'UFO' spotted over St Paul's London - With Photo

I searched on ATS and couldn't find this from 17th September!

'UFO' spotted over St Paul's

THIS is the moment a 'UFO' whizzed past St Paul's Cathedral.

The mysterious orb was snapped unwittingly by amateur photographer Tim Letten as he took took a pic for a competition.

The object was caught head on in the stunning shot as Tim took a photo of the famous London landmark.

But the keen snapper did not notice the mystery craft until he put his photos on his computer at home.

Tim, 43, from Essex, said: "I was taking pictures along the river for a competition and captured a picture of an object flying across the sky which I thought was an aeroplane.

"When I got home I put it on my computer, zoomed in and thought 'It must be a UFO!'"

And the photo has definitely convinced Tim that we're not alone.

The excited designer said: "Looking at that, if anyone doesn't believe, they must be mad!"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/99d1c979e9e0.png[/atsimg]


Cool to see that there's a photo!

And a little closer!


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3f9bf783e141.png[/atsimg]


I don't know, I'll let some of the experts on ATS have a look and see what you think!

But I'm thinking some sort of balloon maybe? But wouldn't the photographer have seen it, and it would probably have shown up in more pictures, assuming he didn't just take the one!



[edit on 23-10-2009 by kiwifoot]

It's the balloon boy stuck in his balloon!!

reply to post by kiwifoot


Its really too far away to tell but thank you for the post. I'm always ready to see the pictures people take of fast movers.

Originally posted by Phlynx
It's the balloon boy stuck in his balloon!!

Duh! Why didn't I think of that, I'm still p'd off about losing 3 hours of my life over that!

Originally posted by Magantice
reply to post by kiwifoot

 

Its really too far away to tell but thank you for the post. I'm always ready to see the pictures people take of fast movers.

No worries, it crossed my mind that if it was moving fast it would have been a little blurred, what do you think mate?

As far as anyone can tell, it's just a shiny dot in a picture, it really could be anything that flies.

So yes, unidentified indeed, but unfortunately not proof of much.

But the keen snapper did not notice the mystery craft until he put his photos on his computer at home

This usually happens when people catch birds wizzing by.
It is impossible to analyze the photo because its just too small. But the chance of it being anything but a bird is slim to none IMO.

And the photo has definitely convinced Tim that we're not alone.

The excited designer said: "Looking at that, if anyone doesn't believe, they must be mad!"

I find it sad that this photo is what has convinced him.


[edit on October 23rd 2009 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Yes I agree, just too far away to tell.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I just wish he'd taken more, like a series of photos.

Still, he seems quite adamant that it's a UFO of the alien type.

Amazing what a fee from a tabloid will do to ones opinion!

I'm so cynical! But better to err on the side of caution eh?

Well, i doubt it is even real look at the website. Highly unreliable, and unbelievable...

The probable answer is the most logical one. And that is that it's probably just a bird.

GODS THIS SUCKS!!! YOU SUCK!! DAMN IT! one can definitely argue on both sides that it has a discus shape.... but unfortunately for us... so too do larger birds at a great enough distance. so DAMN! its agreed here as well. most likely a bird, albeit a large bird, but none the less a bird. CRAP!

reply to post by kiwifoot


Contrary to the paper's "intent" on connecting the object, whether it's a balloon or UFO, to the church, it is NOT over the church. It's wayyyy behind it! And it is NOT hovering near the spire. Why couldn't the paper give a straight report about a seemingly unidentified object in the sky period? It all depends on where the photographer was when he/she took the photo.

chinese lantern type balloon..... or some kinda reflection off dark matter via cosmic rays mixed up in some swamp gas scenario.... case closed

why is it that people are so fascinated by ufos but whenever theres evidence right in front of them they never believe it...i mean people believe so much crap on here which never really shows hard evidence unlike the videos and photos of ufos im sceptical with this one coz he didnt notice till after he took the photo but people arnt stupid i think they can tell the difference between a bird, a lantern and a ufo...has anybody seen the painting of madonna and child by Domenico Ghirlandaio from the 15th century?

Originally posted by jess0
why is it that people are so fascinated by ufos but whenever theres evidence right in front of them they never believe it...i mean people believe so much crap on here which never really shows hard evidence unlike the videos and photos of ufos im sceptical with this one coz he didnt notice till after he took the photo but people arnt stupid i think they can tell the difference between a bird, a lantern and a ufo...has anybody seen the painting of madonna and child by Domenico Ghirlandaio from the 15th century?

Yes i have seen the ufo in the background of the paintings. Its been said that they are fake, and were added in after. They are interesting though.

Originally posted by Lichter daraus

Originally posted by jess0
why is it that people are so fascinated by ufos but whenever theres evidence right in front of them they never believe it...i mean people believe so much crap on here which never really shows hard evidence unlike the videos and photos of ufos im sceptical with this one coz he didnt notice till after he took the photo but people arnt stupid i think they can tell the difference between a bird, a lantern and a ufo...has anybody seen the painting of madonna and child by Domenico Ghirlandaio from the 15th century?

Yes i have seen the ufo in the background of the paintings. Its been said that they are fake, and were added in after. They are interesting though.

Lichter daraus, that's NOT an hoax, you will see what is it.


jess0, I guess that you are referring to this painting

and to the ufo that i've outlined.
I'm glad that you've discovered its author: as far as i knew, there are multiple attributions, no one of them conclusive: i don't think it's some Ghirlandaio's work, though. And yes, i've seen it, LIVE.
According to the caption in the museum hosting it,
and some other sources, its author would be Jacopo del Sellaio
, mentioned by Vasari as apprentice with Filippo Lippi, who has been, basically, the artistic precursor of Botticelli:

but according to other sources, including its own file, it's a work made by Sebastiano Mainardi:

see also www.artnet.com...
now, this guy worked in Domenico Ghirlandaio's workshop, (he was his brother-in-law, after all)
it's needless to say who influenced whom.
This has to be why this painting is often mistakenly attributed to Ghirlandaio whom, by the way, was author of works of WAY higher caliber (just with no alleged ufos in).
Now, let's talk about the "ufo" (1), about its observer (2), and about a third detail (3)

apparently not relevant to the "ufo sighting".
The painting does NOT depict some woman with some child whatsoever, you know? I'd say it's supposed to depict the Nativity: we can see the Virgin Mary, the Angel, we have even the ox and the donkey: the guy that is looking at the "ufo", represents the annunciation to the shephards: google Gospel of Luke for more informations:

An angel of the Lord appeared to them (the shephards) and the glory of the Lord shone around them. They were terrified, but the angel said unto them, to don't fear.

The same scene, has been depicted in some almost identical ways, more than once:

There are more examples: let's say that the artist did not take care about the details, which is the real only odd thing about this painting, given the skills of his author regardless who he was.
The three "stars" or "flares" or whatever you want to call them (3) falling from the cloudy sun (plenty of ufos in that painting) indicate a stron influence of Girolamo Savonarola
What you are looking at, in the mean of the artist, is an ANGEL, believe it or not.

Credits: Diego Cuoghi
www.sprezzatura.it...
www.palazzovecchio-museoragazzi.it...
it.wikipedia.org...
it.wikipedia.org...

Sorry for the off topic, but it was some italian artist

Ah: what we see in the OP can really be a bird, but it could also be anything else: what has been caught on camera is a white DOT, a couple of pixels wide
The Sun knows that should share the original, but he prefers sensationalism: it's their confirmed strategy: i guess that ATS general consensus is that a pic showing a dot and NOT containing any exif data can be put to rest.
Internos


[edit on 24/10/2009 by internos]

reply to post by internos


You said "...the guy that is looking at the "ufo",

The guy is NOT looking at the "UFO". The artist has him facing the wrong way! If the guy was looking at the "UFO", we would see his back. As it is, the UFO would have to be between himself and the "virgin" and we can see that the "UFO" is in the distance beyond the guy.

These "UFOs" in religious paintings are always brought up as evidence except that no one knows what was going on in the mind of the painters so the artists didn't paint UFOs, this is a modern, romantic notion.

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
reply to post by internos

 

You said "...the guy that is looking at the "ufo",

The guy is NOT looking at the "UFO". The artist has him facing the wrong way! If the guy was looking at the "UFO", we would see his back. As it is, the UFO would have to be between himself and the "virgin" and we can see that the "UFO" is in the distance beyond the guy.

These "UFOs" in religious paintings are always brought up as evidence except that no one knows what was going on in the mind of the painters so the artists didn't paint UFOs, this is a modern, romantic notion.

Eh, i would call the lack of perspective here: not from you (since i see it mistaken as you did, so either we are both wrong or the perspective is missing): the ufo appears far away and the shepard seems to look to the opposite side: yes, very tru, and very interesting observation

The excited designer said: "Looking at that, if anyone doesn't believe, they must be mad!"

Talk about overstating the case! Actually I seriously doubt the guy said anything remotely like this. The Sun is full of gutter journalism and they seem to be following a policy of printing any old ufo story no matter how unconvincing or nebulous simply because they've realised that people are interested in them and so they can sell more papers by pandering.