UFOs Spotted Above Loch Ness

you can see the reflections of the curtain as well.
maybe she forgot and just thought she walked outside to take the pic.
It looks like an inside shot through doublepained glass.

a reply to: justbe

That is pretty good work justbe, nice bit of detective work, I think personally that it is too easy to debunk things with just a hint of a good story, without going into things in more detail.

I can imagine a lot of stuff gets put aside because some smart Alex comes up with a half baked theory. I read the official debunking and it all seemed to nebulous to me, When I look at the picture, there is just something that doesn't gel with the reflection explanation.

Well done again on all the work you put into that! star from me.

a reply to: kennyb72

I can imagine a lot of stuff gets put aside because some smart Alex comes up with a half baked theory. I read the official debunking and it all seemed to nebulous to me, When I look at the picture, there is just something that doesn't gel with the reflection explanation.

what do you see in the bottom right corner of the picture?

Depends on how you do it.

Here are a couple of alien visitors I captured in my garden just now on my phone.



Or is it my wife's reading lamp on the other side of the room reflected twice in the double glazing when viewed from the right angle?

a reply to: ultimafule

Forget the lamp?

Well you just said it was not a match so why focus on it as there are other things that prove she was inside when she took that pic.

SO yes forget the lamp.

Forget the fact that Metabunk has obviously and poorly doctored the original image?

That was explained and fixed...but that doesn't explain the curtains reflection in the pic that is the original now does it, or are you saying Mick West doctored the original to make it look like she was inside without the person taking it know?

Because in the OP you can see the curtain reflection on the right of the pic. How do you explain that one?

Yes, let's ignore all evidence pointing to the contrary and focus on the reflection of the curtain which I already addressed in the previous post. You didn't even read the whole thing, did you? What the hell is going on here???

I read it and you addressed nothing all you said was this...

The original photo does look to be taken from indoors however due to what seems like a reflection of curtains.

Yes all you said was it looks to be taken from indoors...but you don't consider that to be a big part of the problem here as she says she took it outside while we all see the reflection...so nothing else in that room was reflected back off the window, please show us where Metabunk got it all wrong, please I await your debunking of the debunking.

What's going on here is you blasted someone who took the time to show you what was wrong with the picture and you offer nothing to back the claim he got it wrong.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Here are a couple of alien visitors I captured in my garden just now on my phone.

I hear they are here for your garden gnomes...they just can't seem to find them on their planet.

They heard we had the best gnomes in the galaxy and wanted to check them out for themselves.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: ultimafule

Yes all you said was it looks to be taken from indoors...but you don't consider that to be a big part of the problem here as she says she took it outside while we all see the reflection...so nothing else in that room was reflected back off the window, please show us where Metabunk got it all wrong, please I await your debunking of the debunking.

Well, you seem to be a true-non-believer, so this is probably going to be my last reply to you in this thread.

I already debunked the debunking. But I'll summarize once more for you: The lamp simply does not match the UFOs. I don't know how else to put it. Just look...

Metabunk's doctored image


close-up from original


If you compare the two you'll notice that the color has been shifted to match that of the lamp. Also you can see the obvious and crappy rounding off job done on the front area of the UFO. Then there's the problem of the light source from the lamp not corresponding with the darkened area at the top of the UFO. I mean it actually OBSCURES the light coming from the lamp! What about the little mouth-looking part in the front? And everyone seems to be conveniently ignoring what appears to be three separate smaller objects behind the larger. I'm surprised Metabunk didn't just wipe those off the original pic. Although he did when he superimposed it over the image of the lamp for obvious reasons. Are you seriously not seeing all of this or are you a "debunker" (in the negative sense) as opposed to a genuine skeptic looking for the truth? This DELIBERATE fabrication on the part of Metabunk is serious and at the core of the issue here.

You want to forget about these glaring contradictions and dismiss the hack debunking job solely on the basis that there's a reflection of a curtain? The photographer stated she took multiple pictures. Is it that hard to believe that maybe she is simply mistaken about where this one was taken? Afterall, she didn't see anything at the time when she took the photo so there's nothing there that would make the taking of this particular shot stand out in her mind from the others.

Is it just me is there a major polarization going on lately? I am a contactee so I know these things exist, yet when I debunk an obvious fake, the true-believers jump to the conclusion that I think UFOs don't exist. Now, when I point out obvious flaws in a debunking, the debunkers seem to be as mindless as the believers. Where are the honest, critical thinkers??? I noticed that the Metabunker brings up the idea of him being a paid shill, even though no one in that thread voices any sort of criticism towards his hack job. Shady indeed...

a reply to: ultimafule

OK, so you're unhappy with Metabunk's treatment of the image, seem to have missed my post showing how easy it is to get a double reflection of a reading lamp in a double glazed window and couldn't be bothered to do your own work on the images, here is a gif I have just done showing the reading lap (taken as a screenshot from the cottage's own youtube video), the 'UFO' image from the original Huffington Post article, and a duplicate of that partly transparent to illustrate the point.

Nothing else has been done.

Nothing.

What now?

a reply to: ultimafule

Well, you seem to be a true-non-believer, so this is probably going to be my last reply to you in this thread.

Actually I just don't believe in reflections in a window being called a UFO.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Thanks for the gif! Actually, that makes it only more clear to me, that it cant be the reflection of that lamp.

The front opening of the "UFO" doesn't match anything and the three dots behind it cant be the bending neck it's attached to. Why would that reflect, there isn't any light shining on it at all. It's above the light source.
If anything should show, it should be the little U-shaped handle underneath cause its being shone at by the light. But that doesn't show up in the reflection at all.
If it is a reflection, that is.

And why are the "UFOs" darker on top? In my pictures and even in onebigmonkey's picture, our "UFOs" are all bright all over.

it might be a reflection of something, but not of that lamp imo.

Thank you justbe! Finally someone with a functioning set of eyes and no confirmation bias.

onebigmonkey, I didn't miss your post. I'm well aware of reflections and multi-paned glass. You, along with everyone else seem to be ignoring the obvious ALTERATIONS done to the front of the UFO, the color change, the lack of a corresponding light source to the lamp and the fact that the 8 UFO's do not even match each other in the original photo, let alone the lamp. While a reflection in double paned glass does look similar, if you set aside any biases and take a good objective look at the the originals and the lamp, they obviously do not match! I really don't know how else to put it.

Let me say once again, I'm not saying these are metal spaceships piloted by beings from another planet. All I'm saying right now is that Metabunk's debunking is bunk. It very well may be a reflection of some sort or some kind of strange glitch in the camera. At the moment I'm thoroughly unconvinced that it's a reflection of the lamp and the fact that Metabunk doctored the original in order to fit his theory is dishonest at best, and is cause to dismiss anything this guy has to say about anything as far as I'm concerned.

EDIT: Everyone is also assuming that the window is double paned when, in fact, we actually don't know.

a reply to: aynock

what do you see in the bottom right corner of the picture?

Nothing that convinces me that this is a reflection. Did it occur to you that with the camera being so close to the window that a reflection would be less sharp when the camera is focused on infinity. That is why it looks odd to me.

originally posted by: ultimafule

onebigmonkey, I didn't miss your post. I'm well aware of reflections and multi-paned glass. You, along with everyone else seem to be ignoring the obvious ALTERATIONS done to the front of the UFO, the color change,

And I challenged that by doing my own version of the image with no alterations at all. You may not like the way Metabunk treated the photographs, but I did no treatment whatsoever and used the original sources.

the lack of a corresponding light source to the lamp and the fact that the 8 UFO's do not even match each other in the original photo, let alone the lamp.

They twin objects are an exact match to each other.

While a reflection in double paned glass does look similar, if you set aside any biases and take a good objective look at the the originals and the lamp, they obviously do not match! I really don't know how else to put it.

Don't assume that because I disagree with you I am biased. That displays a certain amount of bias and assumption. You may not be claiming directly that these are winged chariots from outer space, but you seem happier to believe that idea than the much simpler and more logical explanation of a double reflection in a window of an internal light source.

EDIT: Everyone is also assuming that the window is double paned when, in fact, we actually don't know.

Occam's razor - and photos of the frame.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

There's nothing in the photo of the frame that confirms or denies that it's double paned. He even later states that he's sent a request to the cottage for confirmation of this. However, since the EIGHT UFO's do not match each other, this is rendered irrelevant.

I assume you are biased because you seem to choose to ignore obvious differences in the eight UFOs in order to bolster your claim. What makes you think that I seem "happier to believe that they are winged chariots from outer space" when I explicitly stated that I believe they could be some sort of digital aberration? Is it my choice to refer to them as UFOs? I only do this as a matter of convenience. They are, at this point, unidentified objects.

Your lack of "treatment" as you put it doesn't address the fact that the UFOs OBSCURE THE LIGHT OF THE LAMP when super-imposed! If they were lamp reflections the tops of the UFOs would be brighter than the rest. You also continue to ignore the problem of the six smaller objects. What are they reflections of? This, again, leads me to believe that you're a debunker and not a skeptic. I'm having a hard time believing that you're honestly not seeing this. I could spot all the differences between the objects in the thumbnail when I uploaded the file.


original untouched: (Note the differences in size, amount of light and orientation between the six smaller UFOs. Also the "mouth" of the one on the left is opened more and the upper "lip" is narrower than the other. All of which may be why the lower "lip" is also darker.)


with lines to highlight the differences in the angles of the three smaller UFOs and the "mouth" area:


I can't help but note the irony in your invocation of Occam's Razor when you seem to display an apparent lack of logic.

a reply to: ultimafule

Look at the image used on metabunk to show the effect of double pane windows..



The two points of light are obviously from the same source, but both look different.

Another example..



There are subtle differences there too.

You're over thinking this.

a reply to: Chadwickus

You're absolutely right, there are differences.

How do we explain the six smaller objects though? And the fact that where there should be a brightness from the bulb, there is a delineated area of darkness instead? And the "mouth" part?

Again, just to be absolutely clear, not saying these are spaceships, just asking honest questions here to get to the bottom of this.

a reply to: kennyb72

Did it occur to you that with the camera being so close to the window that a reflection would be less sharp when the camera is focused on infinity.

why do you say the camera is focused on infinity?

have you looked at the picture?

the foreground is in much better focus than the background - look at the rocks in the top of the wall

as the reflection (ufo) is near the centre of the frame i think there is a good chance the camera's autofocus has tried to focus on the reflection

the most in focus part of the wall is about the same distance away from the window as the reflected lamp imo

exif data would be good

originally posted by: ultimafule
a reply to: Chadwickus

You're absolutely right, there are differences.

How do we explain the six smaller objects though? And the fact that where there should be a brightness from the bulb, there is a delineated area of darkness instead? And the "mouth" part?

Again, just to be absolutely clear, not saying these are spaceships, just asking honest questions here to get to the bottom of this.

What ultimafule said! Words out of my mouth, couldn't agree more!


Ok, just some thoughts here from an amateur.
Couldn't the "reflection of the curtain" be just rain/haze, reflected by a bit of sun rays?
We've been having extreme weather here lately, thick cloud covers, misty and hazy, but sunlight shining thru in parts, making it look like it's only raining in one very small spot. The lines of the "curtain" could just be thin rain?.
I mean, it looks like it's raining over the lake, just look at the vertical lines of the clouds. Sorry, can't explain it better.

Just found this quote in the first article:
" "We can say 100 percent that the camera was perfectly fine. It was raining very heavily, there were no lights in the house to resemble the objects in any shape or form. We were also quite high up, about 900 feet over the lake. And our Akita dog was quite weird that day, barking into the sky," Anna Betts said.
It was only after the weather dramatically changed from total sunshine to intense cloudiness that Anna's mother went out and snapped a picture of the landscape."

So, there was lots of moisture in the air.
I'm not even going to mention the dog here



Here's a brief interview with Lee Spiegel from Huff Post. He doesn't seem to be quite convinced either.
(starts at 4:54)

originally posted by: justbe

Couldn't the "reflection of the curtain" be just rain/haze, reflected by a bit of sun rays?
We've been having extreme weather here lately, thick cloud covers, misty and hazy, but sunlight shining thru in parts, making it look like it's only raining in one very small spot. The lines of the "curtain" could just be thin rain?.
I mean, it looks like it's raining over the lake, just look at the vertical lines of the clouds. Sorry, can't explain it better.

No - here's the photo, on which I have adjusted the contrast and applied a little sharpening:



You are welcome to repeat the process yourself, you'll get the same result.

They are clearly the reflections of curtains and not anything outside.

Just found this quote in the first article:
" "We can say 100 percent that the camera was perfectly fine. It was raining very heavily, there were no lights in the house to resemble the objects in any shape or form. We were also quite high up, about 900 feet over the lake. And our Akita dog was quite weird that day, barking into the sky," Anna Betts said.
It was only after the weather dramatically changed from total sunshine to intense cloudiness that Anna's mother went out and snapped a picture of the landscape."

They also said that they didn't look at the photos again until some time after they got home, so their recollection of what they think happened and what actually happened are not necessarily the same.

As for the dog?

Headline news: Dog Barks At Nothing Shocker.

a reply to: justbe

The witness testimony, in this case, is worth nothing.

They say the photo was taken outside, it is clear that is either a lie or they have a very unreliable recollection.

They say no lights resembled the shape of the UFOs, that again is wrong, the lamps appear very similar in shape. Any discrepancies as mentioned above are due to the fact that we're comparing a screenshot to show the basic shape of a lamp with its reflection in a photo taken months or even years later.