UFO captured on photograph over North Devon

I think Phages example is spot on. The photographer captured a bird unintentionally, while shooting the windmills. Judging by the sheep in the bottom of the photo, I would put the bird "maybe" 100 yards from the camera. Just because he is flying higher doesnt mean he is over the ocean....it's just a perspective thing.

But, if you want to see UFO's, that's your opinion. Just because a majority don't agree with you doesn't mean there is an "agenda".

Below is another image of a Great Skua (common in the Devon area). I'm pretty certain this is the type of bird he photographed:
Great Skua taken by Adam Tilt

gavron
I think Phages example is spot on. The photographer captured a bird unintentionally, while shooting the windmills. Judging by the sheep in the bottom of the photo, I would put the bird "maybe" 100 yards from the camera. Just because he is flying higher doesnt mean he is over the ocean....it's just a perspective thing.

But, if you want to see UFO's, that's your opinion. Just because a majority don't agree with you doesn't mean there is an "agenda".

Below is another image of a Great Skua (common in the Devon area). I'm pretty certain this is the type of bird he photographed:
Great Skua taken by Adam Tilt

edit on 24-11-2013 by gavron because: (no reason given)

You're 100% correct. If you see a bird, I'm happy for you. I see a craft of some sort. Be happy for me too

This could be nail in the coffin photo.

Time lapse photo of the same Fullabrooke Wind Farm in North Devon. Notice the birds leaving a trail in the time lapse (which he even mentions).

Nick Woodrow Wind Farm photo


Or is that a UFO fleet?

reply to post by deprogrammer


Is N. Devonshire anywhere near Lakenheath or Upper Heyford AFB'es ? I was thinking that it sorta looks like an F-117 stealth fighter. To me it does not look like a cloud or a bird but I am no expert.

Bilk22

wmd_2008

Bilk22
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

Maybe it's Richard Branson playing with a new toy. Better explanation than a bird. The photo in that area is enlarged. The wind turbine and the object are magnified at that same rate. The turbine is is probably close to 275' from the ground to the tip of the prop at the top. That gives a good idea os scale.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF THE SIZE OR DISTANCE of the object so you cant tell anything from that picture compared to OTHER objects in the picture DOH!!!!

That object has been shown by others COULD easily be a bird we also have no exif data from the picture or a link to a full size unedited version!!!

That's my £0.02 worth after 30+ years taking pictures

edit on 24-11-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

You're 2 pounds might be worth more than 2 cents but not in my book.

I like the way people try to tell me about perspective. I'm an architect. I know about perspective and scale. Have a good day chap.

For are architect figures don't seem to be a strong point £0.02 means 2 pence ( like cents) also you
are looking at a 2D PICTURE you have NO information on that object and my 30+ years looking at and taking PICTURES trumps an YOUR ability in that subject.

That could be a very small object close to the camera thats why exif data is handy as we get more info like focal lentgh and aperture to work out depth of field

Phage
reply to post by MysterX

 

I'd consider a bird or insect as a possible explanation, if it wasn't for the fact the reporter (Journal photographer) reported seeing the object "Hovering stationary above the wind turbines".

Better read it again.
The photographer did not see it until he was viewing the picture.

That's the impression I was under,

Going back to reread the article just to double check.

Yep,

Journal photographer Rob Tibbles was looking at photographs he had taken yesterday at Fullabrook wind farm between Barnstaple and Ilfracombe when he spotted a strange object hovering above one of the turbines. After zooming in on the object to have a closer look, it was still unclear what it could be. The object appears to be grey in colour, quite large and of an oval shape. Chivenor search and rescue said they had not had any reported UFO sightings in the area yesterday, however, they were on a training exercise so it may have been them. Read more: www.northdevonjournal.co.uk...

From article in OP

Hello ATS!

My thoughts:

Firstly, while the photo was modified using Adobe Photoshop CS3, the EXIF data still have some useful informations, such as:
- Camera model: NIKON D300S
- Exposure time: 1/320s.
- F Number: 10.0
- ISO: 500
- Focal Length: 55.0 mm
- Image size: 618x416

In the in-depth review of the camera, it can be seen that the camera had three possible image sizes:
• 4288 x 2848 [L; 12.2 MP]
• 3216 x 2136 [M; 6.9 MP]
• 2144 x 1424 [S; 3.1 MP]

All of these size have a 1.5 L/l ratio, almost that of the image posted in the north Devon journal (1.485). So the photo wasn't cropped, just resized.

Secondly, knowing the focal length allow me to do some angular measures:
- Unknown object length: app. 0,2°
- Wind turbine size: app 3,5°



Here we learn that the wind turbines have a 110m size (to blade tip).
Consequently, using the provided data from the EXIF and my favorite software, we can easily compute the distance at which the photographer was from this wind turbine:



So, this wind turbine was 1800m away.

Thirdly, if we consider the unknown object to be a black body, it luminance can be affected by the ambient light conditions, especially by the atmospheric diffusion (See here for a complete definition).

The effect of the atmospheric diffusion can be seen with the apparent regular decreasing of the grey values of the grass, according to its distance to the camera:



Then, we can give for the unknown object (still considering that it is a black object) its minimum grey value, which is 125:



The darkest parts of the photos are the hedges, which are 0 of min grey value close to the camera (not affected by the atmospheric diffusion). If the object is per se as dark as the hedges, then it should be located at the same distance from the camera.

However, if we except the sky (which is not dark of course) and the farthest hills, none of the landscape components have a minimum grey value as high as 125. Meaning that the object, if dark, is located far beyond the wind turbines.
The more the object is (per se) bright, the more it is close to the camera.

Anyway, to give an idea of the possibilities, we can compute the size of the object relatively to its estimated distance to the camera:



Then, for a 0,2° angular length, object's size is:
- 0.35 m if located 100 m away
- 3.5 m if located 1000 m away
- 6.35 m if located 1800 m away (the distance of the closest wind turbine)

Possibly more could have been done with the original photo but, as for now, I'm afraid that the real distance and size of the object cannot be determined with certainty.

elevenaugust
Hello ATS!

My thoughts:

Firstly, while the photo was modified using Adobe Photoshop CS3, the EXIF data still have some useful informations, such as:
- Camera model: NIKON D300S
- Exposure time: 1/320s.
- F Number: 10.0
- ISO: 500
- Focal Length: 55.0 mm
- Image size: 618x416

In the in-depth review of the camera, it can be seen that the camera had three possible image sizes:
• 4288 x 2848 [L; 12.2 MP]
• 3216 x 2136 [M; 6.9 MP]
• 2144 x 1424 [S; 3.1 MP]

All of these size have a 1.5 L/l ratio, almost that of the image posted in the north Devon journal (1.485). So the photo wasn't cropped, just resized.

Secondly, knowing the focal length allow me to do some angular measures:
- Unknown object length: app. 0,2°
- Wind turbine size: app 3,5°

Here we learn that the wind turbines have a 110m size (to blade tip).
Consequently, using the provided data from the EXIF and my favorite software, we can easily compute the distance at which the photographer was from this wind turbine:

So, this wind turbine was 1800m away.

Thirdly, if we consider the unknown object to be a black body, it luminance can be affected by the ambient light conditions, especially by the atmospheric diffusion (See here for a complete definition).

The effect of the atmospheric diffusion can be seen with the apparent regular decreasing of the grey values of the grass, according to its distance to the camera:

Then, we can give for the unknown object (still considering that it is a black object) its minimum grey value, which is 125:

The darkest parts of the photos are the hedges, which are 0 of min grey value close to the camera (not affected by the atmospheric diffusion). If the object is per se as dark as the hedges, then it should be located at the same distance from the camera.

However, if we except the sky (which is not dark of course) and the farthest hills, none of the landscape components have a minimum grey value as high as 125. Meaning that the object, if dark, is located far beyond the wind turbines.
The more the object is (per se) bright, the more it is close to the camera.

Anyway, to give an idea of the possibilities, we can compute the size of the object relatively to its estimated distance to the camera:

Then, for a 0,2° angular length, object's size is:
- 0.35 m if located 100 m away
- 3.5 m if located 1000 m away
- 6.35 m if located 1800 m away (the distance of the closest wind turbine)

Possibly more could have been done with the original photo but, as for now, I'm afraid that the real distance and size of the object cannot be determined with certainty.

edit on 25-11-2013 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I guess we can extrapolate from your calculations that if the object is father away than the estimated 1800m, which it appears to be ( I see it more over the water than the turbines), it is much larger than the 6.5m, which I believe it to be. Again, thanks for taking the time a presenting what you did.

reply to post by Bilk22


And if the object is closer than 100m it fits the blurry bird explanation as well. So basically, we now have mathematical proof that it's either a bird or remains unidentified. Occam's Razor.. Deny Ignorance.. Oh wait this is the Aliens and UFOs forum

SocialCUT
reply to post by Bilk22

 

And if the object is closer than 100m it fits the blurry bird explanation as well. So basically, we now have mathematical proof that it's either a bird or remains unidentified. Occam's Razor.. Deny Ignorance.. Oh wait this is the Aliens and UFOs forum

Nice cherry picking there "However" as in what was expressed in that post:

However, if we except the sky (which is not dark of course) and the farthest hills, none of the landscape components have a minimum grey value as high as 125. Meaning that the object, if dark, is located far beyond the wind turbines.
The more the object is (per se) bright, the more it is close to the camera.

Bilk22
Thanks for taking the time to do that. I guess we can extrapolate from your calculations that if the object is father away than the estimated 1800m, which it appears to be ( I see it more over the water than the turbines), it is much larger than the 6.5m, which I believe it to be. Again, thanks for taking the time a presenting what you did.

edit on 25-11-2013 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)

You're welcome!

But let's not forget that these radiometric measures have been made under the assumption that the object is per se dark, thus that its apparent radiometry depends solely of the atmospheric diffusion.

The problem, like often in this kind of cases, is that we don't know the real value ("per se") of the luminance of the object.

Then , we do have a large range of possibility, from a dark and large object far beyond the windfarm to a gray and 'relatively' small object 'relatively' close to the camera.

reply to post by Bilk22


There are other factors to consider when determining whether the object's coloration is actually dark, such as shadow and again possible motion blur, where the blur would be a smear mostly comprised of the dominant shades of the object in motion.

In my opinion it's most likely a Peregrin Falcon, based on locale and elevenaugust's sentiments concerning shading versus distance.

Umm i don't think you can space travel from a galaxy to another galaxy using such a mini space ship.

Basing the result on a single guess of the color. Do the same using very light color assumption and compare.

gavron
This could be nail in the coffin photo.

Time lapse photo of the same Fullabrooke Wind Farm in North Devon. Notice the birds leaving a trail in the time lapse (which he even mentions).

Nick Woodrow Wind Farm photo


Or is that a UFO fleet?

edit on 24-11-2013 by gavron because: (no reason given)

They look like birds

reply to post by elevenaugust


Nice post but to many assumptions made re the colour of the object, If we knew the point of focus of this image we have the settings to work out the depth of field to me it's more likely a small object close to the camera than a larger object further away.

wmd_2008
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

Nice post but to many assumptions made re the colour of the object, If we knew the point of focus of this image we have the settings to work out the depth of field to me it's more likely a small object close to the camera than a larger object further away.

Being that a Great Skua averages 0.5m in length, I think it fits in nicely with being about 100m away.

unsteadystate
reply to post by deprogrammer

 

Is N. Devonshire anywhere near Lakenheath or Upper Heyford AFB'es ? I was thinking that it sorta looks like an F-117 stealth fighter. To me it does not look like a cloud or a bird but I am no expert.

RAF Upper Heyford closed down back in 1994. The runway is inactive.

RAF Lakenheath has a spectators viewing area. If anything exotic was operating, and especially in daylight, from Lakenheath it is not going to go unnoticed.

www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk...

It looks exactly like all the other mis-interpreted bird images passed off as UFOs, etc.

wmd_2008
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

Nice post but to many assumptions made re the colour of the object, If we knew the point of focus of this image we have the settings to work out the depth of field to me it's more likely a small object close to the camera than a larger object further away.

Thank you!

Well, about the dof, it's easy:
- The camera very likely focused on the infinite as this is a landscape photo with the horizon line under the horizontal middle of it:



- Camera model: Nikon D300s
- Focal Length: 55 mm
- F stop: f/10

Now, using a simple dof calculator gives you the hyperfocal distance/near limit dof:



So everything between 49 ft and the infinite is on focus.

If the object is 49ft away, its size is app. 0.17ft (0.05 m or 5 cm):

I could have sworn I saw this exact same photograph making the rounds a few years ago.

Maybe they're all just starting to look alike to me.