UFO Pic in Cass Lake, Minnesota

First of all let me say I'm of the "blurry dot"/"lens flare" type of skeptic of these types of photos. But, since it is a local story for me and I don't think many around the world (here) will see it otherwise - I decided I would share it for you all who are interested.



Story Here

Barta was taking pictures of pelicans outside her rural Cass Lake home in northern Minnesota on Sept. 2. That's when she saw the saucer, which spanned the horizon in just a few seconds at an incredible speed, she said. The pelicans are in the photo. The object is, too.

"Was it a drone? Was it somebody who actually created something and they were flying it? Was it a real UFO from another planet?" she said. "It's not an aircraft known to this planet. I don't really know what it is."

Barta, a science teacher at the Bug O Nay Ge Shig school, has spent plenty of time looking at the sky. In fact, a few years back, she spent an entire summer gazing upward, mapping stellar bodies for a program called "Star Watch." She urged her students to do the same.

But in all those nights, there was never anything so obviously unidentifiable.

So, apparently she at least has some experience at sky-gazing. She also states later in the article that it is "definitely not a lens flare" as she says she also seen it with the naked eye.

What I see, personally, in the picture are a cloud, two flying pelicans, and then an oval shaped (perhaps only oval-looking due to the high-rate of speed she describes) object. An unidentified object, to be sure

As I said, just wanted to share a story with others who have more interest in this topic. Debunk it or add it to the mountainous pile of such pictures already in existence, do what thou will ATS!

I know the original photographer said it isn't lens flare, but I think it is possibly lens flare.

Going by the brightness of the upper-left part of the image, I think the sun was located just out of frame near the upper-left of the frame. Therefore, this could possibly be lens flare.

Another piece of evidence that it is lens flare is the "streaking" to the lower right of the oval. This looks to be a secondary flare/reflection, and is in a straight line from the oval to where it appears the location of the sun might be, near the upper left of the frame (again, I'm guessing at the sun's location going by the brightness of the upper left part of the image).

There is just too much about this that looks like lens flare to discount that possibility (even though the photographer says it isn't).

reply to post by kalunom

First of all let me say I'm of the "blurry dot"/"lens flare" type of skeptic of these types of photos

So am I and I think that's what it is , I've circled the rest of the flare .

kalunom
So, apparently she at least has some experience at sky-gazing. She also states later in the article that it is "definitely not a lens flare" as she says she also seen it with the naked eye.

When she says "visible to the naked eye", does she possibly mean she saw it through the viewfinder of the camera? I think that may be the case. If so, then it could still be lens flare. Lens flare does NOT only show up in finished images; it can be seen through the lens/viewscreen.

Otherwise (if she saw an oval in the sky with the naked eye, without looking through a camera), why does it look as if the subject of the picture were the pelicans, and not the object itself?

Agree with your circle there, definitely looks like lens flare.

Soylent Green Is People

kalunom
So, apparently she at least has some experience at sky-gazing. She also states later in the article that it is "definitely not a lens flare" as she says she also seen it with the naked eye.

Otherwise (if she saw an oval in the sky with the naked eye, without looking through a camera), why does it look as if the subject of the picture were the pelicans, and not the object itself?

That's a good point. She did say, however, that she tried to get a second picture of the object but it streaked across the sky too quickly to capture again. So maybe it was this pelican-focused picture that first drew her attention to the object. After taking which, she seen the object with the naked eye (purportedly).

As others have been saying - I lean towards the lens flare explanation as well. Can't take people at their word, unfortunately.

I actually went to HS in Cass Lake and there used to be a few people that said UFO came out of Star Island all the time.

That Island has a lake inside of it as well.....a lake inside a lake.

reply to post by kalunom


REALLY looks like classic lens flare, I'm sorry.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Haha! That's cool - actually I find the lake inside of a lake more interesting than this UFO picture Thank you for sharing that!

And maybe that pre-existing UFO lore you speak of there has something to do with this story coming out in the first place...

Looks exactly like lens flare.

Going with lens flare too. Also the picture dimensions look odd. It looks like it's been cropped to take out the sun in the upper left.

reply to post by kalunom


Could be lens flare, could be an alien inside a disc scratchin his ass on the way back to planet zog, could be many things, and the real pity is we will never ever know for sure, we might be lookin at an other world craft and we might not, it's such a shame all these so called "genuine" images of unidentified somethings or others are always so distant or blobby...sigh!......... thanks for sharing

I agree with the lens flare hypothesis.
Ontario Canada has Manitoulin Island which is the largest island on a fresh water lake in the world at 1068mi2.
It also has Lake Manitou at 40.4 mi2 which is the largest lake on an island.
It also has Treasure Island on lake Mindemoya which is the largest island on a lake on an island.
Cool stuff.

I realize most are saying it is a lens flare. I have a question though...

IF IT IS A LENS FLARE then how is it possible they saw it with their own eyes? Lens Flare of the eyes?

"For the moment, we were pretty dumbfounded," she said of her and her friend, Neil Peterson. "The two of us are watching it zoom across the sky, and I'm trying to get another picture of it, but I couldn't catch it."

She mentions the speed of the craft.

That's when she saw the saucer, which spanned the horizon in just a few seconds at an incredible speed, she said.

She discounts lens flare...

I'm not standing there and going 'Oh, it's aliens.' But it's definitely not a lens flare, cause we saw it with the naked eye."

MamaJ
I realize most are saying it is a lens flare. I have a question though...

IF IT IS A LENS FLARE then how is it possible they saw it with their own eyes? Lens Flare of the eyes?

That's sort of the problem here: the two individuals saying they saw it with their own eyes. No one can just take their word for it as being truth. The only evidence we get to see is what is coming from behind a lens.

One could make the argument that the close-up picture provided above (with the circle), highlighting the streak of the 'flare', could be the result of the incredible speed of the 'object' described in the article. The camera's shutter speed (sorry I'm not very familiar with camera-lingo, not sure if that's the correct term) may not have been fast enough to capture the 'object' in a single still frame.

Without having any more pictures or video (especially an angle without the sun in top left making this really appear as a lens flare)...I will still have to side with the lens flare explanations.

Are there any cameras made that are lens-flare proof/resistant? That would sure be handy.

reply to post by kalunom


I think her being a Science teacher and having a friend who also witnessed it, is credible enough for me. I realize others are not as trusting and maybe I am naive to think she wouldn't lie and have her friend lie as well just to create a good story.

There are enough sightings to keep Mufon busy and I'm sure a lot of them are hoaxes. Too many people tell the same story of abductions for me not to believe there is truth there.