Well that seals it for me...Bird, Bug, Balloon or Blob...

OR the BirdBugBalloonBlob Guy flyin in the wind.....

Solved.??

Looks Birdy/buggy to me.

And for her not seeing it, well she is probably looking at the display screen, not at the subjects.

You can easily go outside in warm weather and hear bugs etc flying, and they are soooo fast you cannot detect them zipping past.....Obviously todays fast shutter, automatic, digital cameras can now pick up those once invisible bugs and birds and show them in flight, although slightly blurry...just like these.

Going by the distant haze and whitecaps and her description of very windy stormy weather, a stray balloon cannot be ruled out, she didnt see it because she wasnt looking for it, the driver didnt see it, because he was too busy negotiating the bumps and holes and didnt want to damage the newish Rental? car.
I dont think its paranormal, just normal, but unusual.

As much as it would be really interesting to be something exotic it appears to me to be an ultralight aircraft. At the left of the object itself I see a small post console and directly behind that to the right the outline of a pilot. What is missing are the wings and the tail. The wings are likely in the shot, but the angle is such that the camera view is directly on their plane. What I mean is you are seeing the wings end-on, making them almost invisible. The tail, which can be quite small and be almost any color, is obscured by the possible movement of the rear-facing propellor.
What I see is a blurred image of the cockpit with the rear propellor and tail blending into the sky due to distance, color schema, haze, and the movement of both the camera and the aircraft.
The fact that the locale is a remote area also lends to the concept of an ultralight. Heck, if I was flying for fun like that I wouldn't want a lot of other traffic in the air either.

Originally posted by Phage
The "photographer did not see the object while taking the picture" always raises a flag for me.

I feel the same way, and I'm not sure if it's an object really in the air.
There's a ray of sunlight shining in the window that crosses over the ring on her finger. Is it possible the object is light reflecting off the ring and side view mirror?

Its some form of Alien probe but dont worry, its not the bad kind...

I may be just seeing stuff from looking at image "IMG3134" for too long but I see a lighter shade of blue in the sky above the far right goat and to the right of the lower tip of the rock in the middle of the pic.

I am looking at these pics from my phone so what I think I see may be nothing, too me the lighter shade appears to be in the right place with the right shape to be the object in the first image (the ufo in question).

like I said im viewing from my phone so I may be seeing nothing but I thought its best to mention this so the rest of you who can have a better look may be able to determine whether there is something there or not.

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

It looks like moisture on the lens from someone sneezing on the lens, which moments later dries up.

Even in the other photo of the goats in front of the car there is a dark spot above the point of rocks in front of the car and the two match up pretty much as being in the same place on the lens of the camera. Also, the UFO is not symetrical, which leads credence to it being a liquid sneeze drop on the lens.

I'm not here to debunk or disprove, I have a fascination with UFO's and sometimes I am intrigued. Unfortunately this picture doesn't do anything for my curiosity. It looks like a silver blob. It could be anything but whatever it is, I will forget about the picture tomorrow and then there will be over 100 pages of nonsense back and forth.

Can we just sort something out about the whole "pro photographer angle"?

Professional photographers tend to take better pictures with a box with a pin hole in it than your normal everyday person does. It's photographers take photos not cameras. This is something that crops up in every field of the "arts" my own in particular where there is the common misconception that. if you give an amateur the best tools available it will turn them into a professional. It doesn't, by and large, better equipment just serves to hi-light the amateurs lack of technique and amplify it to very obvious proportions.

A million and one people have a "recording studio" on their computer and how many new "Dark Side of the Moon" standard recordings, have you heard made from those computers? It's not the "gear" it's the person using it that has the ability to, often, transcend it's apparent limitations.

Springer seems happy with the back story to the photographer's tale, maybe they are a very clever hoaxer, the chances right now, seem to suggest not however, that can;t be totally ruled out. Once you look past that, the equipment they are using is really wholly irrelevant You could just as easily ask, why would you lug ferociously expensive photographic gear on holiday when you're a photographer? You're on holiday just maybe, the last thing you want to be bothered with is focal lengths, setting up sophisticated cameras and generally, anything more than, taking a few "snaps".

The diagonal pixel disruption could be a gas leak- leaking in that direction intentionally to stabilize the craft back the other direction- to then be in parallel with the horizon.

Or it could be a string. A very wide and otherwise invisible string. Attached to a balloon that does not appear in any other photos and one that the photographer said she never saw.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
"Whatever the hell that is it's not real. The object was added after the photo was taken, converted to a negative and they added green and purplish-red tint to certain areas so it looked hazy and indistinguishable when converted back."

I don't think the person you sent it to looked deep enough.

The JPEG compression artifacts show no sign of second generation recompression after someone supposedly made alterations.

The EXIF data is consistent with the camera being used, and the "last modified" time stamp of the raw file is consistent with the EXIF data. Both can be faked, but those tending to falsify EXIF information in a photo tend to forget minor details, or add too much information. I believe I was analyzing a photo directly from the camera... and I believe it's a mylar balloon.

just my opinion but i believe these fairly close up shots that look more legit than most other images starting from around the 1991 lunar eclipse ufo images that appears to have some sort of magnetic exhaust and everything, i wholeheartedly believe they're man made crafts, probably from our (u.s.) military to be either manned and/or unmanned drones or probes of some sort with technology from what the nazis where working on from "die glocke" (the bell).

think about it for a sec.. any technology we're aware of and know about now, is anywhere from 10 to 20 years behind where they're really at and i was actually told this from a friends father that was an e8 master sergeant in the army at the time and even though that isn't really the top of the top, hearing it when you're in your early teens it's something that burns into your psyche and sticks, anyway.. these images are indeed amazing and exhibit flight characteristics i'd look for in extraterrestrial ufo's i'm still not convinced they are extraterrestrial.

something i usually like to interject into the conversation any chance i get when talking about extraterrestrials is that.. if alien abductions are in fact real, would we really want to meet these beings and do we think they're really benevolent? some of the stories of abduction are more horrible than words can describe.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
"Whatever the hell that is it's not real. The object was added after the photo was taken, converted to a negative and they added green and purplish-red tint to certain areas so it looked hazy and indistinguishable when converted back."

I don't think the person you sent it to looked deep enough.

The JPEG compression artifacts show no sign of second generation recompression after someone supposedly made alterations.

The EXIF data is consistent with the camera being used, and the "last modified" time stamp of the raw file is consistent with the EXIF data. Both can be faked, but those tending to falsify EXIF information in a photo tend to forget minor details, or add too much information. I believe I was analyzing a photo directly from the camera... and I believe it's a mylar balloon.

You could very well be correct and I do not hold-up my friends opinion as gospel.

I just passed the photo along and posted his comments as is.(Hey, I learned how to use re-size images in WildBit today.....it's a good day!)