UFOs photographed over London

UFOs photographed over London

www.telegraph.co.uk

Derek Burdon was left stunned when he took a scenic picture of the UK capital then noticed four flying saucers on the far right of the picture.

Mr Burdon took the photographs 16 floors up on the roof top of Orion House in Covent Garden in the morning.

(visit the link for the full news article)

It is disturbing that objects appear on film and not to the naked eye. Could it be that these crafts are operating on a spectrum outside our visual capacity? Many nocturnal UFO reports are only visible through the means of infared filtering as in the following video......www.youtube.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

See John Carpenter's "THEY LIVE". We are sheep and cattle, they are our flying invisible shepards. They cull us for our tangy juices, and we are only left with nightmares and unanswered questions.
Cheers!

reply to post by L.HAMILTON


Try the 330nm infrared lenses for your camera. That lens not only is in the infrared range, but it is also in the ultraviolet range.

The ultraviolet/infrared range is what the military uses in order to see UFO's, they can see them with RADAR also of course.

Where's the original raw image for analysis?

Another 'case' where no evidence will be presented for independent analysis. Just another attention whore trying to get his 15 minutes.

Next...

reply to post by converge


WHAT?
It's a newspaper article. why would the OP have the original? the way I see it either the picture taker, the newspaper, or some investigator are likely to have it, trying to make the OP the guilty party for not having the original is pretty sad if you ask me, but nobody did, so I said it anyway, because it needed to be said.

I do have a question however, if you did have the original, what would you do with it?

I saw this picture uploaded to the Media page, a cropped close up of the lights, and I have to say I was impressed somewhat, the lights seem to reflect off the clouds, like several others have reported over the last month or so.

The only concern I have about the picture is the lights seem to be duplicates, I mean if you look at the picture two of the lights look exactly the same in every detail, Link to close up

I have to S&F I want to see where this goes, so many sightings in the UK recently, all over the Planet in fact, very cool

Re-post I'm afraid

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by azzllin
WHAT?
It's a newspaper article. why would the OP have the original?

I'm not asking the OP for the original. I didn't direct my post at the OP's post.

the way I see it either the picture taker, the newspaper, or some investigator are likely to have it

Then I hope they present it for analysis, otherwise this is just another useless photo (and news article).

I do have a question however, if you did have the original, what would you do with it?

If the original was presented plenty of things could be done with it. There are numerous people here on ATS who are real image analysts and could provide valuable information about it.

They have done so in the past where, for instance, plenty of images and videos were totally debunked in just a matter of hours after being posted.

I saw this picture uploaded to the Media page, a cropped close up of the lights, and I have to say I was impressed somewhat

From what I've seen so far I've been completely unimpressed. But since I don't like to rush to judgment, more evidence is required to analyze it properly and this is why I'm hoping the original will be presented.

But I doubt it will.

I have to S&F I want to see where this goes, so many sightings in the UK recently, all over the Planet in fact, very cool

I'm not questioning that there are legitimate sightings in the UK, but from my first analysis I doubt this image is a capture of such an event.

Originally posted by L.HAMILTON
It is disturbing that objects appear on film and not to the naked eye.

I disagree.

If an object or object was not seen while taking a photograph, it usually means that it's either an artifact or byproduct of the process of taking a picture, or it's a common object that has been made to look different by the photographic process - eg a bird that is blurred due to a long shutter speed.

IMO, cases where a UFO is photographed but not seen, automatically raise a red flag for this reason.

In this case, the "UFOs" are almost certainly due to the photograph being taken behind glass, and lights behind the photographer being reflected in that glass.

reply to post by RussianScientists


And how is the camera's sensor going to record the UV wavelengths if he buys this lens?

You do realize that ordinary camera sensors are not sensitive to UV light don't you?

In this article -

www.dailymail.co.uk... -

the guy says he was on the balcony and there was no window between himself and the photos which he took on his mobile phone.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Mollo]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Re-post I'm afraid

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's acceptable to have a post in breaking news and also have an identical post in the proper forum. This post is in breaking news, Your link is in Aliens & UFO's.

No harm no foul here.