I can't think what else it could be."

Hilary Porter, from the British Earth and Aerial Mysteries Society (BEAMS), believes this sighting could be the real thing.She said: "It would be very difficult to fake that photo and the UFO is at a tilt, which is the way they normally fly."You don't normally see that sort of UFO over this country, we generally get orange orbs, so the photographer who got this photo has got quite a coup."

The Ministry of Defence would not comment on individual sightings and said they could not check if there were any aircrafts in the vicinity at the time.An MoD spokesperson said: "The MoD examines reports solely to establish whether UK airspace may have been compromised by hostile or unauthorised military activity."Unless there is evidence of a potential threat, there is no attempt to identify the nature of each sighting reported."

mostimpartial.blogspot.com...

If I remember correctly, the above quote is directly from the original Daily Mail source. Not 100% sure, though. And the blog fails to source the report. So take it for what it's worth. Google didn't cache the report either.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by Areal51]

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 06:26 PM by purplecoral

Very interesting, and a nice picture, and I am actually feeling a bit odd now that I remember seeing something strange in the Portsmouth sky that night myself. I was coming back from the cinema (having seen cloverfield, so admittedly in a slightly strange mood...) and walking South down Fawcett road, looking down Orchard Road (I think this would mean I was looking to the East) I saw what was clearly NOT a street lamp, but a flat orange-ish light which I at the time dismissed, and I am not sure why. The only thing I thought at the time was "oh, the cloverfield monster has munched most of the moon, it's now just a disc". (So I must have thought it was pretty far away and large in the sky) this around the time of about a quarter past 10 that night.

I know this sounds very unlikely, and I do not know what saw myself, but I was ready to dismiss this "UFO sighting" til I remembered it! Now I wish I had taken a photo!

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 07:10 PM by Irma

Just thought it might add a little for you lot to get your bearings.

Both the direction of the photo and the direction Purplecoral saw 'something' are pretty much the same area of sky.

Come on, do we have two witnesses now?

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 07:52 PM by purplecoral

I would say so, yes! In fact there are three witnesses, cos my boyfriend was with me and I pointed it out and he saw it too. I will ask around if anyone else saw anything....

Also, having looked at the photos at the beginning of the thread.... The first photo does show a shape that looks like what I saw. If, for arguments' sake, the object I could see was a disk, floating in the sky, from where I was looking, it appeared to be flat, rather than the image which shows it to be tilted slightly. Other than that, it corresponds with what I saw. I would be surprised if no one else in Portsmouth saw it though; the town is pretty densely populated, with many students who would have been out and about at this time.

Oh, and I can't speak for the other areas of town, but at the harbour(where the cinema is), and at Fawcett Road, it was not particularly foggy, that I noticed, at the time I was there, although it was very cold. I don't know if this helps at all! I will write again when i've talked to my boyfriend to see what he remembers of the night, as he stayed out longer than me.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 08:42 PM by kleverone

Originally posted by communicator
Mods,

Please invite "jritzmann" our image expert to analyse this picture, which I feel looks very promising...

thanks,
C

I'll u2u him the thread.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 08:59 PM by simon_alex0327

My first thought upon seeing it, is that it resembled other pictures I have seen before and have been found to be an anomaly caused by a diamond iris within the camera.
Seems that Sony likes to use this form of iris and it would be interesting to find out the make of the camera involved.

Well, just my initial thoughts... maybe I'm wrong.

reply posted on 12-2-2008 @ 10:01 PM by AwakenedOne

i have my doubts on this one, based on the
evidence on the pics provided here on ats.

why?

1} what first caught my eye is that the film grain
on img87.imageshack.us...
did not match the grain on the ufo. Upon closer inspection, there is a
slight blurring underneath the UFO which can be describe as a mediocre
retouch. (using either clone stamp, or healing brush tools in photoshop)

2) even better, the image img153.imageshack.us...
clearly shows an uneven pixelation from the ufo to the rest of the image. this can be easily seen by inverting the image in photoshop and blowing it up 200 %

in "actual pixels" the evidence of retouching is none, but if you magnify the amateurish work done on the image, you can see the flaws of bad retouching.. why someone would waste people's time hoaxing people with bad craftmanship is beyond me... sad..

this is just my opinion, feel free to prove me wrong =]

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^