Stunning 'domed' craft photograph captured over Vancouver Island 1981

MarsIsRed
In 1954, Kenneth Arnold saw flying objects which flew in a motion that resembled 'saucers skipping over a lake'. The media dubbed these 'flying saucers'.

Suddenly, people everywhere saw flying saucers.

To my mind, one of two things is happening here - either a myriad of alien species rushed home to re-design their spaceships to look like human perceptions of alien spacecraft (saucers), or people are full of sh#t. I'm strongly leaning towards the latter explanation.

edit on 25-12-2013 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)

I don't get it. If what Mr. Arnold saw were ufos and he described them as saucer shape then other people report saucer shaped craft why would you think that the aliens would have to redesign their craft to meet our expectations of an alien craft when our perception is their very own saucer shaped craft to begin with. Of course this all assumes that they are real. But I see what you are getting at. They are all reporting the same thing so they are copying Mr. Arnold and therefore are liars. Not, they are all reporting the same thing therefore they must have all seen the same thing. Occams razor and all suggests that the second answer is the likelier scenario.

whyamIhere
Looks like a UFO....

The older pictures have more credibility to me.

I like that 1981 is the old days to some folk here when I was already an adult in 81. Matter of fact that was the year we got married. I think of the 80s as modern times not the olden days. I do think of the fifties as the old days but not the sixties. I was born in the fifties.

reply to post by Blue Shift
[mo

reply to post by AutumnWitch657


From what I understand , Arnold did not say he saw "saucers", he said they "moved like a 'saucer' skipping across water..."


I think he said they were crescent shaped ...

1.bp.blogspot.com...

reply to post by coastlinekid


Apparently he said one was crescent shaped. He never did give a physical description of the craft other than what you said where he described it's movement but not it's shape.

AutumnWitch657
I don't get it. If what Mr. Arnold saw were ufos and he described them as saucer shape

Where did he claim that they were saucer shaped?

reply to post by schuyler


It looks exactly the same to me. Guess we all see what we want to see. The glare is in exactly the same spot and that's about all you can compare as the original is tiny. Anyway my two cents.

reply to post by FlySolo


I have to agree. I could clearly see the gull when I zoomed in. It's clear enough that we all identify the bird as a seagull.
Pic two is a dark smudge.

Look at the comments on the first page...it's getting ridiculous...to me it's looks like one of our own or maybe not...you can ignore this document if you want..there's numerous documents on Nazis engineered and photos i have seen for myself that ARE on the web, that you can't photoshop or CGI your way out of. Seriously get over it already...if you don't wanna believe whatever, but you skeptics are really downgrading your quality because now it isn't a good explanation, now it's maybe it's this, or that, or past photos, OR SOMETHING, seriously don't waste your time with that response it's pathetic at this point, there's no metal birds unless it's a remote controlled robot...i guess they had those in those days...i mean really just stop it, I don't believe everything out there but really stop it with the whole venus, chinese lantern swamp gas crap it's old and really aint even funny anymore, more serious things to worry about instead of still trying to make fun of people by saying they wear "tin hats" just because your too dumb to even think for 5 secs....HONESTLY YOUR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WEIRD, can't even program a remote, smh.

reply to post by FlySolo

Like one other poster said, "someone could have thrown something in the air and took a picture".

Now if I saw some aliens waving out the windows, I might buy it..!

The inset is clearly not the same object as in the original photo. The inset is apparently edited to look like a flying saucer, and originates from a David Icke website. Fig. 6 in the PDF refers to the edited image in the inset, but the other images are of the original object. The analysis is therefore not consistent. The object in the original photo was determined to be a hubcap.

Sorry for that!there is a simple reason for that sighting. It was my new remote control toy. My Bad! Didn't realize it made the news!

Several people think this is a real picture. Several other people, including myself, say the two pictures are different pictures altogether. I'm sure nothing this second set of posters can say will make the first set of posters agree. To my mind that's extremely strange, given the level of detail presented by the second set, but okay. Let's just accept that the picture--and the cut-out/blow-up is a bona fide, real "UFO".

Yup, whatever was up in the sky really was up in the sky and someone got a real picture of it. (For those of us who don;t believe this for a second, remember we are pretending for the sake of argument now. Your objections don't apply.)

So? What have you got? You've got something unidentified flying in the air.

SURELY you are not claiming that these are aliens from outer space, are you? On what evidence? The picture is blurred. You can't even tell what it's made of. You can't tell how big it is. Other than the fact you are convinced it is "real" you really know nothing at all about it.

That's why these pictures are next to useless. They don't tell us anything useful at all. They just use up our time.

reply to post by schuyler

Several other people, including myself, say the two pictures are different pictures altogether. I'm sure nothing this second set of posters can say will make the first set of posters agree.

I'm going to show two more images with color enlargements.



If you've followed the thread you would know the issue lies with the hue variation that some are having a problem with. Just showing this is common with enlargements.

Moving forward...

So? What have you got? You've got something unidentified flying in the air.

So why would you be satisfied with an unidentifiable object with no explanation? That's like saying "hmmph, a flying spaghetti monster, I don't believe in flying spaghetti monsters so I'll just ignore it"

SURELY you are not claiming that these are aliens from outer space, are you? On what evidence?

That would be my opinion so, yes.

The picture is blurred.

Um actually, no it's not.

You can't even tell what it's made of

Like what? A chemical composition? No, but you can see it has a highly reflective surface.

You can't tell how big it is

Um, yes. Yes you can to some degree.

e. If the disc object
was 10 or 50 feet in width it would have been 438 feet or 2,192 feet from the
camera, respectively. And if the disc had been hovering directly over the
mountain (i.e., 7,580 feet away) it would have been 173 feet in width

Other than the fact you are convinced it is "real" you really know nothing at all about it.

What do I need to know? Its name? Where it lives? What I do know is the information I've already read in the study a few times over by now. So what's your point?

That's why these pictures are next to useless. They don't tell us anything useful at all. They just use up our time.

Well then in that case, glad you spoke up. I guess we can just 86 the Hubble telescope then because we can't determine anything from useless pictures. I would go as far to say that all the images Hubble has provided so far proves nothing. Wouldn't you agree? They don't tell us anything useful at all. What a waste of time that Hubble...

reply to post by FlySolo


I'm sorry, but I make it a practice to NOT reply to individual sentences or phrases with my own quotes refuting them. It's way too choppy a presentation which completely loses the context. You can show me all the pictures you want to, but believe me, I've seen hundreds if not thousands of them. Showing me a helicopter is just irrelevant.

I'm was originally quite convinced the two pictures, the blow-up and the original, were different. One was from the top down; the other from the bottom up. This was corroborated by a couple of posters subsequent to me with more detailed information and analysis. But I'm conceding the point for the sake of argument because even if you have a picture and a blow-up of the picture, it doesn't really matter because....

you don't have anything worthwhile. The picture IS blurry. Yes, it is blurry. It lacks sharpness and clarity. No photographer, and certainly no professional photographer would take a look at that picture and say, "You certainly have a clear picture there!" Why? Because it is blurred, probably because of the motion. The real photographer was not focusing on the object at all. He DIDN'T EVEN SEE IT! So it's not surprising it is blurred. The technique for taking a clear picture of a moving object is to move the camera with the object. And, yes, I learned this in a professional photography class. Thank you for asking. My project was a picture of the neighbor kid riding past me on a motorcycle. It turned out very well. But our photographer's picture here did not turn out very well because he was not focusing on it. he didn't even see it. In fact, the object is so blurred that you cannot make out any detail whatsoever. It's a simple ovoid shape.

So we have a somewhat blurred picture of an object moving at an angle, likely toward the ground, that looks very much like a classic "flying saucer," which we have learned to call an "Unidentified Flying Object" precisely because we do not know what it is. But I do agree: It is a "UFO," no question. It is after this point that these analyses get very strange indeed. Do we get matter-of-fact interpretations such as a bird diving in the distance? Or an insect closer to the lens? Thus perfectly explaining the circumstances of the shot? Of course not. Instead we get treated to the fertile imaginations of people who want so very much for this to be a craft.

"It is metallic." What utter nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is "metallic." Just because you think you see a glint does not mean it is metallic. Just because you see a variation in color and interpret it as a reflection does not mean it is metallic. Did you use spectrographic analyses to determine what kind of metal it is? Of course you didn't. You didn't even think of it. The fact is you can't tell what the object is made of and it is laughable that you claim you can.

The idea that this picture is evidence of anything substantive is completely absurd. It's not "aliens from space." All those kinds of conclusions come from over active imaginations. Presenting pictures such as this one as evidence of such is precisely why the subject of UFOs is not taken seriously. You are not denying ignorance here; you're promoting it. It's in the same category as proclaiming the moon has an atmosphere or that Billy Meier's ray gun is real, or that Steven Greer has held an alien baby in his arms.

The kind of superstitious nonsense presented here is precisely why the field of Ufology is largely a laughingstock. This isn't perpetrated by a sinister government spreading disinformation! There is simply no need to do that. Why bother when you've got stuff like this/ The UFO field is self-destructive. The best tactic is to just leave it alone.

This is certainly not worthy of any more time.

reply to post by FlySolo


I don't think you understand what this means:

Um, yes. Yes you can to some degree.

e. If the disc object
was 10 or 50 feet in width it would have been 438 feet or 2,192 feet from the
camera, respectively. And if the disc had been hovering directly over the
mountain (i.e., 7,580 feet away) it would have been 173 feet in width

Because that is basically saying they have no idea how big the object is...they are show mathematically how big it "COULD" be based off of...wait for it...guesses.

Ultimately nothing in the original photo could ever let us know how big the object in the picture is. You could also say "if the object was .1 of an inch in width it would be 4.8 inches from the lens." However, that doesn't make for outstanding UFO claims now does it.

FlySolo

Is it just me or does the disk in the inset not look anything like the one in the photo?
The color is off, even the attitude (one's leading edge is tipped up the other down).

reply to post by schuyler


Would you like to know what's laughable? It's you coming in here and trying pathetically to speak of authority on the subject. It's you and your ilk which make ufology constantly defend itself after decades and decades of ridicule. How do I know this? Because you're bringing up points I have already explained at length ad nauseam!

YOU personally are responsible for poisoning the well and It is YOU that stifles the progress of research. Otherwise you would not be wasting my time by making me explain AGAIN for YOU to understand and not continue with your trivial nonsensical line of questioning. FFS.

One was from the top down; the other from the bottom up. This was corroborated by a couple of posters

I already said, its a freaking trick of light. The smaller image looks concave because it's SMALLER. Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you always like that? Being myopic runs deep when it comes to denying your own common freaking sense. Both images shrunk to the same size look concave. If you can't see that, then it's simply because you don't want to.

He DIDN'T EVEN SEE IT!

It was 1/250 of a second. No kidding it wasn't seen. What difference does this even make? Explain how seeing it changes any of the information herein? My god are you trolling?

Showing me a helicopter is just irrelevant.

It's a helicopter with a UFO in it. Oy vey facepalm. And I showed it only to show the contrast in hues changes when you enlarge it. To NOT SEE a ufo in it tells me you are extremely closed.

As for the blurriness, don't know what to say. Put on some glasses cause it's one of the most clearest photos of a UFO I've ever seen. You're just full of contradiction for the lulz.

You know what angers me the most about people like you? When you can't get a single thing straight.

"It is metallic." What utter nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is "metallic." Just because you think you see a glint does not mean it is metallic.

I said it has a highly reflective surface. Go put words in someone else's mouth. If your going to deny a simple thing as a glare, then you've got issues.

The fact is you can't tell what the object is made of and it is laughable that you claim you can.

I never made any claim. So knock it off.

The idea that this picture is evidence of anything substantive is completely absurd. It's not "aliens from space." All those kinds of conclusions come from over active imaginations. Presenting pictures such as this one as evidence of such is precisely why the subject of UFOs is not taken seriously.

No, like I said. The reason the subject isn't taken seriously is thanks to people like you. Own it.

You are not denying ignorance here; you're promoting it. It's in the same category as proclaiming the moon has an atmosphere or that Billy Meier's ray gun is real, or that Steven Greer has held an alien baby in his arms.

Did I #ing say I believe that sh!t? Did you #ing hear me say that? Keep it real or gtfo.

I decided to test your claim that the inset object is the same as the concave-looking one. Unfortunately, without the dimensions of the original photo, I can't accurately crop and resize for a fair comparison. I can't determine the zoom level on the inset image either. I don't think it'd be useful, anyway. Zoomed images lose clarity. Here's my rough attempt:



The first object is a scaled-down version of the inset, taken from here.
It's scaled down to the approximate size of the alleged object in the actual photo. We can clearly see that the UFO did not magically turn concave. Besides no obvious similarities, you have no distance or size data. The only "estimates" of either are from baseless conjecture. It's not a digital photo, so we don't have EXIF data (which would help greatly). The subject isn't in focus either. I'd say if it does have a reflective surface, it's most likely a chrome hubcap--not an alien space-ship. Bottom line, you can't have such poor data and claim it's an alien craft.

The reason we must be skeptical of alleged photos is obvious. These craft run at high speeds, and are elusive. It follows that credible photos are few and far between. Besides that, photos can be easily hoaxed. It's easier to draw information from a witness account which can be whittled down to a few credible interpretations, rather than a photo which can draw so many. Picture's worth a thousand words...

I can see why people want this to be an alien craft. But, the first and second image have different orientations. The inset is tilted down, the original is tilted up so you can just see the underside. The only way I can get the images to resemble, is if I mentally tilt the concave-looking image down 30°- 40° to the side, so that the underside looks like sun glare on a convex metallic surface. Even then, the supposed "dome" of the craft should be larger relative to the body. It was difficult for me to do this--so I have no idea why you think it's obvious. If you have to put that much effort to "see" a craft... it isn't a craft.

reply to post by RUInsane




Concave, convex, concave, convex, concave, convex.

We can clearly see that the UFO did not magically turn concave. Besides no obvious similarities

No similarities huh?

Listen, you're hanging this thread on a technicality which you're creating out of thin air. The inset picture is the enlarged picture. The lager picture is what is in the study. The study was done by a NASA researcher. The results of the study is unidentified. These are the facts. For any of the skeptic's theories to hold any water would mean to dismiss the entire study. Which is exactly what you're doing.

Deny ignorance.

it's most likely a chrome hubcap

Based of what?? An arbitrary object to fill in the blanks for you. You saying it's a hubcap is no more ridiculous than me saying it's an alien ship. I have already explained the study showed it's not a Frisbee or hubcap because of no leading and trailing blurs on the edges.