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.

 

Frisbee like UFO over Lexington (Kentucky, US) - Two interesting photographies - MUFON CMS

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I rarely post any UFO-photo related thread as most of what we actually see is misidentifications of Chinese Lanterns, balloons, planes at night... and so on.

However, this one worth at least a look as, at first glance, I haven't found any plausible explanation.

A quick look at the EXIFs datas don't show any traces of any tampering (and a time laps between the two shoots of 6") and a JPEGSnoop assessment is "3 - Image has high probability of being original", which is not a 100% proof that there's no tampering, but a good indication anyway.

The original report was made at the MUFON CMS with the following testimony:

Event Date: 2011-04-13
Event Location: Lexington, Kentucky, US
Event Description: "I was out in my back yard in Lexington when i happened to look up towards the south east and a white flash caught my eye. Could not tell what it was but it was white in color and what looked to be flashing (this is in full sunlight) I then noticed off to its left a second object of similar size and activity to the right of it. I observed this for about 2 minutes while i had one of my sons grab my camera. within about a minute or so the 2 objects got closer together and were side by side both still flashing white. (possibly a tumbling motion)

My son not finding my camera forced me to go in the house and get it. figuring on the speed they were moving they would be in front of the house when i got back outside I went out front only to find 1 of the 2 objects more to the east now where i snapped a few photos before i lost sight of it behind the trees about a half mile away."


Credits goes to MUFON and the anonymous photographer.






The only hypothesis that I could find so far is that this could be debris carried by the wind, does that sound plausible to you?




posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   


The only hypothesis that I could find so far is that this could be debris carried by the wind, does that sound plausible to you?


Yea.. it does, because this is a not a conspiracy site where things like ufo, crooked governments, and what ever else is out there, you cant talk about that here. So, no one will ever catch a photo or video of a ufo.................. end of story !!!!


Just kidding, could be anything, really ....????
So, Ima getting out of here in this thread.

edit on 14-4-2011 by VenomVile.6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevenaugust
The only hypothesis that I could find so far is that this could be debris carried by the wind, does that sound plausible to you?


Maybe a couple of silver mylar birthday balloons. The photo doesn't have enough information in it to suggest or prove that it was anything different or extraordinary. The described motion doesn't, either.

File it.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by VenomVile.6
 


Yep, could be anything...

definatly UFO(undentified flying object) but not alien! never alien


Kidding
who knows what it is...



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Quite interesting..

Does look like a frisbee:





Enchancement of second image. [Rotated, changed exposure]


Maybe this?



edit on 14-4-2011 by dsm1664 because: Added 4th pic



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dsm1664
 


Nice work
Doesn't look like a balloon either

2ndline



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
It kind of resembles a styrofoam plate for which I guess it could have gotten caught up in the wind.

Interesting......



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
A quick overlay of both pictures shows this:



NOTE:
- The photographer kept in a remarquable way the same camera orientation between the two shoots
- Where's the n°7902?
- There's no wind at all (at least locally) judging by the zero differences between the leaves positions on both photographies.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Nice.

That was my next trick.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
A quick check on the weather conditions at Lexington April 13rd 2011:

Weather Underground results for '___' (Lexington airport) weather station






So, lack of wind.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Interestingly (or not) the distance between the 3 circular lens blemishes that form a triangle (lens dirt?) and the points of light are almost exactly the same on both photos.

edit on 15/4/11 by EnigmaAgent because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by EnigmaAgent
 


They are three points, so I would be surprised if they formed a rectangle
And I guess those are completely the same in relation to one another (but not according to stuff in the photos) because they're on the camera, hence them not changing their positions in both photos.

OP, nice find and I have to say it's one of the more intriguing cases in the last few months. You have several stars and a flag, for your well-researched posts. I fail in explaining this, I think flying debris are out of the question because of the lack of wind.

The story behind the sighting, although not of great detail, sounds pretty familiar to me. Although with the short amount of info and lack of more witnesses of the event, I doubt we'll get anywhere with only these two photos.

Just my 2 cents. We don't know what it is, but we can sure assume what it doesn't look like - Chinese lanterns, balloons, and skydivers who are the most typical recent misidentified (or misUnidentified) objects in our sky, so that alone means good job!

Cheers

edit to add - EnigmaAgent, just now I understood what you were implying, I will check again whether you're correct and it is also something on the lens (I understood you correctly, right?)

edit to add 2 - yep, I checked and they do look suspiciously similar (the two photos and the relation between the point of light and the dirt on the lens), so it would be very handy if someone with Photoshop skills could draw a straight line from point A made of dirt on the lens, towards point B (again dirt), continue it more to the right, and probably draw anoter line perpendicular to it, coming from the "lit up frisbee". That way we could be sure what if there is variation in the distance between those points in both pics. And as elevenaugust mentioned - where the heck is number 7902... A bit fishy if you ask me. Anyways, good eyes Enigma, sfy.
edit on 15-4-2011 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ch1n1t0
 


I'm glad you understood what I meant. Do digi cameras get bad pixels, like computer screens? I don't know myself.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by EnigmaAgent
 


Yes, they do (I think they call them dead pixels but I could be wrong), however, from my little experience with such, I never saw one that would change it's shape and angle, they usually stay the same on every photo the cam shoots. Still, I'm not that experienced and you can't take my word for granted. However, if this is indeed something located on the camera lens itself, then I wouldn't be surprised if number 7901 was when the person found out about his dead pixel on the camera, 7902 might be missing because it's pointing towards the ground or something and the UFO is still there, which would dismiss the whole UFO theory coming from the photographer. And 7903 was when he thought it's cool if he took another photo that would be relevant for his fun trolling/attention seeking. Hey, I admit it's dire speculation, but with the lack of knowledge about lens anomalies and dead pixels, I can't do much more. Could well be a real thing flying in the sky but after EnigmaAgents good remark, it seems not that likely anymore. I mean, what are the odds the person who filmed this kept it almost perfectly aligned to other lens artifacts/dirt particles?



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1n1t0
edit to add 2 - yep, I checked and they do look suspiciously similar (the two photos and the relation between the point of light and the dirt on the lens), so it would be very handy if someone with Photoshop skills could draw a straight line from point A made of dirt on the lens, towards point B (again dirt), continue it more to the right, and probably draw anoter line perpendicular to it, coming from the "lit up frisbee". That way we could be sure what if there is variation in the distance between those points in both pics. And as elevenaugust mentioned - where the heck is number 7902... A bit fishy if you ask me. Anyways, good eyes Enigma, sfy.
edit on 15-4-2011 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

Thanks!

About the similarity between the dirts lens and the "ufo", not sure what you mean, but here's an animated GIF of both photographies enhanced in autolevels, for a better view (resized in 30%).



Now, logically, the dirts stay in the exact same position in both photographies, hence my question about a (unlikely for me) possible relation between these dirts an the "UFO".



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Great pics, thanks for bringing them to attention. I couldn't say what the white object is but I will say the other spots on the photo's are on the lens, the spots stay exactly the same the white object does not. As for the missing picture between the two photos...quit overthinking it or being overly suspicious...most likely the middle photo was a just a missed shot. S+F OP.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Thank you for that gif, it seems that there is a slight change in the position of the UFO according to the dirts on the lens, Enigma's and my original thought was that this UFO was actually somehow situated in the camera itself (dead pixel, or something of that sort), hence the constant distance from the UFO to the dirt on both pictures. However, after seeing the gif that you made we can observe after all a slight change in the position of the UFO according to the other lens artifacts. I'll wait this one out for anyone with more photo knowledge to come along and provide a possible explanation (or not). And even if it doesn't turn out to be the best explanation we have so far (a lens artifact, or something similar) we still have the problem of identifying it, and with so little info coming in context with the photos, I doubt we will get a step closer to truth. But it doesn't hurt trying, does it
After all, thanks for bringing this up, it sure is a refresher after the majority of lantern/balloon stuff lately coming on ATS.

Edit to add - I forgot to mention that what lends more validity to this case, at least in my eyes, is the explanation of the flashes. And also the way it seems to have a tumbling motion from the first pic to the second, I think that's how the typical UFOs actually move (again dire speculation based on very few facts and personal opinion)
edit on 15-4-2011 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
The dark circular artifacts on the image do not originate from dust on the lens but actually from minute dust particles on the digital image sensor itself. Digital SLR's are prone to this effect and i'm sure that a digital compact camera would be susceptible to the same dust but to a far lesser degree, therefore I would reckon these photos were taken with Digital SLR.

As for the shiny object I'm totally lost as to what it is.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by VenomVile.6
 


OK I live in Richmond KY and I have seen something similar to that. To be honest I watched it forever and it didnt move so the thing I saw was not debri. But the picture could be. Anything is plausable.and Anything is possible.. I am a firm believer we are not the only life in the universe and I do believe anyone who thinks that is being very ignorant. Sry don't mean to offend anyone but that is what I think.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Thanks for the feedback guys.

So, lack of information plus no plausible explanation so far could lead to classify it as "inconclusive"...



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join