It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My "UFO" photo - How much can we tell from it?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
First one to me simply looks like a bird.




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Didnt read the 2nd page yet but wanted to tell you that the photo thingy you captured looks very similar to ufo photos of objects in the sky taken around the world.....UK, isreal, Australia etc....
i have seen them from the space cameras and many different countries...
The only thing....its possible they are space critters intstead of alien craft.....believe it or not.

PS thats a barn swallow alright no robin....

[edit on 3-9-2010 by stirling]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
OK, I'm back home and was able to take measurements and (sort of) reproduce the photo. Both photos were taken w/ a sony cybershot dsc-w7 (7.2 megapixel) set on autofocus...

EDIT: Read a couple posts below for a better reproduction, I've deleted this one because the focal length was off. Thanks!

[edit on 9/5/10 by burdenofdreams]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Sorry, double post.

Second line.

[edit on 9/4/10 by burdenofdreams]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Nice work, and that is helpful, but ....



Originally posted by burdenofdreams
Measurements in the reproduction photo (shown below) are:
12.5" from camera lens to chair "pole" 2nd from the right
13.3' from camera lens to fence
lower wires are 3/4" diameter
chair "poles" are 1/2" diameter


That's interesting - I figured the poles were a lot further away and larger. That does narrow things - to be that blurred, if it was smething closer than the poles, it would have to be ~7" or less from the lens (that's a (highly educated) guesstimate, I haven't done the actual CoC calculations).


EDIT: seeing them side by side now, it looks like the chair is actually closer in the original photo, so make that 23.5" or less.

? Do you mean 12.5" or less or am I misreading..?


Any more analyses?

Problem is, that this later image has obviously focused on the background, so it isn't helping all that much. The ideal image would have the camera in the same location but focused on the chair pole, and with an aircraft (or bird) flying thru the shot to see what the o-o-f effect looks like.

I don't want much!


But given the new information about the distance to the chair poles, I am thinking it is now becoming likely that it was not a bug. It would have been very close to the lens to get that blurry, and that then means it would have a large angular speed, ie it would likely show signs of motion blur, unless slow moving or coming right at you. Still *possible*, but unlikely, imo. I'd hazard a strong opinion that it is a distant object - bird, plane (real or RC), frisbee thrown at a park a block or so away, etc, etc, or of course, an alien spacecraft...



It just reminded me of some of the older pilot descriptions of UFOs, as a solid metallic orb or "flying saucer" shape w/ a cloudiness at the edges (read the book "Above Top Secret" by Timothy Good for the sightings I refer to, and a huge wealth of military sightings and weirdness). But...despite my eyes seeing this unfortunately 2-D photo and registering "object further away than wires," it could still be a bug in the foot of space between the camera and the chair......or could it?

Yup, it could be... there just isn't going to be enough info to say anything with any certainty, by the looks. Just keep in mind that the blurriness looks just right for o-o-f, either distant or close. And usually the simplest explanation is the best, until it is overturned..


Also, seeing the photos side by side now, the depth of field is much wider in the repro photo due to the different lighting. Just can't seem to get it right...

While d-o-f does vary if the aperture is different, I think the effect you refer to is simply the different focus distance the camera chose. Note - you can usually LOCK the focus (and exposure - depends on the camera) by putting the thing you want in focus in the centre of frame, half pressing the shutter button, moving the camera to get the different framing, and fully pushing the half-held button.


Thanks for pushing on with this! You are one of the rare few who will go the hard yards, as they say...



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   
UGH, I edited my post with the reproduction photo to show a better one, with more up-to-date info for the distances, but for some reason the changes didn't take and my old post is still there with the old photo in it, using the wrong focal length (I realized after posting and comparing the photos that I had obviously used a zoom in the original). So please disregard that and read this instead. Thank you for your response so far, CHRLZ!!

New measurements are:

27" to chair "pole," second from the right
13 1/3" to fence
3/4" diameter wires
1/2" diameter chair poles
18.7mm focal length in both photos

Here's the new reproduction photo (tried to auto-focus on the chair but it wouldn't hold - may have to switch to manual to get it right), followed by original...





REPRODUCTION SPECS:

shutter 1/160
aperture f 9.0
max aperture f 2.8
exposure bias 0.00
exposure: normal program
focal length 18.7 mm
light source unknown
flash off
metering: pattern
iso speed: 100

ORIGINAL SPECS:

shutter 1/320
aperture f 9.0
max aperture f 2.8
exposure bias 0.00
exposure: normal program
focal length 18.7 mm
light source unknown
flash off
metering: pattern
iso speed: 100


Now if only a plane, bird, or helicopter had flown past this framing while I was out there today...



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   
((grin))

Ah well... Oh, and when you go out there again, waiting for that plane or bird, do it at the same time of day please, so the poles aren't lit by the sun. That extra light in the image could be enough to throw the Sony down an aperture setting, and that can have a VERY big effect on the depth of field... (however, if your numbers are right, it appears they were both shot at f9)

So:
- same time of day (same blue sky, same shadows)
- use the half-press-and-hold technique to lock the focus on the poles
- frame the shot, while holding that button half down..
- when the plane or bird is in shot, FIRE!!

Like I said, thanks for taking the time - this type of investigation is what ATS should be about, even if in this case it may not be likely to give a certain result. It means *next* time something truly weird flies past, you'll nail it!!



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Ha! Thanks CHRLZ, you have been really helpful. When the mood strikes me and the weather clears up again here, I'll see what I can do... =)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I've come across some very similar "UFO" photos, and whatever they are, I thought I'd post them here for comparison because they all have something else in common with mine, in that the people who took the photos could not see the UFOs with their naked eye, and only noticed them later when viewing the photos. I feel like this is significant for many reasons. Perhaps they are all actually very small, fast-moving bugs directly in front of the lens (but what about the one taken from the airplane, very similar to mine?). Or maybe UFOs really are cloaked and we're not supposed to see them at all. Also, the cloudiness surrounding the objects would be consistent with this theory of how UFOs generate power and move around.

Here's my photo cropped at full resolution:



And here's some I found online at ufocasebook.com, from the last few years (please note the descriptions below the photos, in quotes, are from ufocaseboook, so the "I" referred to in them is not me.)


"2006-March 23-March 23, 2006- A chance UFO was captured on photograph by Germa'n Sanchez during a flight from San Diego to Calexico, on board of a small plane. The sighting occurred at 9:40 AM. Mr. Sanchez used a Sony DSC-P92 camera."



"2007-Los Angeles, California-I visited the Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanical Gardens (in Arcadia) on Friday June 1st, 2007. My wife and I were looking to find a place to take our wedding pictures. We found this beautiful park; we were taking a tour of the place. I snapped several pictures and drove home. When I was downloading the pictures and viewing them, I noticed an object in one of the them. I do not know what it is..."



"2008-BRITISH UFO researchers are to examine a photo taken of a strange object in the sky above a North-East town. Derbyshire man Barry Knaggs found the strange image when he downloaded pictures he had taken on his digital camera during a visit to Spennymoor, in County Durham, at the weekend. Mr Knaggs, 61, was returning to the town where his parents used to live on a nostalgic visit with his wife. Although the couple noticed nothing unusual at the time, Mr Knaggs says he was amazed when he downloaded the photos to his PC once back home. "When I zoomed in to have a look I had to tell myself to stop being silly," he said. "It looked like the typical fuzzy photo of a flying saucer."



"2007-Texas-The UFO Casebook received this photograph from my good friend Larry. He tells me that he was taking photographs on April 19 & 20. He did not see the object as he took the photographs, but later discovered this picture with an unknown object."



ATS thread: Did Game Camera Snap UFO?



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by burdenofdreams
 


S&F, you might have something there other than a bird.
And all the added stuff looks quite interesting.
Lets see how we identify these.
ED: The theory talked about now is momentum capture with
a small amount of energy.
So no more free energy problems, now its how is the momentum
captured.
ED+: The craft seems to be surrounded by black light only
picked up by photography.




edit on 9/18/2010 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by burdenofdreams
 


I'd love to believe that it is a UFO but bear in mind that the government still test flies Airships, which can look like UFOs because they have lights on them that illuminate the shape of the airship. They are powered by helium now as oppose to hydrogen which didnt end well with the hindenberg



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by burdenofdreams
I've come across some very similar "UFO" photos, and whatever they are, I thought I'd post them here for comparison because they all have something else in common with mine, in that the people who took the photos could not see the UFOs with their naked eye, and only noticed them later when viewing the photos. I feel like this is significant for many reasons. Perhaps they are all actually very small, fast-moving bugs directly in front of the lens

Yes, for those that show the typical out of focus blur, which both yours and the plane window example show, either a bug or a speck of dust on the lens/cover glass/sensor/window will ALL provide exactly that sort of blurry blob. And if the camera is clearly focussed on the foreground, a distant object like bird or plane offers the same potential cause.. So there are lots of perfectly simple explanations and little need to jump to other conclusions. K.I.S.S.


Or maybe UFOs really are cloaked and we're not supposed to see them at all.

Why would they bother with such an obviously flawed system? I mean if you are going to include everything that might be possible using technologies unknown to us.. well, I'm afraid anything could be ... anything... Again, better to K.I.S.S.


Also, the cloudiness surrounding the objects would be consistent with this theory of how UFOs generate power and move around.

Eeurgh!! Lots of words at that site, and many unsupported claims, like magnetic fields being associated with UFO's (but no examples of the measurements proving that). My brain started to hurt after the author mixed fact with wild extrapolations supported only by it being 'his opinion'. Plus he seems to suggest that he thinks it would a be luminous plasma effect.. If you or he can provide some earthly examples of what he means, I'd be happy to look further, but just making a claim and saying 'that might explain it', is pretty useless unless it is better than the simplest solution.

So, all that when simple lens blur can explain it adequately?

I'm afraid the examples leave me seriously underwhelmed, sorry. I could pick out at least 20 images from my collection that give far more 'weird' looking (and unidentifiable) aircraft, bird, bugs, dust, film emulsion defects (yes, I'm that old!), even frisbees, golf balls, kites and r-c planes and of course over-enlargement/jpeg artefacts.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I could pick out at least 20 images from my collection that give far more 'weird' looking (and unidentifiable) aircraft, bird, bugs, dust, film emulsion defects (yes, I'm that old!), even frisbees, golf balls, kites and r-c planes and of course over-enlargement/jpeg artefacts.


I understand you




I've already gone into searching of "ufo's" in my photos, and even put them online into one free online page and free web hosting, which now is broken (deh, it was free
) . Maybe they may help some of the readers.

Anyway, i saved some of them here on ATS media, and i have the links already:

r1


r2


r3


r4


r5


r6


r7


r8


r9


r10


r11


r12


r13


r14


r15


r16


r17


r18


r19


r20


r21


r22


r23


r24


r25





from my (now broken) colection: www.freewebs.com...











edit on 19/9/10 by depthoffield because: spelling



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 
Thanks for posting this good collection. The 'rods' are particularly clear and that last gif is fairly saucer-like.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Depthoffield me ol' mate!

What a great pleasure it always is to see your expertise in-thread!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by depthoffield
 
Thanks for posting this good collection. The 'rods' are particularly clear and that last gif is fairly saucer-like.






my collection could go far better, if i "researched the ufo's" using solar obliteration method
for example.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Depthoffield me ol' mate!

What a great pleasure it always is to see your expertise in-thread!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


Hi MMN! Just a copy&paste action


In the mean (small amount of) time i barely read some titles on some topics here.
Bud gladly of your presence and activity here on topics.

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
When its a bug its easily identified.
Good going.

So far none have halo meaning they are a bright object
full of electricity.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by burdenofdreams
 


Awe you just gave away a big movie spoiler with your profile picture. :/
Just saying. :] I didn't watch it yet but was planning to. Was. D:



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by depthoffield
 


Wow, the tiny UFO in front of the horse is hilarious. Maybe cattle mutilations are actually carried out by very small, razor-sharp UFOs...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join