Interesting object from AnonymousFO

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I was on Facebook earlier, and AnonymousFO shared a reporting from their website, so I went to check it out. This person is apparently a bird watcher and the LAPD began flying over their home and the neighbors. According to the report(which will be linked), he decided to take a stop motion photograph of the helicopter's blades. On examination of the picture, he saw this gray object he initially thought was a bird, but couldn't remember any birds that looked like that. It's interesting.

Here's the link to the report(with the photo): www.anonymousfo.com...

Also, I was messing around with the photo and showed Anonymous what I found. They posted the link of my photo on their website, which you can find at the bottom of the page. Please let me know what you guys think! Would love to hear from all of you.

My personal opinion at the moment is stuck between either a saucer, or a drone. Or possible a hoax? He did state that the object was moving quite fast(you can see motion blur in the object. When I messed with the photo, I seemed to get rid of some of the motion blur. I hope it helps when trying to figure out what it is.
edit on 20-1-2013 by blahxd67 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   
I agree with Robby Maradona on his comment on the webpage:


iTS VERY POSSIBLE ITS NOT REAL.


I mean, it's got the stereotypical flying saucer shape. I've never seen an image of a UFO shaped like that from the last twenty years, but that's me. Who knows, it could very well be legit.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   
It looks like a UFO from an iphone UFO app ... the 4th one at the top on this video .



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
It looks like a UFO from an iphone UFO app ... the 4th one at the top on this video .


Thanks for posting the video. It looks like we're stepping a little close towards "hoax." Hopefully we can get a photo specialist on this as well.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by CrashUnderride
I agree with Robby Maradona on his comment on the webpage:


iTS VERY POSSIBLE ITS NOT REAL.


I mean, it's got the stereotypical flying saucer shape. I've never seen an image of a UFO shaped like that from the last twenty years, but that's me. Who knows, it could very well be legit.


I agree that it could very well be a fake. I liked the video Gortex posted. It definitely seems like a hoax. However, none of those objects had motion blur in the app, but this one does. Can people fake motion blur?
edit on 20-1-2013 by blahxd67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Well the picture from the exif data

Taken with a Sony SLT 55 focal length set at 55mm f9 at 1/250th of a second.

Usually if any of these ufo apps are used the exif data is changed.

It's not a phone it's a SONY SLT55 DSLR.

So pic looks legit .

Will have a close look at and do some other work and see what turns up!

I have a SONY SLT as well a later model and I have the 18-55mm lens used for this picture.
edit on 20-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by blahxd67

Originally posted by CrashUnderride
I agree with Robby Maradona on his comment on the webpage:


iTS VERY POSSIBLE ITS NOT REAL.


I mean, it's got the stereotypical flying saucer shape. I've never seen an image of a UFO shaped like that from the last twenty years, but that's me. Who knows, it could very well be legit.


I agree that it could very well be a fake. I liked the video Gortex posted. It definitely seems like a hoax. However, none of those objects had motion blur in the app, but this one does. Can people fake motion blur?
edit on 20-1-2013 by blahxd67 because: (no reason given)


Very easily !!!



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
My friend,

S&F for sure

I believe it is real.


Sometimes, just sometimes it's based on a feeling


Be safe be well

Spiro
edit on 20-1-2013 by Spiro because: Typo



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Well the picture from the exif data

Taken with a Sony SLT 55 focal length set at 55mm f9 at 1/250th of a second.

Usually if any of these ufo apps are used the exif data is changed.

It's not a phone it's a SONY SLT55 DSLR.

So pic looks legit .

Will have a close look at and do some other work and see what turns up!

I have a SONY SLT as well a later model and I have the 18-55mm lens used for this picture.
edit on 20-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


Great.
edit on 20-1-2013 by blahxd67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
iPhone app or real I think it's irrelevant either way, and just blurs the real content in this forum.

I question why anyone would think this kind of photo was relevant to anything constructive about the subject.

What is one frame going to deduce to you, of a micro-blur?

If it was taken during an actual sighting then it would be an important frame, perhaps.

The ability to bring decent critical analysis in these situations is great, but I'd also flag this topic (ufo's spotted in single frames of non-sighting events only on later inspection of photos) is never going to help, solve, prove or do anything beyond give someone a few moments of fun whilst they check into it and analyze it.

My point is, those looking for real answers should skip this step of people trying to decipher what a single-frame speck has to offer. It offers nothing - in the overall picture, unless of course it's a picture from an actual witnessed sighting (take the Battle of LA single frame for example)

Things hiding in the frames of time/photographs that just 'pop up' in the most mundane events surely should be the least of people's worries. Photographing some sheep on a mountain track or a police helicopter and later noticing you caught a blur, are real people doing this or government agencies? There are video sequences of real things happening that stretch minutes, witness sightings that last longer - and inject some real wonder and mystery into the field.

Like I said, the line gets blurred with topics like this one (not your fault OP, I blame the point of inception!) and ultimately it's the kind of photo that's just collateral UFO spam, it shouldn't be important to anyone either way what it might be. No-one witnessed it. We're not going to get the radar data of a micro-second blip.

New year, new opportunities, new ways of thinking - in terms of photos like this, my 2013 motto is:
GET REAL!!




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by markymint
iPhone app or real I think it's irrelevant either way, and just blurs the real content in this forum.

I question why anyone would think this kind of photo was relevant to anything constructive about the subject.

What is one frame going to deduce to you, of a micro-blur?

If it was taken during an actual sighting then it would be an important frame, perhaps.

The ability to bring decent critical analysis in these situations is great, but I'd also flag this topic (ufo's spotted in single frames of non-sighting events only on later inspection of photos) is never going to help, solve, prove or do anything beyond give someone a few moments of fun whilst they check into it and analyze it.

My point is, those looking for real answers should skip this step of people trying to decipher what a single-frame speck has to offer. It offers nothing - in the overall picture, unless of course it's a picture from an actual witnessed sighting (take the Battle of LA single frame for example)

Things hiding in the frames of time/photographs that just 'pop up' in the most mundane events surely should be the least of people's worries. Photographing some sheep on a mountain track or a police helicopter and later noticing you caught a blur, are real people doing this or government agencies? There are video sequences of real things happening that stretch minutes, witness sightings that last longer - and inject some real wonder and mystery into the field.

Like I said, the line gets blurred with topics like this one (not your fault OP, I blame the point of inception!) and ultimately it's the kind of photo that's just collateral UFO spam, it shouldn't be important to anyone either way what it might be. No-one witnessed it. We're not going to get the radar data of a micro-second blip.

New year, new opportunities, new ways of thinking - in terms of photos like this, my 2013 motto is:
GET REAL!!



The whole point is figure out if it's a hoax. You can still attempt to deduce what it is by adjusting the photo a bit. If you don't like it, then don't come to these kinds of posts. Just go to a different post. Simple as that.
edit on 20-1-2013 by blahxd67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
It looks legit to me

Good find OP
Here is the Exif data
www.mufoncms.com...
IPTC Core (Adobe XMP)

Expand All / Collapse All / Show/Hide XMP Source / Show/Hide XMP Legend

xpacket = begin='' id='W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d'
x:xmpmeta

EXIF IFD0

Image Description {0x010E} = SONY DSC
Camera Make {0x010F} = SONY
Camera Model {0x0110} = SLT-A55V
Picture Orientation {0x0112} = normal (1)
X-Resolution {0x011A} = 350/1 ===> 350
Y-Resolution {0x011B} = 350/1 ===> 350
X/Y-Resolution Unit {0x0128} = inch (2)
Software / Firmware Version {0x0131} = SLT-A55V v1.10
Last Modified Date/Time {0x0132} = 2012:12:13 20:26:21
Y/Cb/Cr Positioning (Subsampling) {0x0213} = co-sited / datum point (2)
Unknown tag, Tagnum 0x4746 {0x4746} = data ===> 5
Unknown tag, Tagnum 0x4749 {0x4749} = data ===> 99
Microsoft.XP.Comment {0x9C9C} = UFO caught in frame of L.A.P.D. Helo
Print Image Matching {0xC4A5} = PrintIM
version = 0300
Microsoft.Padding {0xEA1C} = 0x1cê0x08

EXIF Sub IFD

Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) {0x829A} = 1/250 second ===> 0.004 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop {0x829D} = 90/10 ===> ƒ/9
Exposure Program {0x8822} = normal program (2)
ISO Speed Ratings {0x8827} = 100
Sensitivity Type {0x8830} = recommended exposure index (REI) (2)
Recommended Exposure Index {0x8832} = 100
EXIF Version {0x9000} = 0230
Original Date/Time {0x9003} = 2011:06:24 10:28:28
Digitization Date/Time {0x9004} = 2011:06:24 10:28:28
Components Configuration {0x9101} = 0x01,0x02,0x03,0x00 / YCbCr
Compressed Bits per Pixel {0x9102} = 1/1 ===> 1
Brightness (APEX) {0x9203} = 937/100
Brightness = 661.68 foot-lambert
Exposure Bias (EV) {0x9204} = 0/10 ===> 0
Max Aperture Value (APEX) {0x9205} = 497/100 ===> 4.97
Max Aperture = ƒ/5.6
Metering Mode {0x9207} = pattern / multi-segment (5)
Light Source / White Balance {0x9208} = unknown (0)
Flash {0x9209} = Flash did not fire, auto mode
Focal Length {0x920A} = 550/10 mm ===> 55 mm
Maker Note {0x927C} = 0x53,0x4f,0x4e,0x59,0x20,0x44,0x53,0x43,0x20,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00
User Comment (Hex) {0x9286} = 0x55,0x4e,0x49,0x43,0x4f,0x44,0x45,0x00,0xef,0xbb,0xbf,0x55,0x46,0x4f,0x20,0x43,0x61,0x75,0x67,0x68,0x74,0x20,0x69,0x6e,0x20,0x75,0x70,0x70,0x65,0x72, 0x20,0x72,0x69,0x67,0x68,0x74,0x20,0x63,0x6f,0x72,0x6e,0x65,0x72
User Comment Character Code = Unicode
FlashPix Version {0xA000} = 0100
Colour Space {0xA001} = sRGB (1)
Image Width {0xA002} = 4912 pixels
Image Height {0xA003} = 3264 pixels
Image Source {0xA300} = 0x03,0x00,0x00,0x00
Scene Type {0xA301} = directly photographed image
Custom Rendered {0xA401} = normal process (0)
Exposure Mode {0xA402} = auto exposure (0)
White Balance {0xA403} = auto (0)
Focal Length in 35mm Film {0xA405} = 82
Scene Capture Type {0xA406} = standard (0)
Contrast {0xA408} = normal (0)
Saturation {0xA409} = normal (0)
Sharpness {0xA40A} = normal (0)
Lens Specification {0xA432} = 18-55mm F3.5-5.6
Lens Model {0xA434} = DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM
Microsoft.Padding {0xEA1C} = 0x1cê0x08
Unknown tag, Tagnum 0xea1d {0xEA1D} = data ===> 4032

EXIF IFD1

Compression {0x0103} = JPEG compression (6)
Picture Orientation {0x0112} = normal (1)
X-Resolution {0x011A} = 72/1 ===> 72
Y-Resolution {0x011B} = 72/1 ===> 72
X/Y-Resolution Unit {0x0128} = inch (2)
Y/Cb/Cr Positioning (Subsampling) {0x0213} = co-sited / datum point (2)
Embedded thumbnail image:

EXIF Interoperability IFD

Interoperability Version {0x0002} = 0100

EXIF GPS IFD

GPS Version ID {0x00} = 0x02,0x03,0x00,0x00
GPS Latitude Reference {0x01} = north latitude (N)
GPS Latitude {0x02} = 34/1,11/1,26393/1000 [degrees, minutes, seconds] ===> 34° 11′ 26.393″ == 34.190665°
GPS Longitude Reference {0x03} = west longitude (W)
GPS Longitude {0x04} = 118/1,33/1,53993/1000 [degrees, minutes, seconds] ===> 118° 33′ 53.993″ == 118.564998°
Links to online mapping websites:
Google™ Maps
Yahoo!® Maps
Bing® Maps
Mapquest®
Open KML data with Google™ Earth
Save KML data to file
Save KML data to file and open with Google™ Earth
GPS Altitude Reference {0x05} = 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00
GPS Altitude {0x06} = 2363/10 m ===> 236.3 m
GPS Time Stamp / UTC Time {0x07} = 20/1,59/1,53878/1000 [hours, minutes, seconds] ===> 20h 59m 53.88s
GPS Status {0x09} = measurement interoperability
GPS Measure Mode {0x0A} = 3-dimensional (3)
GPS Speed Reference {0x0C} = kilometers per hour
GPS Speed {0x0D} = 1/10 ===> 0.1
GPS Track Reference {0x0E} = true direction
GPS Track Direction {0x0F} = 0/100 degrees
GPS Map Datum {0x12} = WGS-84
GPS Date Stamp {0x1D} = 2011:06:05 UTC
GPS Differential {0x1E} = no differential correction (0)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by pillock
 


Thank you. And thanks for putting the effort into determining if it's legit or not.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Now, what do you guys think it is? I'm changing my opinion on this. I was starting to think it's a hoax, but now I think it's totally legit.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Hi I have had a look at the picture like I said I have a SONY SLT myself a later model than the A55 the problem withe the picture it difficult to work out what it focused on.

If you look at the picture closely the pole is not in sharp focus, the helicopter isn't and the object isn't either.

It looks like the wire is in focus but that may be just because it's a thin line so it looks relatively in focus.

With a picture like that if you have an object and you have a good idea of the focus point you can use the online depth of filed calculator to work out the area of acceptable focus.

We know it's A SONY A55 SLT aperture was f9 focal length setting on lens was 55 mm but we don't know for sure the exact focus distance.

DOF Calculator

For example if the distance from the camera to the wire if in focus was say 25ft using the calculator using the lens data anything from 17 ft to 45 ft would have acceptable sharpness.

If focused at just over 55ft everything from 27 ft to infinity would be in focus that would make the blurry out of focus object closer than 27 feet! in that case most likely a small bird or large bug that would also explain the motion blur.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Hiya all.

I'm leaning towards getting on the shenanigans bus for this one a little I think. >.<

It looks a bit awesome ahaha:



It's like something from the Jetson's! But the metadata is an utter mess.


There is also evidence of Adobe XMP data. This will be a bit short, since it's a lot to go over, but just some of the things that don't make sense. I've only gone over the embedded information:

It has a 2012 modification date in the Adobe datas; modified on 13.12.2012 8:26:21 PM. This data is in Adobe's unique meta data system. The Adobe XMP data can be viewed inside Adobe Photoshop or with the appropriate viewer:



This would correspond with the date the person says they looked at the image for the first time. It might indicate using Adobe Bridge or something similar, but the Adobe reference wouldn't be there without some type of saving operation.

The image contains two images which is normal ... the compression signature of the thumbnail image:



Other example images from this camera that had not been altered did not have compression signatures like this on their child images. Nor do the images come with Adobe XMP data. It could indicate the image had a thumbnail attached to it, but there's a few other things going on.

There is metadata missing when compared to shots taken by other SLT-A55V model cameras. I've linked some examples below, but by all means do your own research. Other versions of the same camera include image numbers, battery information, and all the various other information.

Because some persons might struggle to pull the datas out and the text file lists it as manufacturer infos, so I did screenshots as well:

UFO Picture:

UFO EXIF (Contact me if you want the file but don't like downloading sites. ATS nor myself guarantee links are awesomely safe)

Other example:

Example EXIF (Contact me if you want the file but don't like downloading sites. ATS nor myself guarantee links are awesomely safe)

Seems a bit odd to have cameras packing such different EXIF data. I found examples from this model of camera here: www.imaging-resource.com...

I don't own the camera unfortunately. I extracted the data specifically from each image.

The information from the Jetson's photo has this information at times written in a different way (Lens Model) or in one case, a user comment written in a different language. By all means go on a translating adventure:

뽕䙏⁃慵杨琠楮⁵灰敲⁲楧桴⁣潲湥

My attempt was utterly random: ᄈ ᅩ ᆼ 䙏 ⁃ Yang sustained efforts to aggressively seek out may be substantial toll ⁲ 楧 ⁣ 湥 wildcards are not supported

It's best to pull the Chinese letters out of the actual photo.

There is also evidence of markers which are not normally present in other EXIF data examples for this camera:



EOI means end of image. The FFD9 marker should indicate the end of an image, whilst 0xD8 indicates the start. The second marker isn't usual. There is also evidence of data padding which isn't present in other examples presented from the same model camera.

Just seems like something has done a number on the hexadecimal / meta datas of this image. That, combined with some of the Adobe data attached and compression signatures ... There would have to be a fairly good excuse for why the image is in such a state.

Disclaimer: I'm no one important. I have no particular skills except I can make okayish origami, and know three or four magic tricks. I make mistakes, but only on days ending with Y that start with me waking up.

Please ask questions nicely if you have them.

Ich danke schön.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Definitely worth a discussion, so thanks OP


I'm having problem with the angle. It just seems off. Very hard to tell in a one-dimensional photograph but imagining a flat linear floor underneath the chopper's bottom then, that would almost suggest the other object would be practically riding on it's side. And although certain bona fide UFOs are known to do that, this one almost seems perpendicular to the ground.

My best guess would be this (as he's banking into a left turn though...)



Still extremely interesting!

S&F



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Hi It may have happened at Mufon they have had the picture so they may have looked at it in an Adobe product and re-saved it


Many pictures from Mufon have no exif data, now I don't know if that is down to them or the person sending them a picture.

It's such a tiny object is it worth the effort putting it in a shot.

That's why I think its a small object close to the camera so it looks out of focus and motion blur could show.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Pinke
 

Hi It may have happened at Mufon they have had the picture so they may have looked at it in an Adobe product and re-saved it


I hope not!

Besides, the edit date was in December when the user mentioned finding the image.

Maybe Human Alien can tell us about MUFON's recent image handling / CMS etc ... but I've seen MUFON documents refer to things like EXIF data and most images that don't have it, I wouldn't expect it.

And yes about it being not worth the effort ahahaha ... I saw it looked like a saucer / cartoon vehicle, and I liked the picture.
Then I got interest in meta datas and the Chinese words in it, and it snow balled ... I get easily distracted by small pointless puzzles I guess haha ... this one is at least a little more interesting that an obvious Shrek-FO.

Sometimes I just really enjoy learning about the story of picture, too. Perhaps one day one of the puzzles is actually something quite important. Is unlikely, but I can dream haha

Note: I really badly want to know what the Chinese person wrote. Someone find me a Chinese person. Now! Go!
edit on 21-1-2013 by Pinke because: >.< Chinese!



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke


Maybe Human Alien can tell us about MUFON's recent image handling / CMS etc ... but I've seen MUFON documents refer to things like EXIF data and most images that don't have it, I wouldn't expect it.



Thanks for thinking I could help however, those are entirely different departments. I was (I hate to use the word 'just' but....) a field investigator, interviewing/qualifying witnesses.

Photographs, videos, trace evidence, audio and so on....would get passed off to professional in their specific areas of expertise....after we deemed the case creditable and worth further investigation





top topics
 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join