UFO following planes Jan2010 Massachusetts (photos)

There's definitely a lot going on here in Mass. I don't think it gets much exposure though. For instance, my grandfather would tell me about a missile site in the blue hills that was operational during the cold war era. Oddly enough, I bet if you asked 100 people that were born and raised in that area 95 probably don't even know it exists. I guess we're too worried about Theo's dumb moves.

reply to post by Night Star


I wonder who or what was on the planes?

Where were they coming from and where were they going to?

I would just like to thank the OP for taking the time to share the photo's and commentary and agreeing to analysis.

Whether an explanation is forthcoming or it remains unidentified posts like this can only add to the body of knowledge and should be welcomed whatever anyone's bias.

Shame that there are some who make baseless accusations. Rational, informed speculation and civil questioning to be expected but otherwise as someone else says why would anyone genuine bother !

What about the high flier.
Those two high up might be UFOs.
That would make three UFOs in one photo.
I always suspect the high flying trails as being UFOs in flight.
One came down on the came flight path.
In this case lack of a clear picture of a plane makes it an unknown.

UPDATE:

I just heard from Jeff Ritzmann, he has the media card from Elieser's camera and will begin the analysis this weekend.

Stay tuned... I'll update this thread when the report is ready.

Springer...

reply to post by Springer


well i for one cant wait this could get really interesting ! top stuff poster

Originally posted by Springer
UPDATE:

I just heard from Jeff Ritzmann, he has the media card from Elieser's camera and will begin the analysis this weekend.

Stay tuned... I'll update this thread when the report is ready.

Springer...

As a rare visitor I just stumbled over this one, and I'm afraid my not so humble opinion as an experienced photographer is that photo1A is VERY clearly a lens flare - after all, you can see that the Sun is just out of frame at top left and the flare is on the usual diagonal line thru the frame centre, plus the flare is very obviously 'in front' of the power line and yet the patch isn't bright enough to overwhelm the sensors in that area. It also has the telltale chromatic aberration effect typical of lens flares of this type. All of these added together scream 'LENS FLARE' to me.

As for the others, one is indecipherably small, and the other just looks like a sun glint off either a small plane or a helicopter, as per the examples already supplied by others.

If I was properly investigating this, I would ask the OP to take a series of photos with the sun just out of frame at top left to verify my suggestion for 1A.. I'd also love to hear your imaging experts comments on *my* comments..

I'm not having a go at the op, but I do know how the mind works, and a set of memories can easily be 'amended' by your brains when you look at the images. Your mind needs to put those images into context, so it.. does. A subtle change or two to your memories, and hey presto, the image is *exactly* what you remember seeing. Ask anyone who has to deal with eyewitness testimony in a legal environment...

reply to post by CHRLZ


Well personally, the lense flare doesn't fit with the story very well. First of all, people don't bust out a camera to take pictures of a lense flare. The idea makes no sense.

Second of all, as the op says, his wife saw the anomaly shoot under the plane. Remember he doesn't see this, and is taking pictures on faith. Loe and behold, there is an object where she claims there's one, the origin of which is the flare.

Maybe it was refueling? The forthcomingness(?) of the op leads me to believe that this isn't some story he concocted after accidentally capturing a lense flare while photographing two planes.
I just don't understand how the apparent "flare", is a flare, when it was ther reason he took the pics. It is just too much of a coincidence to hallucinate something, take a pic of it, and have a lense flare show up where said object was thought to have been seen.

Also, not only would the flare have to give the appearance of flying towards plane2 in under 2 seconds, but the lense flare effect would have had to vanish at that exact moment in time-aka why is the lense flare not there when the object appears under plane 2?
Also note the apparent 2nd hallucination the wife has if indeed the object flies up to plane1.

If these are not ufo's of unkown technology, we must therefore be looking at 2 regular planes and 2 aircraft that are shadowing those planes, if the story is to be believed.

But then again, maybe it's a lense flare.

Oh and i'm gonna try and reconcile two ufo's here. Just puttin' it out there, as the similarities are interesting.
how does the object in this pic:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a71d96a6aa10.jpg[/atsimg]
Adjust your browser to 5=600% for the above picture plz.

compare to this pic in the op?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/86249932ca89.jpg[/atsimg]

Does anyone else notice a simliar "eyelid" affect, as in, both objects seem to be enveloped at the top and bottom? they look somewhat similar to me.
The first photo is from this thread. Check it out to see the object in sequence.










[edit on 18-1-2010 by heyo]

[edit on 18-1-2010 by heyo]

[edit on 18-1-2010 by heyo]

Well personally, the lense flare doesn't fit with the story very well. First of all, people don't bust out a camera to take pictures of a lense flare. The idea makes no sense.

Think a little wider.. They see a bright glint, they break out the camera and take shots. It's only later as they go through the images that they try to reconcile what happened when. I repeat, your brain is excellent at adjusting memories slightly to fit what you see.

Second of all, as the op says, his wife saw the anomaly shoot under the plane. Remember he doesn't see this, and is taking pictures on faith. Loe and behold, there is an object where she claims there's one, the origin of which is the flare.

So in other words, only one witness (reported secondhand) to that bit, and a picture of what looks exactly like lens flare. Hmm, which one to choose?

The forthcomingness(?) of the op leads me to believe that this isn't some story he concocted after accidentally capturing a lense flare while photographing two planes.

Sigh, I didn't say he was concocting, scamming or hoaxing. I just pointed out what everyone who studies eyewitness testimony and how the brain works, *knows*.

I just don't understand how the apparent "flare", is a flare, when it was the reason he took the pics.

Like I said above, it is only the sequence I am questioning. How on earth could you be sure that the lens flare was the same glint??

It is just too much of a coincidence to hallucinate something, take a pic of it, and have a lense flare show up where said object was thought to have been seen.

When you shoot near the sun, lens flares are inevitable, and extremely common. You say it is too much of a coincidence, and I ask the OP to take several shots with the Sun located in the same place as in his original, and show us the results. Tell me, which is the more useful approach?

Also....

I repeat, the first image is obviously shot nearly into the Sun. There will almost certainly be lens flares. His testimony doesn't read to me that he precisely identified the location of that first glint/flare at the same locations as his wife supposedly saw. PLUS the camera almost certainly was showing a very different perspective (angle of view) to that seen by eye. Even if you carefully set the camera to match the eye view, such verification is close to impossible unless you are shooting video.

why is the lense flare not there when the object appears under plane 2?
BECAUSE the camera is VERY OBVIOUSLY no longer pointing near the Sun. Do you understand what a lens flare is, and why/when it is likely to appear?

...Does anyone else notice a simliar "eyelid" affect, as in, both objects seem to be enveloped at the top and bottom?

I have to blow it up 600%??? - I'm sorry, but I'm not going to. Those edge effects are mostly caused by JPEG artefacts, in-camera sharpening (and chromatic aberration for the pretty colours) and blowing up such images to beyond 200% will simply show artefacts of the enlarging algorithm used. By using different enlarging techniques I can show you *multiple* different shapes from any tiny blob - and that is a common technique used by the tinfoilhat brigade.. If you don't believe me, take a long hard look at this site:

www.general-cathexis.com...

Give it time to fully load, then try the different algorithms by picking different numbers. The differing 'detail' is NOT REAL, and is therefore essentially worthless for investigation.

That is amazing;
It looks like a real UFO to me;

You shouldve tried to make contact

Thanks for your response. I saw that you were a professional and jumped at the opportunity to play devil's advocate. Of course, as the photos are being analyzed, the answers are already on their way; my sole purpose is to understand the mechanisms involved for similar events in the future.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Think a little wider.. They see a bright glint, they break out the camera and take shots. It's only later as they go through the images that they try to reconcile what happened when. I repeat, your brain is excellent at adjusting memories slightly to fit what you see.

I can't for the life of me ever remember staring at a bright light, the size and brightness of which is 1/4 that of the sun, without looking and seeing some sort of object causing the glint, which is by definition brief. Perhaps you could explain this phenomenon? I would call it hallucination, because i've had eyes for 26 years and have never seen such a thing.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

So in other words, only one witness (reported secondhand) to that bit, and a picture of what looks exactly like lens flare. Hmm, which one to choose?

Actually, both him and his wife saw the "lense flare" with their own eyes, if that even makes sense. The wife sees the object move towards plane2, and he, viewing through a camera, is not able to follow it so, according to him, it is simply not there anymore. There is more evidence of this than the initial lense flare, because there is an object underneath plane2. The fact that there is no object under plane2 in photo1c, yet one appears when the initial lense flare disappears(photo2a), is quite the coincidence. If anything, her testimony is corroborated by the photos, if they're sequentally accurate.
If you don't mind, what was the cause of this "glint" that caused them to take the picture, and do you attribute his claim that it lasted for opproximately 15 seconds as accidental memory alteration?

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Sigh, I didn't say he was concocting, scamming or hoaxing. I just pointed out what everyone who studies eyewitness testimony and how the brain works, *knows*.

I wasn't saying you were accusing him of anything. I just want to understand how a glint turns into a bright object that lasts for many seconds in someones mind. This to me implies a gross distortion of memory, and there is nothing "slight" about this distortion.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Like I said above, it is only the sequence I am questioning. How on earth could you be sure that the lens flare was the same glint??

Well if I see some bright object, and when I take a picture of it, a bright object is on the film, it's not unreasonable to think that I just took a picture of the object I saw.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
When you shoot near the sun, lens flares are inevitable, and extremely common. You say it is too much of a coincidence, and I ask the OP to take several shots with the Sun located in the same place as in his original, and show us the results. Tell me, which is the more useful approach?

This is a great approach, and I hope he does it.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Also....

I repeat, the first image is obviously shot nearly into the Sun. There will almost certainly be lens flares. His testimony doesn't read to me that he precisely identified the location of that first glint/flare at the same locations as his wife supposedly saw. PLUS the camera almost certainly was showing a very different perspective (angle of view) to that seen by eye. Even if you carefully set the camera to match the eye view, such verification is close to impossible unless you are shooting video.

Well he doesn't spell it out for us, but I'm pretty sure it's implied. "we saw a bright light...it was glowing...it was in the middle...without moving for a few seconds."
And again, what stationary, glowing object are they seeing before the lense flare moves, or disappears? Why is there no second object, the cause of them taking the photos, in addition to the lense flare? Where is this mysterious object? I'm assuming the op would mention it if the flare in the photo didn't look like what they were seeing with their eyes.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
BECAUSE the camera is VERY OBVIOUSLY no longer pointing near the Sun. Do you understand what a lens flare is, and why/when it is likely to appear?

Yes, as I understand it, the closer the lense is to the sun, the higher the odds are of lense flare and affect on contrast. What I'm curious about the most though, is that the position of the photographer between photos 1a and 1c changes dramatically, yet the flare remains in what appears to be the exact same spot. The only thing that changes is the size of the flare, which appears larger due to him being closer. Then, another change in location between photo1c and 2a, a change that doesn't appear to be as drastic when taking the size of the telephone pole, coincides with the flare disappearing. Your idea of him reproducing the event comes to mind.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

I have to blow it up 600%??? - I'm sorry, but I'm not going to. Those edge effects are mostly caused by JPEG artefacts, in-camera sharpening (and chromatic aberration for the pretty colours) and blowing up such images to beyond 200% will simply show artefacts of the enlarging algorithm used. By using different enlarging techniques I can show you *multiple* different shapes from any tiny blob - and that is a common technique used by the tinfoilhat brigade.. If you don't believe me, take a long hard look at this site:

www.general-cathexis.com...

Give it time to fully load, then try the different algorithms by picking different numbers. The differing 'detail' is NOT REAL, and is therefore essentially worthless for investigation.

I don't read much into those two photos I gave, I was just thinking what the heck. Even though when I blow it up to 150-200%, I see a pronounced blackness on top and bottom in between the hue of the object and the object itself, i need almost no convincing in accepting your analysis. Thanks for the link.
Either this converstaion is a learning experience or a ufo. Either way, don't matter to me.

Btw all here is a page that shows Electrical Corona:
www.specialcamera.com...

[edit on 18-1-2010 by heyo]

The pic with the blue and the cable looks kind of Fake because the blue is infront of the cable, but thats just what I think.

The other pictures may be an airplane said in previous posts. A Cessna.

Originally posted by jimmyjohen
I'm not a silly debunker/skeptic, but anyone have any idea why a UFO would travel light years to follow airplanes. It's not like the ETs (if they are visiting) haven't seen them before.

How else would the light be under the plane?

Maybe they are rescuing people who are being thrown out of planes?

Elieser, how far are you from the Atlantic?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just a couple of quick points, and to clarify my theory...

My impression is that one or both saw a glint, or perhaps a series of them. One gets camera, starts shooting. Camera firstly captures sun flare. Later shots appear to show one of the real glints, off an aircraft/chopper/whatever. If that aircraft was at a suitable angle, the 'glints' could be multiple/long lasting as the sun reflects off various windows or flat surfaces. I live near an airport and see this sort of thing from time to time, and yes, a big 'glint' certainly can look like it's 1/4 the size of the sun. The reflection may be long or shortlived, and there may be several.

Now, I can't imagine for a moment that they were examining each image right there and then, and verifying each one. What is FAR more likely is that later, or even immediately after the objects stopped all the glinting, they started examining their shots and trying to match as many of them as possible (including the one including lens flare) to what they saw. And that is the time when the brain adjusts things...

One other point - you said: "the position of the photographer between photos 1a and 1c changes dramatically".
Woah - are you assuming Picture 1C is a separate image?? It looks very much like a CROP to me - images 1A, B and C ALL appear to come from the same frame, hence the ABC business.. Look at the angles of the wires, the position of the plane relative to the light.. The later images reinforce that.

I'm happy to re-examine this, if that is not the case - but I'm willing to put a very sizable bet on it.

reply to post by CHRLZ


Aw. See I thought that the quality increased slightly as he turned away from the sun. Thumbs up to you.
If the analysis shows no object under plane 2 in the first series of photographs I'll be pretty surprised.
I'm still unsure as to why people would photograph a glint if it is just that, amongst other things. Maybe some people think that's cool, I dunno.
Wait and see I guess. I think this'll be a great thread either way.

If the analysis shows no object under plane 2 in the first series of photographs I'll be pretty surprised.

A quick ps - I think you will find that image 2 was zoomed in closer. (It's hard to be sure, because it looks as though many of these images are cropped.)

But if you compare the quality of the background sky - image 1's sky is very mottled and just plain ugly when magnified. Image 2 is a bit better. If the object was initially not glinting, it may have simply been lost in the mottled noise of image 1 as it was simply too small. These things are clearly getting down to just a couple of pixels and on a small sensor after jpeg compression, it's very easy to lose stuff, or see false detail.

That's why folks who are seriously into photography shoot in 'raw' format, use large sensor cameras, and if we do use jpeg's we use as little compression as possible.

I'd be interested to hear what camera was used, but I suspect it is a consumer grade 'point and shoot' with a small sensor. I've got nothing against such cameras - I carry one with me all the time when I'm not lugging my 'real' cameras..! But you need to understand their limitations and quirks.

Oh, and thanks for the polite discussion!

reply to post by CHRLZ
I was thinking on the same line as you in my last post, I had totally ignored what I thought was a lens flare, I don't recall seeing the red lettered info when I posted back a bit!!

Originally posted by Springer
UPDATE:

I just heard from Jeff Ritzmann, he has the media card from Elieser's camera and will begin the analysis this weekend.

Stay tuned... I'll update this thread when the report is ready.

Springer...

Not that I'm bein' pushy or nuthin', oh no not me... but it's been over a week.

Any news from the front lines?

This is from a document I've read that someone wants to get this information out before it's too late.

Pentagon got hit by a Missile on September 11th 2001 (Not Plane) that MI6 is doing the Drug Trafficking to bring in Money along with Bank of England to fund their black oops project.

For they are working with Aliens and Reptilians deep underground to wanting to depopulate the population by destroying our immune system.

That the public has got lied to about what happened on September 11th 2001 that it's lied about to cover the truth that it's a Missile showing off from Aliens and that the Media lied about 911 to divert the public from the Alien Presence behind it what I told you above.

Makes me wonder why the Pentagon didn't fall down on 911.

I believe some of it I'm not sure about the rest of it.

well i dunno about you guys but its been a while now and im starting to think this threads about over


boo hiss