Photographer captures stunning images of UFOs above Hatfield

Looking at the shapes and see-through nature of the supposed objects, in my opinion those would be lens element artefacts caused by lights on the ground. (The shape/pattern seems common to optical caustics.) The light sources causing the artifacts may not be in the shot or are cropped out of the pic, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't there.

There was an older post that had a similar thing going on here.

It's always cool to think you've got something, but it's necessary to rule out the more mundane explanations first.

reply to post by Jasonlreeve


Welcome, and thanks for coming to ATS to answer our questions.

You say you saw the UFO first and then took the photos. What did the UFO looked like, did it look like any of the shapes we see on the photos?

I found the youtube account of the guy that has the 80 UFO videos:

Clem Stevenson You Tube Page

Originally posted by splittheatom
News Link

This is in my local paper website.
The guy claims to have captured these images over 20 minutes and he claims they were not moving.

What do you guys think?

Red sprites?

Originally posted by Jasonlreeve
If you look on my Flickr page ( link on previous threads) you can we the star trails and the Ufos on a long exposure. Any questions , pleas tweet me @ jasonlreeve

Hi Jason,

welcome to ATS.

I think I found your flickr page, this is it, right?
www.flickr.com...@N03/sets/72157627875873619/

That answers one question which is why we couldn't see the star trails on a 20 minute exposure...the star trails have been cropped out in your last photo, which appeared in the media.

So those three lights weren't visible to the naked eye, but the 4th light was and you saw that before taking your time exposure? So the one light must be many times brighter than the other three?

Are these all the photos you have? There's no photo of all 4 lights? Just a photo of the 3 lights for 20 minute exposure and then the 4th light for a shorter exposure?

Can you confirm of you took these photos through a window? One of the questions raised is of any of these lights could be reflections in the window? If so that might explain why they might not be visible to the naked eye but they might show up in a 20 minute exposure, if the lights are so dim you didn't notice them, but the camera picked them up.

That "top" shaped thing is a common lens flare wotsit, but that doesn't mean he didn't see a UFO.

I took the image through my Open bedroom window! I saw the funnel shaped UFO with the naked eye! It was very faint but odd enough for me notice it straight away! Agreed, the funnel shape does indeed look like lens flare, but this is not the case! After the 20 min exposure I came back into the bedroom and out the window, the funnel shaped light was barely visible now. But when I checked the 20 min expo shot, it picked up 4 deprecate lights I could not see before.

Originally posted by amkia
The problem is “sensor overheating” after about 10 min, which automatically shut down the cameras, so I am not sure how he got it on 20 min! also with cameras nowadays with insane ISO setting of 12500 still he went for Bulb at higher than 10 min..?

Can you please show me proof that 60D sensor will "automatically shut down the camera".

Yes, the amplifiers on sensors can get warm during a long exposure, giving rise to an imaging artifact known as "amp-glow"(which I can't see any evidence of here), but I have never heard of any camera that shuts down because of it. I am quite familliar with Canon's EOS line of cameras... I own 9 of them (although I dont have the 60D), and none of them do this as far as I'm aware.

Anyway, here's my analysis of the photograph (for what it's worth):

The length of the star-trails certainly lends credence to the 20 minute claim. From what I have seen, I have no reason to doubt the protographer when he says it was a 20 minute exposure, but I think it would be helpfull if he could post the original jpg/raw with the EXIF data intact.

The trails are perfectly straight, so it's reasonable to assume that the camera was securely mounted on a tripod for the duration of the exposure, although a double exposure/"photoshopping" can not be ruled out.

The unidentified lights in the image are not "trailing" like the stars, which suggest that whatever the unidentified lights are, they are stationary with respect to the ground/camera.

The colour/tint of the unidentified lights is very close to that of sodium street lights.

The middle light in particular resembles a lens flare (as has been noted by previous posters on this thread) or "ghost" - they often have this characteristic shape. I'm not saying it is a lens flare/ghosting, but I don't think the possibility can be ruled out just yet.

The lighting on the trees in the foreground suggests that there are some street lights just outside the camera's field of view. That's just the right conditions for lens flare/ghosting.

All of the above points suggest that what we are seeing here is light that has come from a stationary source/sources on the ground (I don't think it's likely that it's due to geo-stationary satellites, although this is a possibility).

There is also the possibility, if the photographer was shooting behind glass, of a reflection of something behind the photographer. Likewise, if the camera's view finder was left uncovered during the exposure, light can enter the camera from behind and find the sensor.

To sum up, although the photographer says he saw a light/object in the sky, the photographs only show what could quite easily be accounted for by lens flare or a reflection from lights on the ground. I don't see anything here that would suggest it's anything else.

My Flickr Set www.flickr.com...@N03/sets/72157627875873619/

I am in fact very lucky to have these photos at all! I took more photos of the object but they deleted off my SD card! My camera was snatched off me whilst covering the London riots! And thanks to the great work by the MET police it was recovered! But only a few of my photos where left on the card by the robber! I do not have the original RAW image but the EXIF data is free to view for the photos I do have on my Flickr!

I've never seen any UFO pics that look like these its unusual to see ones this clear they look very legit to me..Im not going to sit and argue over lens flare..Only the photographer knows if there real or not they look pretty darn real to me..Peace,sugarcookie1 S&F

I can't be lens flare or light reflections! I SAW IT WITH MY EYES! And equipment is kept immaculate!

reply to post by Jasonlreeve


As a photographer myself, I have to ask, why don't you have the original RAWs??? You should always save them.

reply to post by Jasonlreeve


Normally I'd be jealous you caught a UFO on camera but I'm just jealous you've got a Canon 60d. There are UFOs out there, maybe you got some in your photos, but those pics just aren't stunning. Sorry. Unless I've looked at the wrong link?

Welcome to ATS by the way. Nice to have a new UFO fan on board. There aren't enough these days.

reply to post by midniteracerx


Read my previous reply! My camera was stolen in the London riots and was wiped! I recovered what I could when the police got it back a month later!

reply to post by midniteracerx


Read my previous reply! My camera was stolen in the London riots and was wiped! I recovered what I could when the police got it back a month later!

Originally posted by Silend
They have a pretty weird shape, at the bottom of the article it says

''He has shot more than 80 videos of UFOs, mainly from his back garden, and uploaded them to video website YouTube.''

Does anyone knows his youtube channel?

Didn't find it yet, but here is his flicker account.
Link.


Edit, oh didn't see the post above.

reply to post by Jasonlreeve


Smashing photo album by the way. Can I ask what lenses you use, which one did you use for the Jupiter shots?

reply to post by Jasonlreeve


Hi Jason, I'm glad you decided to take the tweeted invite.

I was intrigued by your pictures and thought it would be helpful if you could answer the questions they brought.

I think you are really lucky to have seen this, whatever it is.

Thank you for your time.

Namaste

firstly i'd guess their some kind of reflections( i know the photographer has said they were taken through an open window, but today i'm wearing my sceptic hat and don't quite beleive him).

secondly, a 20 minute exposure? if these pics are genuine, they could be anything.

who would take a 20 minute exposure pic if they genuinely thought they had a UFO infront of their camera?