Photographer captures stunning images of UFOs above Hatfield

reply to post by the secret web


The Maximum is actually as long as the sensor can last, you just need a cable release and set your cmaera to BULB mode. That Is All!

reply to post by pianopraze


Very Interesting! Did not satellites did this! could well be what i saw!

Is is just me, or does that second pic on the linked to site looks like a worm hole opening up? Well, at least to me it looks like many sci-fi representations of what a worm hole would look like.

reply to post by DerbyCityLights


A worm hole in the stratosphere, that cant be good!

reply to post by Jasonlreeve


Hi Jason,

By any chance do you have a bus shelter outside your house...Just across the road from your window, just under the trees, in between a lamp post and another lamp post slightly further away?

reply to post by dsm1664


Indeed I do, How ever. There is a tree line in front of my window that blocks out the view of the road and bus shelter. I also took the photo at an angle looking not into the direction of the lamp post or road. The lit up trees on the long exposure photo i believe cam from passing car headlights, they light up the trees when they go around the roundabout at the end of the road.

reply to post by Jasonlreeve


Hmm...

So definitely not lens flare as a result of street / house lighting refracting off of the top of the curved plastic bus shelter then?

reply to post by dsm1664


I don't think so. turn your image 75 degrees to the right and you will have the angle of view.
Plus there is a tree line between My window, and the road, blocking the street lights out at the time! not so much now, there's no leaves on the trees.

reply to post by Jasonlreeve


Can you take a photo of this view in daylight please.

Just helps clear up all other possibilities.

Cheers

reply to post by dsm1664


I am filming what happened with the complete story, showing you everything that happened, all angles, all photos i have and a complete narration of my experience. I will upload this to youtube when complete!

I will then re start a new thread on this subject, and hopefully all evidence will be in this video.
and then everybody can see the evidence in one setting!

reply to post by pazcat


Did you bother to look at the picture linked in my reply before you made your all knowledgeable pronouncement?

The picture of goes satellites taken by that professional organization looks nearly identical to the OP's photo. There are over 300 GOES satellites in orbit.

In case you missed it the first time click this link to a time lapse picture of a few GOES satellites that are grouped close together... even the OP says it looks like what he saw.

Obviously lens flares from some nearby streetlamp for example. In the blow-up you can clearly see the same shape twice, the other one faintly on the right side slightly upwards of the brighter one.

EDIT: a dead give away is the fact, that those couldn't be seen with the naked eye, also.

reply to post by pianopraze


If I had choose a theory that has been put forward, yours is the best. They look remarkably similar!

I tend to go with the lens flares idea, although maybe they're a combination of flares and an image of a geostationary satellite. It doesn't have to be all one thing or another.

I suppose taking another photo from the same location on a different night might help clear up the controversy. Or only make it worse.

reply to post by pianopraze

Geostationary satellites are in orbit directly above the equator, very high above the equator. There are a couple of problems with the geostationary satellite theory.

1) Geostationary satellites are very dim (because of their altitude). The image you posted is a 5 hour exposure. It is doubtful that a geostationary satellite would appear that bright (if at all) in a 20 minute exposure. It is extremely unlikely that the photographer would have seen a geostationary satellite with the naked eye.

2) Hatfield is at 52ºN, this would place a geostationary satellite at an elevation of 38º above the horizon in the southern sky. Apparently the image was not taken in that direction.

Photographer Jason Reeve took the dazzling pictures from outside his north-west-facing bedroom window, in Chantry Court, with a 20-minute exposure.

www.whtimes.co.uk...

reply to post by Jasonlreeve


Jason,

Apologise if these simple points have been made already, but the thread is getting rather long..

1. The star tracks in the 20 minute exposure show we're looking NW, with intermittent cloud drifting across the field of view.

2. The three short light tracks are consistent with three lights on a very large object, or three separate lights, moving either towards or away from a vanishing point on the horizon.

3. The three tracks are short probably because the lights were only visible for a short time permitted by a temporary gap in the clouds. That might explain why you didn't see the lights.

Best of luck with your project.

First comment under article:
As a photographer of many years, these seem to me to be lens flares. The lower of the two images shown is a classic lens flare shape. What makes this more likely is the statement that these lights "were not visible to the naked eye". This is exactly what would be expected; lens flares are not seen directly. The other item is that these were 20 minute exposures. Even using a standard focal length lens, anything in the sky would move 5 degrees during this time, which is 10 times the width of the full Moon. If an object stayed in the same position relative to the observer then that would suggest it was part of a fixed structure. I would like to know the focal length of the lens used and the aperture - which are vital in order to help interpret the images - and also his location, the direction the camera was pointing and weather conditions. Another question is why Mr Reeve was taking photos of things that he could not see.


Jerry Stone

Some background references:

Website/gallery

Image usage

Image usage (grants)

Note the text "**This photo is NOT FREE and before ANY USE or download you must contact Jason Reeve**" which goes above and beyond the existing Copyright marker and Flickr guidelines. This is used on many recent images posted on Flickr by this source.

'UFO' images posted in Oct 2011 on Hatfield community website

Youtube channel
Note the user's stated occupation of "Photographer Chef". Does that mean semi-pro?



All information above is in the public domain.

Note to ATS community - if I had found any personally identifiable information, then I would not have posted it.
This includes things like Facebook a/c details, LinkedIn, and anything with a postal address. Email and mobile phone numbers are locatable, but obviously not posted here.

This post will be ramoved at the request of Jason or the Admins if deemed inapproriate. Please private message me in the first instance, or request Admin help for an immediate complaint.

reply to post by ommadawn


I just like people to ask my permission before using my images, To date I have not taken any payment for photos used on the internet by various bloggers or sites.

Its just nice to know people like to use my images. I i like to know in what context they are being used!

Get off your high horse!

Originally posted by Jasonlreeve
reply to post by ommadawn

 

I just like people to ask my permission before using my images, To date I have not taken any payment for photos used on the internet by various bloggers or sites.
Its just nice to know people like to use my images. I i like to know in what context they are being used!
Get off your high horse!

Fair enough. You can have a percentage of all the money I've made from the images. What's 35 percent of diddly squat?