Originally posted by nerbot

2. Why did "SHOOTER" open an account on December 27, 2005 and not post or respond to a single thing, then send a photo direct to ATS via email from a holiday dated August 19th of this year?

That's not the same person, Jeff chose to use the name "SHOOTER" because the photographer who sent me the image enjoys her privacy and asked that her name be kept out of the report.

The photographer of this image told me she was referred to ATS by a friend who apparently visits the site frequently, she was unaware of ATS prior to taking this image and showing it to her friend.

Springer...

Originally posted by Erno86

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
People put much to much faith in EXIF image data. I know several programs that can edit EXIF data. So saying that this is not photoshopped because there is nothing in the EXIF data that suggests it means nothing.

Im still undecided on what the object is or how it got there. But it looks to clear and bright to be very far away if it was a real object.

Its certainly not proof off anything at the moment.

edit on 1-10-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

I haven't read all the post's on this thread yet...but I have to agree with PhoenixOD on this UO, because "it looks to clear and bright to be very far away." The UO does not have a haze that is commensurate with the ocean haze and far land mass; thus the object if very small and close-by.

That is where I differ, I don't think it is clear at all. If it was all that clear you would have a much better idea of what it is. It does not have to be within the focus distance to be seen, just not seen clearly. That's how it looks to me. Springer I think, said it looked like a large object at a distance, that seems just as viable to my thinking.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
I have refined my guess to a blue/ semitransparent grocery bag, that the photographer missed as she was lining up the shot.

The bottom right portion of the object seems like a bag handle and the middle portion could easily be the folds of the bag reflecting the sun light. The symmetry mentioned could just be due to coincidence.

As quickly as the wind blew the bag into frame, once the picture was taken, it expediently blew it away.

I am not saying it could not be something more, just throwing ideas out there to spur our debate.

As referenced in my above post, here are some images of flying plastic bags that through a similar analysis could yield similar results.

perhaps we should imploy some scientific method and use a "CONTROL". If someone had the time to submit the following images to the same analysis, would it yeild similar conclusions




With the right angle, sunlight, atmospheric conditions, i think a plastic bag could fool everyone. Well atleast me anyways.

but i still think a control to closely match the OP would be valuable.

Just to chime in for the atmospheric haze:


Attached is a snip of the UO shot grabbed from 2 locations: the main, large mound in the main body of the shot, and the UO (direct from original image - although I'm sure the ATS upload compresses, Mark? Yes?).

You can see in comparison of the darkest areas of the mound, where shadows are delineating the level of black, that the UO is much lighter in tone, within it's darkest levels. Clearly, the object is at the very least, past the large mound by a moderate to fair amount.

The focal quality as well, when examined dark area to sky (mound) and dark area to sky (UO) in giving you the starkest and most apparent focal comp, it's readily evident that the UO is further out of focus than the mound.

Therefore, further away than the mound (comp that to the very far other side of the water landmass if you like for drastic difference.) It's not as far away as that distant landmass by any stretch, but it's highly unlikely to me that this is anything close.

It's highly, highly doubtful to me to be a mylar balloon or blowing bag (for all the reasons I put in the original report should anyone avail themselves of that). The idea of a bird is truly absurd to me. I've not seen any symmetrical domed reflective birds around lately.

Everyone is well entitled to their own thoughts. As stated, I have no hard and fast answers here.

Haha! These kind of threads are what ATS does best! I love 'em.


Here we have a sequence of pictures showing what happens to a droplet of water as it falls, then pancakes out and finally explodes into smaller droplets...




Okay, so we add the UFO picture into the sequence (excuse the poor formatting)...













... and voila! We have a credible explanation for what this thing is.

In my opinion it's a water droplet (it certainly looks translucent and it's reflecting the colours around it) perhaps falling from the upper sill of the car window after the photographer wound down her window to take a snap of the goats.

I've got to go with the bird explanation.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Erno86

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
People put much to much faith in EXIF image data. I know several programs that can edit EXIF data. So saying that this is not photoshopped because there is nothing in the EXIF data that suggests it means nothing.

Im still undecided on what the object is or how it got there. But it looks to clear and bright to be very far away if it was a real object.

Its certainly not proof off anything at the moment.

edit on 1-10-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

I haven't read all the post's on this thread yet...but I have to agree with PhoenixOD on this UO, because "it looks to clear and bright to be very far away." The UO does not have a haze that is commensurate with the ocean haze and far land mass; thus the object if very small and close-by.

That is where I differ, I don't think it is clear at all. If it was all that clear you would have a much better idea of what it is. It does not have to be within the focus distance to be seen, just not seen clearly. That's how it looks to me. Springer I think, said it looked like a large object at a distance, that seems just as viable to my thinking.

I'm not a photo analytical expert...but I do not agree with Jeff Ritzmann's Report pg3, on one of Springer's post's: "Atmospheric distance haze consistent with the rest of the photo which indicates an object of some distance from the shooter."

Rather...I think the sun reflection off the object has a remarkable clarity, that is not conducive for the object being far away due to the hazy conditions in the photo. Otherwise...the closer you magnify the object --- the hazier, or less clarity looking it will get.
I'm splitting hairs, I know, but the UO --- without magnification --- looks too close to be "some distance from the shooter".

Originally posted by dethfromabuv
I've got to go with the bird explanation.

Nothing is definitive, its all just theories, possibilities/probabilities, but, there is more probability of the ring theory, with the woman's reflection in the mirror, since you're ignoring the perfect ring shape at the back.

Assuming this is an actual object in the air, is there a definitive method to "measure" the focus of this object and determine how far it is from the camera without opinion?

Could this object be in the photo because it's reflection is on the lens but the object itself is out of frame? Is that even possible?