It's only a UFO (the key word being unidentified - not little green men)because it's such a crappy picture we can't tell what the hell it is. I suggest if it's not a watermark on the lens it's a kite, or a R/C toy.

Better yet, I suggest the picture is a 3rd generation as you can clearly see the vertical scan lines, an artifact of a digital scanner. That means the photo 1st gen was processed on a computer where the object could of been added then it was printed 2nd gen and then scanned (a picture of a picture) and posted 3rd gen.

Why would anyone degrade a picture in that manner? Clearly faked in order to sell the rag. I have better cloud pics that look like UFOs, but they're really clouds - move along.



[edit on 20-10-2008 by verylowfrequency]

It appears to be flying, it's unidentified. So I guess it qualifies as a UFO, but it's a lot less convincing than many photos I've seen.

The resolution isn't sufficient to really make much determination as to what it is. I can see where it would take about ten minutes to come up with something similar in Photoshop or the photo editor of your choice.

I have seen video of a craft near Issaquah, WA, where you could see trees it went by deflect and sway in a very realistic manner, and the craft moved both in front and behind the trees, had hi-lights consistent with lighting, etc.

While modern technology makes it possible to fake even video of that detail, a photo like this would not even be a challenge.

Something like this really requires collaboration to approach interesting.

This same picture is also on the main page of Fox News, although not sure how trustworthy they are either.

Edit- Well, it was for most of this morning, but no longer.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Juston]

Originally posted by Lucidliving
I will put my money on: man-made craft.

Thank you.

Seeing as the UK is just as secretive - if not more so than the US - regarding the UFOs/ETs/Disclosure subject - I would not rule out man-made either.

IF it's not the sun issue - which has been mentioned and is probably a better possibility.

[edit on 10/20/2008 by dhunter]

We'll probably have another 20 pages of people photoshop examining a water drop on a camera lens.

Hint: The Sun is a tabloid.

yall do realize this story is from the same people that ...
broke the lid off the case....of BATBOY!!!!!

Best UFO picture is quite a bold statement.

(Good to know a fellow ATS'er here in Nottingham.)

To be fair and critic regarding the image, It no more defined above any other image floating around the internet.

In the article from The Sun online it states

Yesterday DC Gary Heseltine, 48, said: “It’s a very intriguing photograph that was taken purely by chance.

Which explains the photographing of a UFO was an accident and therefore was not the purpose of the photo...which means she was taking a picture of something else.

Yet the photograph has no landmarks, buildings, scenery that is worthy to take a take a picture of.

The camera is held at 90degrees so the image is longer in height than width - which is something we all do when we wish to take a picture for example a tree, building, person or monument. Which is perfectly understandable. if there was such an "something" in the photograph, of which there isn't.

It is a cityscape at gone twilight - which maybe you would take a picture of, then if that is the case surely you would hold you camera width ways to encompass more of the view...

Further to DC Heseltine comments again posted in the published article online

“If it’s genuine then it could be one of the most convincing pieces of evidence about aliens from the UK ever.”

Aliens from the UK? You just have to smile and giggle amongst yourselves.

To those who are saying "hole in the cloud"...

Look again. It's most definitely not a hole in the cloud. That cloud is way to thick to have holes in it. The light feature to the left of the UFO is obviously a highlight, lining the edge of the cloud. Anybody who knows clouds will tell you holes are never that sharply defined - this is a cloud remember! If there was a hole, you'd surely see the thinning of the cloud surrounding the hole!

Do people ever bother using their brains around here?

It might well be a water droplet, but it does look like a solid object also... I'm on the fence!

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
A digital camera will almost always cause the sun to appear black, because the sensors overload on the brightness.

Utter twaddle!

Nothing else to say, but try it yourself, and post the results here... if you're not too embarrassed to

Look its not a water droplet that I know for a fact. I have a waterproof camera and have taken a gazillion photos in swimming pools, in the kayak, in the river, many of which have water droplets, (surprise) and it produces no such effect, you can always clearly see the water as being on the lens, normally its just smudged foreground, but it certainly never produces anything even remotely like that.

Again its the case of the explanation being more irrational than anything else.

As for what it is ive no idea. Im sure its going to be called a balloon though, apprently balloons can do anything

I believe it is a flying sandwich.. Whole-grain with cheese in the middle.

Its probably already been said, but its no coincidence that the UFO is the same shades of blue and purple as the sky. Its either a water drop or some kind of cloud anomaly...

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Marcus Calpurnius]

Originally posted by ausconspiracies_

going from that small picture, it looks like the sun reflecting off the lens or a water droplet on the lens of the camera.

I have to agree about it looking like a water drop on the lense of the camera. This becomes less apparent with some of the editing I have seen done on it.

I'm more inclined to buy a flying ice cream sandwich with a CD case on top as opposed to an alien spacecraft. And I'm not willing to buy a flying ice cream sandwich with a CD case on top.

Any news from nearby radar stations/airfields...?