Best UFO triangle photos I have seen

reply to post by sherpa


Hi Sherpa.

I have to admit that we noticed no disturbance around the craft,and certainly none at ground level as we were standing directly beneath it(and when i say directly,i mean directly!) We had to crane our necks right back to see it.

We watched it for a good couple of minutes,but as i said before it was the absolute silence from this object,just hovering there that eventually got to us.It was a typical winter morning,crisp and cold and on a country backroad where we encountered no other traffic .Also there were no street lights on that road,so we had a real good view of it.

We both just got the feeling that what we were seeing was "just not right"
and thats when we decided to get going.

Both myself and the person who saw this are both rational people,but as soon as we stopped the car and got out we knew this was no normal aircraft.

reply to post by internos


Hi Internos.

This is almost exactly the same craft that i saw, (meaning the belgian triangle) but there was no light in the middle,just a light at each corner.

My sighting occured possibly late'98,early '99.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by scobro]

SOOO,

These photos were taken through a TELESCOPE,

BS


I DARE ANYONE TO TAKE 5 SEQUENTIAL SHOTS OF ANY ORDINARY AIRCRAFT THROUGH A TELESCOPE.


The field of view is far too narrow to be able to track a small moving object through a telescope. And track it manually on a tripod with the shot being taken in the vertical.

It's BS

It does seem a little strange to me that there seems to be a vertical to horizontal maneuver in these photographs when in the statement it says that lots of photographs were taken but these were the best as the others were blurry.

I would think there would be a clear shot here and there rather than a straight sequence and the rest blurry.

reply to post by punkinworks


For what purpose?
What would it change?

What is difficult with these photos are that, we have no idea on the altitude or the speed of it.

As usual we really dont know anything to make any sort of judgement.
The lack of high-res pictures and other information makes these pics not very credible.

Even if we had high-res, other information, it would not change very much.
It could be anything from swampgas to venus.... or both

Sherpa,

Have you received any follow-up emails from the site yet? I think this is pretty much a dead end without more info. Would be great to contact the photographer and invite him to this thread.

Originally posted by sherpa
So does this mean you have changed your mind - - -

I haven't really decided what I think. The various points that come up is akin to thinking aloud. Your view changes as things evolve I guess.

WG3

reply to post by punkinworks


This has kinda' been my opinion on these images. Can the focal length of a telescope even be shortened enough to resolve an object of that size? That close? And I seriously doubt the legitimacy of being able to track it well enough to get shots this clear.....it would be like trying to draw a bead on a butterfly with a rifle scope.

reply to post by Balez


Hey Im glad we all have high res cameras laying around. I love the people who say oh man blurry picture or man why couldnt we get a high res picture oh yeah what a poor picture must not be real. We all dont have $1000 cameras lying around the house sometimes you have to use a cell phone or a cheap $200 camera to get the pic.

The fact is sometimes when you see it you dont have much time to get the pic so you have to use what is lying around IE cell phone or what not. Its not like the UFO is going to say here earthling go get a high res camera and Ill chill here till u get back to get me a good photo. Not meaning to pick on you but I see the same crap in all the threads talking about photo quality. If someone on this thread wants to buy every person on this nation a $1000 camera and then mabey we will get some good images.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Do CCD cameras even produce EXIF data? I've never used one, so I have no idea. Anyone know? waveguide?

EXIF is a digital image file format (Exhangeable Image File) used by digital (CCD) cameras.

WG3

Have some of you who question how a telescope could do this even used a telescope before?

You're right, it's hard as hell to keep something in view, even the moon with a cheap telescope. But with a good one it wouldn't be that hard. If it's a nice stable tripod with fine adjustments, it'd be almost easy.

You're wrong in wondering if a telescope could even get a clear picture 'that close.'

For one thing, you don't know how far or close that is. For two, you can look in your neighbors window and watch their television if you wanted to, just depends if you're using a 3x lens or 100x. You won't get much with the 100x.

Originally posted by punkinworks
The field of view is far too narrow to be able to track a small moving object through a telescope. And track it manually on a tripod with the shot being taken in the vertical.

It's BS

Difficult but not impossible. The field of view depends on the magnification factor and the diameter of the telescope optics. Lots of amateurs take photos of the ISS for example, as it streaks across the sky. Many track it by hand, using only the camera image as a guide, so it is possible to take sequential images of aircraft. The vertical telescope problem is usually fixed by fitting an eyepiece diagonal. It prevents you breaking your neck trying to look at anything overhead.

WG3

Originally posted by Sovereign797
For one thing, you don't know how far or close that is. For two, you can look in your neighbors window and watch their television if you wanted to, just depends if you're using a 3x lens or 100x. You won't get much with the 100x.

I guess you're a fellow astronomer. The usual method of attaching a CCD still or video camera to the telescope is to use the prime focus method. This means you remove the camera lens completely and fix it to the scope using an adapter where the eyepiece usually goes. So there's no eyepiece either. Unless someone has invested thousands of dollars in their focussing system, it's not possible to use a zoom system with a telescope. This is another reason why we can discount the F.A.S.T videos as fakes. The primary image created by the scope's optics is focussed directly onto the CCD chip by moving the whole camera in/out with the focusser knob.

The size of the image on the chip depends on the focal length of the scope's primary lens/mirror. The longer the scope's focal length, the larger the primary image. Typical cameras give a magnification equivalent to using a visual eyepiece of 5 to 10mm focal length. That's quite 'powerful'. The amount of detail you get in the image (the resolution) is controlled only by the scope's lens/mirror diameter. It has nothiing to do with the camera's optics, CCD size etc. Obviously a large megapixel chip is better at recording the fine detail transmitted by the scope than is a smaller/cheaper one.

WG3

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by Balez

 

Hey Im glad we all have high res cameras laying around. I love the people who say oh man blurry picture or man why couldnt we get a high res picture oh yeah what a poor picture must not be real. We all dont have $1000 cameras lying around the house sometimes you have to use a cell phone or a cheap $200 camera to get the pic.

I consider high-resolution to be well above 1mpix.
Acording to the story this fellow here who took these pics had canabalized a cheap digital camera, today you can get a cheap digital camera with atleast 4mpix 3x optical zoom for $100.
Add a few hundred on that and you can get a really good camera.

The fact is sometimes when you see it you dont have much time to get the pic so you have to use what is lying around IE cell phone or what not. Its not like the UFO is going to say here earthling go get a high res camera and Ill chill here till u get back to get me a good photo. Not meaning to pick on you but I see the same crap in all the threads talking about photo quality. If someone on this thread wants to buy every person on this nation a $1000 camera and then mabey we will get some good images.

This was imaged with a telescope and a mounted digital cam used as ccd.

I dont know how this works.
I dont know what the optical resolution will be in this configuration.
But as the images we have is not in very good resolution, as i have said earlier it is difficult to do any enhancements, on them.

As i have said, the object in the pictures have very rounded contours, i doubt this is man-made if it is a object on a high altitude.

reply to post by scobro


Thanks scobro,

It's great to have direct contact with someone who has actually seen one of these things, and as close as you did.

I bet you wish you had a camera with you at the time, better still a video camera, that would have made for some great footage.


[edit on 2-3-2008 by sherpa]

Originally posted by The_Modulus
Sherpa,

Have you received any follow-up emails from the site yet? I think this is pretty much a dead end without more info. Would be great to contact the photographer and invite him to this thread.

No I have not recieved a reply to my email. maybe they only work weekdays I don't know.

I live in hope though that they will be kind enough to oblige me with an answer, rest assured if and when I do I will post any information I recieve.

wow. the OP photos are amazing.
these do look authentic, whether it's terrestrial or extraterrestrial craft, the photos feel real.
starred and flagged.
thanks for all the additional informative posts as well guys. amazing round up.

reply to post by waveguide3


I wish people would use the correct terminology... "CCD camera" implies a camera designed for astro photography such as an "SBIG" (which, as far as I know, at least for the most part do not write EXIF data to image files). Obviously, a common "point & shoot" digital camera usually has the ability to create EXIF data.

I had to go back and check what the photographer said about his camera, and it's clear after doing so that this was a typical "point & shoot" type camera, and not a "CCD camera". Partly my fault for not remembering this from the original post I guess...

Anyway, the upshot of this is that there should be EXIF data, if it was an original photo, but the data has almost certainly been striped from the file when it was edited.

BTW waveguide - not all digital cameras use CCDs as you implied in you post. Let's not spread falsehoods here...

I guess that the photographer simply stated :
"I had purchased a cheap digital camera and had cannibalized it to make an inexpensive CCD imaging system for my telescope. "
Now, what does it mean? Did he simply removed ther CCD sensor in order to put it in another, completely hand-made, apparatus, or did he used camera+telescope? These would be two very different scenarios, relatively to these darn exif data that we're talking about.
Since almost all the Digital Cameras (no matter if equipped with CCD or CMOS image sensor) do output exif data, if he leaved unaltered the camera, then EXIF data should be almost all available. But i guess that it didn't happen so: imho he simply removed the CCD sensor in order to put it in an already existing device, pheraps built personnaly by him: but i'm not sure, of course.
The data HAS been altered anyway, no matter the purpose (cropping, resizing, inserting watermark, etc...).

Star+Flag for OP.
Although I can't decide whether this is real or not. Are these images posted in a time segment going from A. to be. then to C? or is it jumbled up? Because if they were posted in a segment and if there is a reply to the one who took the pictures then I think we might (Keyword - Might) be able to tell exactly how it moves. Going down the list of pictures if they were posted in a time sequence from A down to b. Then looking at the last photo it appears to have turned away/around.

Not advicting its a UFO controlled by greys, just asking a question and thinking out loud for the time being. Nonetheless they are still interesting pictures to see, just wish we had something we could reference them to.