Jun 9/2012 UFO picture London Ontario, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 20-8-2012 @ 11:20 AM by Trillium

Ok was showing my friend Greg D. the UFO picture over NY
www.abovetopsecret.com... and in a sarcastic way
He said that noting you should see the picture my brother got and sent me.
So I said *(Picture are it never happen)* he LOL and walk away
ten minute later I got the picture in my e-mail box.

So here it is I’m at work now so I can’t zoom in good till later today.
Will see if I can get more info then this. Taken by cell phone
Sat. June 9/2012 at around 9:30 pm in London Ontario was coming out of a bar

edit on 20-8-2012 by Trillium because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 11:42 AM by greeneyedleo

any more details? did he shoot it from behind a window? it almost looks like lights from inside relfecting on glass....
there is some obvious motion blur (which is pretty common on cell phone cameras - well, it is for me

)

for those who care...not the full EXIF because uploading to ATS Uploads strips a lot of info...
maybe if he can upload to photobucket or imageshack, having the full EXIF would help

[Image]
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 144
Y Resolution = 144
Resolution Unit = inch
YCbCr Positioning = centered
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 102

[Camera]
Exif Version = Version 2.21
Components Configuration = YCbcr
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = sRGB
Exif Image Width = 768
Exif Image Height = 1024
Scene Capture Type = Normal

[Thumbnail Info]
Compression = JPEG Compressed (Thumbnail)
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
JPEG Interchange Format = Offset: 286
JPEG Interchange Format Length = Length: 4556

[Thumbnail]
Thumbnail = 120 x 160

anyways, thanks for sharing!

edit on August 20th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 12:41 PM by FlySolo

reply to post by greeneyedleo

I respect your skepticism but what type of lights would those be reflecting on glass? I'm a contractor and I've seen all types of lights. If those are lights then who ever installed them did a pretty crappy job.

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 01:19 PM by Acidtastic

Lanterns with a bit of a long exposure?

seems quite simular to the colour and size of some lantern videos.

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 01:43 PM by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by greeneyedleo

I respect your skepticism but what type of lights would those be reflecting on glass? I'm a contractor and I've seen all types of lights. If those are lights then who ever installed them did a pretty crappy job.

Type of lights? I dont know. He is in a different country than me.....and obviously if the light is reflecting onto a glass and the camera takes a blurry picture....it would be impossible to nail down an exact fixture model. we see the light - not the fixture. and the light we see is blurred.....

i gave my opinion based on seeing zillions of pictures taken from inside a building pointing outside....

maybe im wrong. i dont know. it is really impossible to analyze a blurry picture w/ little details nor original exif data. just giving my own thoughts...

edit on August 20th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 01:59 PM by Zarniwoop

Each has a white body with some dark areas above and below.

Here is my best guess as to what they are.

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 02:11 PM by Chrisfishenstein

reply to post by Zarniwoop

If that is what they are, that is a really crappy phone camera!!!

I thought mine was bad......

The original picture already looks zoomed in, that's why it is so blurry?? If that is the case, these look like pretty small UFO's (if that is what they are)......

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 02:17 PM by Trillium

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
any more details? did he shoot it from behind a window? it almost looks like lights from inside relfecting on glass....
there is some obvious motion blur (which is pretty common on cell phone cameras - well, it is for me )

for those who care...not the full EXIF because uploading to ATS Uploads strips a lot of info...
maybe if he can upload to photobucket or imageshack, having the full EXIF would help

anyways, thanks for sharing!
edit on August 20th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

He said he had just walk outside from a bar and saa them took the picture and second later
their just disappered

So do lantern and bird just disappeare in day light ?????????

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 02:23 PM by Zarniwoop

reply to post by Trillium

So do lantern and bird just disappeare in day light ?????????

You may have answered your own question

He said he had just walk outside from a bar

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 03:08 PM by Trillium

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by Trillium

So do lantern and bird just disappeare in day light ?????????

You may have answered your own question

He said he had just walk outside from a bar

He may have been drunk but not the phone
He said he only had two because he had to drive home.

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 03:09 PM by FlySolo

reply to post by greeneyedleo

He's only in Ontario. Canadian standards are not different than US. And those standards being... level. Those lights aren't level. Anyway, they look too bright to be a reflection imo. Not saying ufo, just not indoor lighting.

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 03:21 PM by Trillium

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
Each has a white body with some dark areas above and below.

Here is my best guess as to what they are.

Not even close
Bird have the black at the tip of the wing
Odject in picture has black on top and more on botton no deal

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 03:39 PM by Zarniwoop

reply to post by Trillium

Not even close
Bird have the black at the tip of the wing
Odject in picture has black on top and more on botton no deal

O.K. let's try this approach, then.

In this photo, you can see the bird's black wing tips on top, and more on the bottom.

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 04:09 PM by FlySolo

Wrong response directed

edit on 20-8-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 04:11 PM by FlySolo

reply to post by Zarniwoop

First of all, you must have a superiority complex to think anyone looking outside in a city where gulls reside, can not discern gulls. it's amazing how many people here think everyone but them has down syndrome.

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 04:38 PM by Trillium

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by Trillium

Not even close
Bird have the black at the tip of the wing
Odject in picture has black on top and more on botton no deal

O.K. let's try this approach, then.

In this photo, you can see the bird's black wing tips on top, and more on the bottom.

Not even close again wing are in the wrong direction but good try
Maybe you need some better glass's

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 04:39 PM by Zarniwoop

reply to post by FlySolo

First of all, you must have a superiority complex to think anyone looking outside in a city where gulls reside, can not discern gulls. it's amazing how many people here think everyone but them has down syndrome.

And now come the personal attacks.

Here's my best come-back to yours (I'm not very good at this)

Well, you must have a 'gullibility complex' to think that all photos of UFOs are honestly represented. (see, I told you I wasn't very good at that)

Obviously, most folks can identify a flying bird.

What I believe in this case, is that the brother of the friend of the OP, or the friend of the OP, could possibly be misrepresenting the photo in question, unbeknownst to the OP, or the friend, or both... because the objects in the photo, look amazingly similar to what birds look like in flight in a blurry picture.

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 04:43 PM by Zarniwoop

reply to post by Trillium

Not even close again wing are in the wrong direction but good try

You're a tough nut to crack, Trillium. Do I need to find an example that looks exactly like the birds in your photo for you to imagine the position of their wings?

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 04:52 PM by FlySolo

reply to post by Zarniwoop

Not a personal attack. I'm just straight up; No reason to take offense. We must assume people know what birds look like. It's just that simple. I don't mind you taking the time to show what you think it may be, but lets be honest. Your attempt is a little weak. Posting another image of a bird so the black is in the right position to assist you in collaborating your idea seems desperate and not objective.

ETA: I would also like to say the depth perception and brightness for those to be gulls doesn't seem right. If they are, for the sake of argument, then they are riding wind currents above the buildings because we don't see different wing positions when flapping. Because they lack any detail, they would also have to be extremely high, yet the contrast is off in comparison with the building below. They wouldn't be so bright.

edit on 20-8-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-8-2012 @ 05:11 PM by Zarniwoop

reply to post by FlySolo

No reason to take offense.

None taken.

We must assume people know what birds look like. It's just that simple.

You must have misread my previous post. I believe the photo has been misrepresented. In other words, I believe someone, (not the OP) is trying to pass off a picture of birds as something that it is not.

I don't mind you taking the time to show what you think it may be, but lets be honest. Your attempt is a little weak. Posting another image of a bird so the black is in the right position to assist you in collaborating your idea seems desperate and not objective.

So you in your opinion, my attempt to guess what the objects might be, using examples for context, is weaker than your entire contribution of "it's not indoor lighting"

I posted the pictures because the OP (still) cannot seem to imagine the possibility of birds flying at different angles and being viewed from different perspectives.

I do keep an open mind. If you would like to describe your thoughts on the photo with some reasonable logic, I am more than willing to listen. I could even be convinced otherwise with strong evidence.

Until then...