Jun 9/2012 UFO picture London Ontario

reply to post by Zarniwoop


Not indoor lighting and I clearly explained why. Could someone try and hoodwink somebody to think they are UFOs? Possibly. But please see my edit to my above post.

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by FlySolo

 

Until then...

Thank but I do have a good sence of imagination i think and open mind
but that picture should go to the HOAX Bin

I'm still waiting for a e-mail from the guy that took the picture to see if he got more and a full run down
of what happen but still bird just don't just disapeare you see them fly off.

I think that the objects are "point sources" of light that are elongated and curved by motion blur in the camera. You can see some motion blur in the detail of the building.

At first I just thought the buildings were out of focus but that effect might be mostly due to the motion blur.

Is it possible these are (excuse me, but I have to ask), Chinese fire lanterns? They do look like they are quite distant. It looks to me like the "objects" are self illuminated (not reflecting light). They seem to have a slight "pinkish" hue.

I don't think they look like light reflections in a window. Does the witness have any more info? How long did he/she observe. What motion, etc...

Originally posted by bluestreak53
I think that the objects are "point sources" of light that are elongated and curved by motion blur in the camera. You can see some motion blur in the detail of the building.

At first I just thought the buildings were out of focus but that effect might be mostly due to the motion blur.

Is it possible these are (excuse me, but I have to ask), Chinese fire lanterns? They do look like they are quite distant. It looks to me like the "objects" are self illuminated (not reflecting light). They seem to have a slight "pinkish" hue.

I don't think they look like light reflections in a window. Does the witness have any more info? How long did he/she observe. What motion, etc...

edit on 20-8-2012 by bluestreak53 because: grammar/spelling

Sorry the curved motion blur does not match the same amount on the point of light and the building
and i have never heared off six lantern go off at the same time, but your blur sound better than bird.

reply to post by Zarniwoop


I need a life.



The angle these gulls are flying at is not consistent with gliding. The lower building soffit outlined in red is indicative of 1920 architecture. These buildings are only about 6 floors at 10' per floor. This means the building across the street is a good 200' not including the telecommunication antenna on the roof.

We can see the objects are far above the antenna and the one closest to the antenna ( if they're directly above) is only about 10 '- 20 ' away from it. Because the angle of the camera is pointed up, we should see the underneath of the birds and even possibly the tail feathers spread out. But the curvature of the wings show they are either A) ascending away from the camera or B) descending towards it. But gulls don't glide that way. They glide in circles moving with the airflow.

The object closest to the antenna really bugs me because it must higher and further away and not in front of the antenna otherwise we would most certainly see more detail.

So in conclusion to my ramblings, those can't be gulls.

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.

Also my guess. Even with the motion blur, the lights themselves look to be in better focus than the building, which to me suggests that they're closer to the camera than the building, or the combined distance of camera-to-window and window-to-ceiling behind the camera operator.

And what about that "motion blur?" If you notice, the blur of the objects doesn't match the questionable blur of the building. Also, not all of the objects have the same blur. Some are more curved and at a different angle than others. What does that mean? Are they really blurred, or is that their shape?

And why are some parts of the building apparently blurred (the antenna), while others are not (the window)? And the blur of the building is noticeably shorter than the apparently blur of the objects, which again suggests that the objects are much closer relative to the camera than the building.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

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.

Also my guess. Even with the motion blur, the lights themselves look to be in better focus than the building, which to me suggests that they're closer to the camera than the building, or the combined distance of camera-to-window and window-to-ceiling behind the camera operator.

And what about that "motion blur?" If you notice, the blur of the objects doesn't match the questionable blur of the building. Also, not all of the objects have the same blur. Some are more curved and at a different angle than others. What does that mean? Are they really blurred, or is that their shape?

And why are some parts of the building apparently blurred (the antenna), while others are not (the window)? And the blur of the building is noticeably shorter than the apparently blur of the objects, which again suggests that the objects are much closer relative to the camera than the building.

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

I'm wondering if the building is more "out of focus" than "blurred by camera motion".
I do agree that the motion "blur" in the lights doesn't seem to match the building. That might also indicate that the lights might be reflections.

I'm wondering if the camera auto-focussed on the light reflections because they were bright against a fairly dimly lit background exterior?

That might be the shape of the light fixtures n the bar?

Note: (Of course if the person taking the photos was outside, like they said, that explanation wouldn't work. Just trying to look at all possibilities.)

If the buildings are out of focus (and not motion blurred), then the lights should also be at least as out of focus as the building, since they are further away and the building is already at a far distance.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

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.

Also my guess. Even with the motion blur, the lights themselves look to be in better focus than the building, which to me suggests that they're closer to the camera than the building, or the combined distance of camera-to-window and window-to-ceiling behind the camera operator.

And what about that "motion blur?" If you notice, the blur of the objects doesn't match the questionable blur of the building. Also, not all of the objects have the same blur. Some are more curved and at a different angle than others. What does that mean? Are they really blurred, or is that their shape?

And why are some parts of the building apparently blurred (the antenna), while others are not (the window)? And the blur of the building is noticeably shorter than the apparently blur of the objects, which again suggests that the objects are much closer relative to the camera than the building.

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

I'm prety sure i said it earlyer he had just walk outside from a bar and just had a bit of time
to take the picture i'm trying to find out if he has more of the pic. Did not get an answer yet.

reply to post by FlySolo

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.

I agree with your analysis (partially). They would have to be gliding for all the wing configurations to be consistent as they are. The brightness seems out of whack to me as well. Sunset on June 9th in London Ontario was 9:03 PM. So, if the pic was actually shot at 9:30 PM, the objects would not be lit like that. Although, the OP said "around" 9:30, so who knows.

As for the lack of detail, I think they could be very lossy-looking at pretty much any altitude. The photo is pretty grainy. They actually look to have more detail/contrast than the buildings.

What makes me think these are birds though is the same general body signature they all have... as if they are soaring birds of some type. Maybe a different type of bird.

reply to post by FlySolo


To me, the objects seem to be at a lower altitude than the taller building. That antenna in the distance is barely recognizable, while the objects in question have much more contrast. The object on the far right could easily be flying lower, closer to the shorter building and viewer's perspective, with the others being even more overhead.

Double post

reply to post by Zarniwoop


Then they are definitely not gulls. They wouldn't be so ambiguous. Plus they would be bigger then

I am not educated enough on photography discerning focus & distance
however I do have a question...
Could the differences in the focusing or out of focus be due the photo
being taken from a cell phone. I know many auto focus & that would be set by
closest object (?) if that's where the focus point is & if the focus point is
in between the lights & the building wouldn't they both be obscured or
one or the other? & also if focus point was on the lights or just a straight up shot?
Sorry one more...would it not also depend on the phone he was using?
It also appears to me anyway that the 2 highest objects above the antenna
& building are the most in focus in regard to the rest...?

Thank you for your time.

Cheers
Ektar

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

That's assuming he was drunk (in which case why would he be too drunk to see?) Yet clearly capable of removing his phone from his pocket and taking a picture. Let's not make base assumptions of character and instead try and figure out the image.

reply to post by mr-lizard


We're way past that already, but thanks for the tip

ETA: Also, the OP didn't take the picture. I thought it might be safe to make a funny about the brother of a friend of the OP. If he joins ATS, I'll personally apologize.

reply to post by FlySolo


They would probably be too big if they were over the taller building. However, they look perfectly bird-sized at the lower altitude

Does anyone else have a guess as to anything else they might be as opposed as to what they are not?

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by FlySolo

 

They would probably be too big if they were over the taller building. However, they look perfectly bird-sized at the lower altitude

Does anyone else have a guess as to anything else they might be as opposed as to what they are not?

This one is really getting to you sorry about that.
Maybe if you would post more by your lack of Flag
Maybe you would see more than just the debunking side sometime.
Still waiting on that e-mail sorry.

reply to post by Trillium

This one is really getting to you sorry about that.
Maybe if you would post more by your lack of Flag
Maybe you would see more than just the debunking side sometime.
Still waiting on that e-mail sorry.

No, not getting to me at all. I was bored today and I like analyzing photos. No one has offered anything other than trying to debunk my bird theory... including you.

What do you think the objects are in the photo you have graced us with?

I have a flag on a post... had it out front on the 4th.

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by Trillium

 

This one is really getting to you sorry about that.
Maybe if you would post more by your lack of Flag
Maybe you would see more than just the debunking side sometime.
Still waiting on that e-mail sorry.

No, not getting to me at all. I was bored today and I like analyzing photos. No one has offered anything other than trying to debunk my bird theory... including you.

What do you think the objects are in the photo you have graced us with?

I have a flag on a post... had it out front on the 4th.

For what its worth, I don't think they are birds. For many reasons. But I did wonder about that the first glance I had of the photo.

I did mention the idea they might be Chinese lanterns and others have said they might be reflections of lights in the windows. So you are wrong to state that no one has provided any alternate potential explanations.

reply to post by bluestreak53

I did mention the idea they might be Chinese lanterns and others have said they might be reflections of lights in the windows. So you are wrong to state that no one has provided any alternate potential explanations.

You are correct. I did misuse the term "no one" in that sentence and had a bit of tunnel vision...My apologies.

I didn't think they were Chinese Lanterns due to the width of the motion-shift... looked to me like they would be going too fast for lanterns and nothing in the buildings seems to be motion-shifted as the objects are. However, I'm no camera expert in the least, and thanks to your post...

I found some fairly strong evidence that the objects are indeed Chinese Lanterns.

There were Chinese Lanterns over London Ontario the day before the pic in the OP on June 8, 2012 at around 9:30PM... right around the same time in the evening.

The guy in the video describes seeing them and then after his line of sight was blocked by buildings, he ran across the street and they had "disappeared"



Here's another video from June 8 showing likely the same lanterns.



I have flipped on my previously-held bird theory.

I now believe there was a wedding or similar celebration event at the Castle Building in downtown London Ontario on June 9th, 2012, and at around 9:30 some Chinese Lanterns were released and witnessed by the OP's friend's brother after he had walked out of a bar.

The Old Courthouse