UFOs over Rhode Island? 6 pictures

Checking for some UFO photographic cases on the MUFON CMS, I came up with this interesting case that occurred back on the 31 January of this year, at 5:33PM.





Note: the UFOs are not the impressive rays of lights, read below!

Here's what the witness said:

"So me and my Boyfriend were driving down the the Highway when I saw two hovering black disk's out the passenger window. I told my boyfriend to look and he grabbed a series of pictures showing the objects standing still in the sky (hovering). They were circular and had no lights. We took the next exit and headed towards where we saw them. We had lost them in the trees after taking the exit and by the time we reached the area they were previously above, they were gone.

We also saw a helicopter heading in the same direction as we drove closer. This occurred at roughly 5:30pm in Rhode Island. The photos are in order, the first photo was taken with the windows rolled up which accounts for the huge glare. The following pictures 2-5 were taken with the window rolled down. The last photo is zoomed in."

Direct links to the pictures:

Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
Picture 4 (labeled as "5" on the CMS)
Picture 6 - Close-up taken with zoom

Hard to tell what it could be, I though of maybe some (big!) birds, but looks like at first glance too far away.

Unfortunately, there are no metadatas in these photos, so we can't tell how many seconds separate each other.

Thoughts ATS??

All the pictures are taken from inside a car while moving, it's hard to say if it's dirt on the window or something in the sky.

My opinion on such pictures are that they are useless, even though the witnesses tells a nice story.

They say the first pic is taken with the window up and the rest with the window down but you can see the pic's are taken right after each other, so thats the fastest window roll down ever.

There is clearly a window reflection on pic # 2, which is said to be taken with the window down.

Somethings not right.

elevenaugust
Hard to tell what it could be, I though of maybe some (big!) birds, but looks like at first glance too far away.

I probably won't be the only one to say that they are lens effects and reflections from taking crappy cell phone pictures of streetlights from inside a car. And bird poop on the glass.

Of course these were aliens.
They hurried up and zoomed off because they knew you were following with the intention of capturing images of them. Right now they're thinking " whew....close call, we need to chill out with all this joyriding".

Those look like spots on the glass. They remain the same in each image, and everything outside of the glass is blurry while the spots remain more clear.

reply to post by elevenaugust



What a load of crap!!

the first pic of the rays, the only semi decent pic doesn't even show what the rays are emitting from. How convenient!!

The other pics are a waste of time.

Just another story from some loser and her boyfriend who got confused and took poor pics of nothing much!!

What a bunch of wienies.............thanks for trying....but youll have to drag in a dead alien and throw it on the floor at ATS very arrogantly knowledgeable feet.....
S&F

projectbane
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

What a load of crap!!

the first pic of the rays, the only semi decent pic doesn't even show what the rays are emitting from. How convenient!!

The other pics are a waste of time.

Just another story from some loser and her boyfriend who got confused and took poor pics of nothing much!!

Some loser and her boyfriend?



OP thanks for bringing the photos to our attention, the only losers in this are people who waste the time and energy telling us it's a bunch of crap!! Very informative debunking by them.

thumbs up for you OP

Thumbs down for this cheeky person. .

reply to post by elevenaugust


I agree with _BoneZ_ , if they were outside the vehicle in the sky they would be effected by the motion of the vehicle and blurred like the other objects , lampposts , trees etc

If there was a military helicopter there, rest assured the UFO's are ours.

_BoneZ_
Those look like spots on the glass. They remain the same in each image, and everything outside of the glass is blurry while the spots remain more clear.

Why does everyone analyze photos and member stories through separate silo's?

You seem to indicate that they are some type of artifacts on the window. I think a 5yr old can differentiate the difference of a spot on a window vs something they are seeing through a window. Give the witnesses some credit. It doesn't make it aliens of course.

Those "rays" are just the seatbelt.
Wish for this to be more, but in my opinion just reflections.

gortex
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

I agree with _BoneZ_ , if they were outside the vehicle in the sky they would be effected by the motion of the vehicle and blurred like the other objects , lampposts , trees etc

No gortex. You're not going to get motion blur from a moving car if the subject of the photo is sufficiently far from the camera. You debunkers use the 'motion blur' tactic always to your perceived advantage. The the ufo is blurred, "its a bug close to the camera". If its not blurred, "must be bird crap on the window since its not blurred". Gimme a break. These kids saw a couple flying discs and snapped a few non-professional quaity pics. Deal with it, like it, and eat it.

gortex
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

I agree with _BoneZ_ , if they were outside the vehicle in the sky they would be effected by the motion of the vehicle and blurred like the other objects , lampposts , trees etc

Hello Gortex!

Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that.

You also have to take into account the distance of the photographed object and the movement (if there's one) of the camera itself. Then, for example and for a given exposure time/shutter speed, the more far away the object is, the less it is affected by motion blur, especially when the shoot is done with a short exposure time on a fixed camera (the movement of the camera itself during the exposure time possibly add to the motion blur).

In this case, the motion blur is essentially caused by the relative movement and speed of the car, comparatively to the more or less distant objects of the scene.

Example:



In this example, the rightmost and closest building shows a motion blur effect meaning that not only the taxi is moving, but the photographer as well.
The leftmost buildings shows moderate motion blur while the more distant building shows no motion blur at all.

It also depends (while I guess that it is not the case here due to the distance of the objects; in the hypothesis of course that they are really distant) of the relative speed of each involved objects in the scene. Then, a photographer in a car that moves at the same speed alongside of a biker will obtain this in its shoot:



... with a background landscape affected by a strong motion blur.

So, my guess here is that it possibly can be some distant objects, BTW the more distant tree (in pic 2, at the streetlight position) is not that blurry, and at least no more blurry than the objects.
And this, especially when you think (in the hypothesis of some dirts on the windows) of the short distance between the camera and the windows.

IMO, it very difficult (but not impossible) to have some focused spots on the windows with no focus blur of the distant landscape, i-e a huge depth of field with a very short focal length; likely with a cellphone camera anyway.

It will mainly depends of the distance between the window and the camera and the camera model. Unfortunately, we don't know the camera model that was used, some tests could have been done though.

Urantia1111

gortex
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

Deal with it, like it, and eat it.

They did, and shortly after that, #ting reflected seatbelt.
I hope this were your last job as a mealtipper.
Expect the boot when you arrive to HQ.

reply to post by Urantia1111

No gortex. You're not going to get motion blur from a moving car if the subject of the photo is sufficiently far from the camera.

Really ? the white streak of light to the left of the picture , star ? , Venus ? or a plane maybe , I would say that is significantly further away from the camera than the "flying discs" yet seems to be effected by the motion of the vehicle ..or should we just ignore that.

You are welcome to believe what you want but I see no sense in getting angry at those that present a different point of view.

These kids saw a couple flying discs and snapped a few non-professional quaity pics. Deal with it, like it, and eat it.

Why would I eat it


reply to post by elevenaugust

Hi EA
You may well be right and I bow to your knowledge of photography , It's difficult to tell what they are but couldn't they be dirt spots on the lens ?

gortex
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

Hi EA
You may well be right and I bow to your knowledge of photography , It's difficult to tell what they are but couldn't they be dirt spots on the lens ?

edit on 8-2-2014 by gortex because: edit to add

You're welcome

Honestly, it could be dirt spots on the window more likely than dirt spots on the lens: no way it will have this "no-blurry" aspect. A dirt on the lens is so close to the camera lens system that it will appears as a transparent smudge (and not that dark anyway):



Dust lens are circled in purple while dust on the sensor are circled in green.

About the light streak (good eye!), you'll notice that it is present on pic 1 and 2 (taken very close from each other) and not at the same position (if the same!? And if not the same should'nt we see it at the same position if distant in both pics?). So this is likely not very far away (a bug??) and then affected by the motion blur as well.