"Supposed" UFO Picture Near Naval Air Weapons Station In 2007 Just Released

originally posted by: 0bserver1
But some of the branches deflect shadow to the left side of the picture and if the suns reflection is reflecting on a curved bulge object the the direction of the sun could be misinterpreted?

See my previous post.

And the helicopter is turning towards the camera, you can see that because the left landing gear isn't visible so the helicopter is tilted to the right and the nose is turning towards the ground ,it's starting to circle the ufo..

Yes, but the helicopter doesn't appear to be rotated either away or towards the camera, it appears to be perfectly sideways, as can not see more than half the windshield.

originally posted by: 38181
a reply to: Blue Shift

The last photo of it furthest away shows the shadow on the sagebrush on the hill on the other side of the power lines. However the object looks on this side of the power lines, the shadow and object are way off, unless it magically got Yuuuge in the last frame.

Doesn't jive.

Does seem odd. Also it looks as if the reflection in the middle image of the craft the reflection might be positioned at different angle than the other two.

a reply to: Blue Shift

i dont know i cant see if it is cgi or just an model double exposed

originally posted by: 38181
The last photo of it furthest away shows the shadow on the sagebrush on the hill on the other side of the power lines. However the object looks on this side of the power lines, the shadow and object are way off, unless it magically got Yuuuge in the last frame. Doesn't jive.

Probably not. Although the shadow isn't really on a hill far away, it's on a small berm that might be relatively close to the power lines. So it might not be as far away as it seems, and the change in size and position of the shadow could be okay.

I'm not defending the thing or the story. Just fiddling with the available images. The oddest one is with the close-up of the helicopter. None of the clouds or the brush on the ground match up with any of the other photos. So did it fly in closer with the helicopter following it, or what? I'm not clear on the sequence of the photos.

a reply to: AineEithne

how about NO?
there is some good proof it was just an truck side mirror thrown in the air

originally posted by: humanoidlord
i dont know i cant see if it is cgi or just an model double exposed

Could be either of those things. Or real. I wasn't there, so I don't know.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Curious. The size and the shadow of the thing change appropriately from one image to the next.

And doesn't get lighter with the UFO's altitude.

Probably not. Although the shadow isn't really on a hill far away, it's on a small berm that might be relatively close to the power lines.

It sure looks as though the shadow is covering ground past the lines. (see the light earth way up the horizon) Makes it looks as if it was added to the pic.

originally posted by: ArMaP
And doesn't get lighter with the UFO's altitude.

True, but the ground itself comes up onto a ridge or berm, which could make the shadow seem darker and more defined since it's closer to the object. I agree that shadows are really hard to do right in Photoshop.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Jonjonj

The Sun being almost overhead is irrelevant for what I was saying, as I was comparing the way the light shines on the helicopter and on the UFO but not how high or low it was, I was talking about the direction from which the light is shinning on both objects.

If the UFO has a circular shape when seen from above (as it appears) then the position of the reflection of the Sun on the UFO points to the Sun being behind the camera and slightly to the right, while the reflection of the Sun in the helicopter's windshield points to the Sun being to the right of the camera, slightly in front of the camera.

Like this.

UFO and light direction.

Helicopter and light direction.

Another thing I noticed was that it looks like the most visible shadow of a plant branch points to the Sun being in the same position as for the helicopter, as you can see below, in the area marked with a yellow circunferance.

One last thing: if the UFO is so shiny it should reflect the ground, and, when that close to the ground, even if it wasn't shiny, it shouldn't appear so bright on the underside, as not only that kind of vegetation absorbs a lot of light but also reflects almost nothing (vegetation is made to absorb light, not to reflect it).

I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my observation, but I believe you have used assumptions for the basis of everything you have stated.

Facts are simple. I don't agree with the analysis that the windscreen should show the same reflection as the object.

I believe that the object and the helicopter should and do show slightly different reflective properties due to the position of the camera (perpendicular, below).

The Sun can not be in various positions and I don't see that here.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Curious. The size and the shadow of the thing change appropriately from one image to the next.

And doesn't get lighter with the UFO's altitude.

That distance could simply be metres.

Nice smily...

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Curious. The size and the shadow of the thing change appropriately from one image to the next.

And doesn't get lighter with the UFO's altitude.

What if the altitude of the 'UFO' is higher in the first frame than the last? It appears the UFO is rising, but it also appears the terrain increases in elevation from the first frame to the last. Are you able to determine the differential in altitude between the first and final frames?

ETA: It appears, Blue Shift essentially pointed out the same thing and I asked the question, too.

nifty retro-looking saucer.

originally posted by: ArMaP
One last thing: if the UFO is so shiny it should reflect the ground, and, when that close to the ground, even if it wasn't shiny, it shouldn't appear so bright on the underside, as not only that kind of vegetation absorbs a lot of light but also reflects almost nothing (vegetation is made to absorb light, not to reflect it).

Well, I think the underside is white, and not mirrored, so it won't reflect the ground quite as well. However, if you do a color range match on the bottom of the UFO, it matches up quite well with the surrounding ground cover, showing that it actually does reflect the overall color, just not a lot of detail. Here's a color range selection with the brownish/dirt color replaced by bright green:

Answered myself.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my observation, but I believe you have used assumptions for the basis of everything you have stated.

Sure I did: I assumed the shape of the UFO is circular, that the shininess of the UFO is specular, that the shape of the helicopter's windshield is relatively flat, that the ground where the branch shadow is projected is flat and that the branch is straight. At least those.

Facts are simple.

They are, but we don't have many, do we?

I don't agree with the analysis that the windscreen should show the same reflection as the object.

I didn't say that it should show the same reflection, I said that the reflection should point to the same direction for the light, which it does not.

I believe that the object and the helicopter should and do show slightly different reflective properties due to the position of the camera (perpendicular, below).

The position of the camera doesn't change the characteristics of the objects, the position of the objects in relation to the light source does.

The Sun can not be in various positions and I don't see that here.

That the Sun cannot be in various positions is one of the few facts we have.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
That distance could simply be metres.

It could, but shadows change a lot with a few metres change, as you can see every day.

Nice smily...

I prefer the old smileys.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my observation, but I believe you have used assumptions for the basis of everything you have stated.

Sure I did: I assumed the shape of the UFO is circular, that the shininess of the UFO is specular, that the shape of the helicopter's windshield is relatively flat, that the ground where the branch shadow is projected is flat and that the branch is straight. At least those.

Facts are simple.

They are, but we don't have many, do we?

I don't agree with the analysis that the windscreen should show the same reflection as the object.

I didn't say that it should show the same reflection, I said that the reflection should point to the same direction for the light, which it does not.

I believe that the object and the helicopter should and do show slightly different reflective properties due to the position of the camera (perpendicular, below).

The position of the camera doesn't change the characteristics of the objects, the position of the objects in relation to the light source does.

The Sun can not be in various positions and I don't see that here.

That the Sun cannot be in various positions is one of the few facts we have.

Essentially everything you said is meaningless but because you provided graphics some people will give it weight. Do you see my point?

Sorry my man, I give no weight to your analysis. No offence, you do try to convince well, but I ain't close to convinced.

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: smurfy

So, if it is a drone, how does it fly?

Any viable method to lift a body, you know how well a quad operates, you know the flying platform works, but difficult to fly...or were, even a lifter works. According to the picture taker, this one was a bit wobbly, so that doesn't sound so good, whatever way you cut it.
So, more important would be what use is it, or what is it to be used for.

Here'sa bit of fun anyway.

Why does this remind me of "The flight of the Navigator"..