Strange UFO photographed in Poland!!!!

A propelled Polish pumpkin?
Positively perplexing.

Originally posted by MonkeyzMaby the camera was able 2 pick it up where as the human eye couldn't?

Not very likely.

They say this was taken with a film camera back in 1995, and those films are made to reproduce our way of seeing things, it would be strange to have a camera that toke pictures of things we didn't see.

Originally posted by SIEGE
Did someone throw up an "acorn" , entering the frame as the picture was taken?
Or maybe a pumpkin?

Note how it's behind the clothes line. Infact, it's probably quite a few meters away from the clothes line

It's pretty useless to try and pick this one apart without knowing what kind of film and camera were used. The quality looks like Polaroid.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by jbondo]

coincidence? Nuff said.




forward to 42:00 minutes this is a long vid and I want to get to the point. I feel this is VERY relevant.

video.google.com...

Going off the polaroid idea, here's what happens where the emulsion is smeared before setting fully:
www.dmoma.org...

Note the same warm orange color. If in fact this is a polaroid, it could very well be a pinprick or other damage during the latter time of development.

But, we have no way of knowing if it's a polaroid print or not. Just a thought.

Originally posted by zyklonBZ_22_19


coincidence? Nuff said.




forward to 42:00 minutes this is a long vid and I want to get to the point. I feel this is VERY relevant.

video.google.com...

wow that is really amazing, the photo of the object from this thread and from your video on google look almost exactly the same except for color. The objects both have some sort of cylinder shape with a hole at the bottom that goes into the object. This is a really HUGE coincidence if those two Unidentified objects are not the same.

Originally posted by zyklonBZ_22_19
forward to 42:00 minutes this is a long vid and I want to get to the point. I feel this is VERY relevant.

I will not download a 42:00+ video just to see the end, I have to pay for my Internet traffic, can we see only the interesting part?

Brother has been ranting about sun glare as soon as he saw the pic. There's a second orange dot higher up (on the left, and when there is sun glare in a pic, there's usually more than one iregularity) His ranting goes further: About as real as this one:laugh

At first, I thought it was one of those orange balls they hang on high electricity wires for low planes to see.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by jlc163]

First let's get the static out of the way.

The photo is obviously taken on low speed, poor quality film like you'd find in a disposable camera - washed out colors and badly overexposed - and there's no way you could capture an object moving "too fast to see" on film like this. They're pulling your leg I'm afraid.

A completely baseless assumption.

A low rez scan is shown. How someone can assume the quality of the original film by a low rez digital scan escapes me.

It's approximately mid day since there are no obvious shadows around trees, so there is plenty of light. Low shutter speed would have overexposed the picture. Judging by the depth of field focus the photo was shot at high F stop.

A picture of a desolate street with no landmarks and huh, what's this? a ufo in the sky ruining my great snapshot of a crappy street?

same thing here. is this guy a tree and clothesline photographer? why take the picture in the first place?

and why wait ten years to show anyone?

A survey shot? A fellow testing out his new camera? Last snap of the roll to get it to the developers?

We just don't know, that's the point.

If this was taken with a film camera, why do we have a photo that looks like it was taken with a cell-phone?

See above, it's a low rez scan.

The people that said that the film was not defective were "Kodak photo laboratory workers", they were not technicians.

You must know those people personally then, right? So are are the fellow doing? How are their kids? Get my point?

If the object was moving too fast then it would have appeared only as orange streak across the photo.

Wrong. Get your self a good camera and pick up a hobby, read a book on fast motion photography and then speculate on shutter speeds.

They do not speak of the easiest way of making a photo like this in film camera, take two pictures without advancing the film. In this way the pictures are superimposed and the photo is not altered in any way.

Technically true, yet again considering abundant natural lighting, it is incredibly difficult to do with out over exposing the frame.

Is it only me or the site that is pointed as the source does not have any information about it?

On of the few reasonable questions. When that can be found out, when we'll know the make/model of the camera/film and have a hi rez scan of the original negative, then we can tell for sure.

As of now, a quick judgment of the low rez pict available is as follows; the grain is uniform, contrast levels match, saturation/reflection and focus are consistent, there are no hard or clipped edges, etc.

The jury is still out.

How about a large Chinese lantern blowing in the wind. Specifically a battery operated chinese lantern not open flame.

Here's a couple of sites with a ton of paper lanterns including cylinder, custom and unique shapes both open flame and battery powered:

www.asianideas.com...

www.paperlanternstore.com...

Not saying it's an exact match but if you look at the pic the black bit could be the top of the lantern that is usually attached to a line or string.

Spiderj

looks like a orange colored olive

Originally posted by jlc163
There's a second orange dot higher up (on the left

Yeah, that was the first thing I noticed. Made me think defect.

Also, is it my imagination, or can you see the pattern of the tree branches through the object?

people watch the video......please. you dont have to download the whole thing just click the link and forward to the 42:00 mark

zyklonBZ_22_19 is right!

Those are the same thing or at least they look the same to me. From 42 on thru 43. It won't allow a screen shot.

Originally posted by iskander

If this was taken with a film camera, why do we have a photo that looks like it was taken with a cell-phone?

See above, it's a low rez scan.

OK, I will rephrase that, why they show only a low resolution reproduction?

The people that said that the film was not defective were "Kodak photo laboratory workers", they were not technicians.

You must know those people personally then, right? So are are the fellow doing? How are their kids? Get my point?

I get it, but maybe you did not got mine.
Saying that they were "Kodak photo laboratory workers" says nothing about their capacity for making a judgement about the integrity of the film, a "Kodak photo laboratory worker" could even be the janitor.

If the object was moving too fast then it would have appeared only as orange streak across the photo.

Wrong. Get your self a good camera and pick up a hobby, read a book on fast motion photography and then speculate on shutter speeds.

OK, an orange streak is to much giving the light conditions, I forgot that, but don't you think that an object fast enough to not be seen by the person who took the photo would have at least a visible motion blur?

They do not speak of the easiest way of making a photo like this in film camera, take two pictures without advancing the film. In this way the pictures are superimposed and the photo is not altered in any way.

Technically true, yet again considering abundant natural lighting, it is incredibly difficult to do with out over exposing the frame.

Yes, it is difficult, but it depends of the conditions when the first photo is taken, if the first photo was taken with a completely black background then the rest of the photo would not be over exposed. (but then the orange object would look over exposed , unless it is in front of a dark background)

Is it only me or the site that is pointed as the source does not have any information about it?

On of the few reasonable questions. When that can be found out, when we'll know the make/model of the camera/film and have a hi rez scan of the original negative, then we can tell for sure.

Thank you, one out of five is not that bad.

Another thing is that I can not find any place with those names, where are the Polish ATS members when we need them...


Edit: I forgot to add that the photo on that site is not only a low resolution version, it is a highly compressed image, that is why I said it looked like a photo taken with a cell-phone.

[edit on 17/8/2006 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by zyklonBZ_22_19
people watch the video......please. you dont have to download the whole thing just click the link and forward to the 42:00 mark

We can only see the end of the video after it has been downloaded, the file is sent in sequence from the beginning to the end.

It's not the end, it's in the middle and all you have to do is open the link and then wait for it to load up to approx 45 min. Should take less than 5 minutes to load to that point.

Then forward to the 41.59 mark and watch for 2 minutes.

I guess it's way too many years of construction in me, every time I look at the pic I see the bottom end of a concrete truck barrel.

Ya, that's it, floating concrete barrels !!!

lol

What I do see in the pic tho, is the upper outside edge (as if from clock points 11 to 1) seems to be blurred or smudged. Just an obvservation.

NN