Photographer captures pair of 'Flying Saucers' while taking pictures at West Country seaside resor

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   
This story was published yesterday on the Mail Online site.

I probably wouldnt have bother to post it here if it had been only the first picture they presented which is below, but the fact that they managed to blow up the zoom of one of the objects captured (also below) pretty well, it seemed to me it deserved a looksie from the members here.

A snippet from the article:

The former Navy aeronautical engineer said he took the picture at 1.39pm on Wednesday but the two objects had disappeared by the time he took his next photo nine seconds later. Mr Morgan said: 'I was on the ferry rattling off snaps.


Also for the this supposed fact:


Haydn Morgan had images examined but experts ruled out dust on camera


Picture 1


Picture 2 that has me scratching my head a little and why Im really presenting it here


There is a third picture of the object which you can see On the Article HERE but it is the basic blurry we usually see.

So, what say you my fellow members?




posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Shame it's from that paper and the article directly under it is asking if a reflection is sinister or natural.

Who knows what they did to 'enhance' that image.

Attack of the really small aliens, or attack of the ever grasping bunk paper.. I can never tell any more.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
SWAMP GAS!



The problem we have now is that anyone can create an image in photoshop that looks impressive, so when a genuine pic comes along how do we know if its real?
I hope the pics you present ARE real as they clearly show a disc!



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by onehuman
 


Irresponsible use of a clay pigeon launcher?

What ever this turns out to be, it is certainly one of the clearer images I have seen published as part of the history of the subject of UFO.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Britannia Royal Naval College is on the opposite riverbank to Kingswear and aircraft of all types frequently overfly and land there. The object/s are also exactly on one of the north/south continental aviation routes. I know you could argue that a former navy aeronautical engineer would be able to readily identify conventional aircraft, but he does say that he didn't notice the objects until he put the pictures on his computer. As one commenter has already pointed out fakes are getting easier to make and harder to spot.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Birds.
Blurred birds.
Blurds.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Blurds.

Blimey, that's gonna stick in my head.

"Look, up in the sky? Is it a"

"BLURDS.. SEEN IT."

"oh.."



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Both the objects appear to have the same faint marking underneath in the centre. They could be a particular type of drone I suppose. It's hard to discern if the photographer did see something as he took the pictures, but he does also say "they had disappeared" which implies he had seen something to shoot at.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I bet all his other images have the same dirt on them, hence they are long deleted.

It could be, and is, something from our planet, its NOT aliens. Aliens do not fly 3ft wide spaceships....without lights! We all know they have multiple LED's so that they arent spotted


Its dirt, there is more dirt in the image but its not highlighted like the ones in the sky...because aliens fly spaceships, and flying spacehips sells news...dirt on the lens is just dirt on the lens and is a pointless waste of bandwidth. Look at the center of the image, there is another spec of dirt on the lens but its less obvious and has no red circle to make you look at it.

Its called the Daily Fail for a reason. The image is tiny 38kb, nothing can be decerned from the image on the Daily Mail but im sure, as always, the UFO "experts" on ATS can long this out for at least 10 pages debating what race of alien flies tiny dirt like spaceships.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Exactly, with today's technology how are we supposed to tell whats real and whats not? Photoshop has killed UFO photography imo.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   

winofiend
Blurds.

Blimey, that's gonna stick in my head.


I didnt inventa that word, its been kicking around for a few years, like in this thread here, with EXACTLY the same blurred birds.

new UFO sigting in Bali , Indonesia
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 



Phage calls them "blurds"!


Lmao, even by proxy he cracks me up!!




posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Shouldn't these type of pictures be labeled 'picture captures dots in sky'. Yes, I know, someone will say they are technically termed "orbs".

Given that they are so many around today, isn't it about time for another ET craft crash.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


I like that word-blurds,I also have captured a few of those.
Here's another blurd:
edit on 19-10-2013 by Raxoxane because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by onehuman
 


Well when a site strips of all exif data from the picture I often wonder why, we have no exposure/camera data to look at with this picture.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by onehuman
 





Picture 2 that has me scratching my head a little and why Im really presenting it here


Me too . I would like to see the original picture and know what equipment he was using .
I guess the main picture has been reduced in quality for the article but would be interested to know how they got this ...


From this ...


It may just be a quality issue but without the original all we have is a slightly suspect picture in my opinion .



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

gortex
reply to post by onehuman
 





Picture 2 that has me scratching my head a little and why Im really presenting it here


Me too . I would like to see the original picture and know what equipment he was using .
I guess the main picture has been reduced in quality for the article but would be interested to know how they got this ...


From this ...


It may just be a quality issue but without the original all we have is a slightly suspect picture in my opinion .


In every thread posted where op claims that HE/SHE took the picture themselves I always ask if they can upload the original, they never do.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Picture 2 seems to show a reasonably well defined, dark elliptical object, possibly circular, but seen from an angle. It does not appear to simply be a blur of a familiar object like a bird, kite, balloon, or aircraft. There appears to be a whitish dot at the center, a purple coloration on the left edge, and green on the right edge. Might these colors tell us something about the image? Are these characteristic of a faked image, or could the color effects be caused by enlargement of a picture of a real, dark object against a white, cloudy background?



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by onehuman
 


This look's kosher to me but the eye can be fooled, A good indicator would be water surface relection but the water is too choppy and the shot not of sufficiant resolution thouth I like it,.
Cool. S+F.
Frizby alien throwbacks on the beech.



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
But there are ways to determine if the photo has manipulated aren't there?

I guess, should anyone capture evidence -don't erase the info from the camera or video camera - so that you can prove you did not alter the evidence on a computer. Check. Just in case I ever capture evidence and wish to share. Save the raw data on the original device it was taken with.

CdT





new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join