Photographer captures stunning images of UFOs above Hatfield

reply to post by ommadawn


I have given all i can on this! I am an educated photographer and i DO know about lens flare. And YES, it does look very very much like lens flare. I will only say this one more time!

I SAW X1 OBJECT IN THE SKY WITH MY OWN EYES! I DONT KNOW HOW TO GET THIS ACROSS TO YOU NON BELIEVERS!

ANYONE WHO CALLS ME A RUBBISH PHOTOGRAPHER IS A MUG! WHEN YOU CLEARLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY!

Originally posted by ommadawn
Seeing the photographer's Flickr pages, he's clearly a talent. When it comes to this kind of stuff though, he is totally off the mark and either uneducated or having a laugh.

In short, seeing that he is now on this forum, and his comments, I'll assume he's just taking the piss.

Why? Because these are very clearly lens artifacts, and even a basic photographer would know about this. Our poster here appears to be very accomplished in the photography department. Yet after 50+ pages for Flickr photos (really pretty good ones too) he suddenly cries UFO?

Doesn't compute for me.

I am wondering what the light source is though, is the first picture in this thread totally unrelated to the second?

reply to post by Jasonlreeve


What do you mean... "you people"?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ommadawn

 

The photographer, Jason mentioned he'd seen lens artifacts before when he framed a shot, and these three didn't show up like that so that's why he thought they weren't lens artifacts.

I pointed out they could just be dimmer lens artifacts than he's used to seeing, which only showed up in the time exposure, at least for the three objects in the time exposure.

Anyway he insists he saw one object without the lens so I suspect there are two events here.

He saw something in the sky, which wasn't a lens artifact.

Then he took a time exposure and captured some objects that are almost certainly lens artifacts. I didn't get the sense he was trying to be deceptive about it, maybe just a little confused. The fact that 3 objects showed up in the photo and that's not what he saw should be a clue.

edit on 20-11-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

I don't understand 'clues'.

How about date, time, location, independent witness?

Perhaps I am wasting my time even asking for such basics.
Which should have been asked for on page 1.

reply to post by ommadawn


because i saw one with my eyes!

Originally posted by Jasonlreeve
reply to post by ommadawn

 

I have given all i can on this! I am an educated photographer and i DO know about lens flare. And YES, it does look very very much like lens flare. I will only say this one more time!

I SAW X1 OBJECT IN THE SKY WITH MY OWN EYES! I DONT KNOW HOW TO GET THIS ACROSS TO YOU NON BELIEVERS!

ANYONE WHO CALLS ME A RUBBISH PHOTOGRAPHER IS A MUG! WHEN YOU CLEARLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY!

I have seen the other photos on Flickr, and I think they are artistically highly commendable.

These photos come with claims that require far more proof.
This is a critical thinking forum.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Shuzitzu

 

The person that took the photos joined ATS to answer member's questions, just look for Jasonlreeve's posts.

My apologies... I failed to notice. I was too eager to begin my rant spawned from yet again a disappointing claim. My heart possibly longs for evidence that will simply never exist, however it still keeps me ever returning to this website. Even I have seen something strange in the sky but could only provide a blurry video from my mobile phone's camera. I regret ever posting it as I was flamed for my contribution. I guess this is what it does to you.. you find yourself doing the same as you develop an expectation of what should be deemed "Good Evidence", as this contribution was similar to mine.. a 'blurry' image like my 'blurry' video... I would not conclude it as good evidence.

Maybe one day I will be shown 'good evidence'... which to present day.. I have yet to find..

Originally posted by ommadawn
Seeing the photographer's Flickr pages, he's clearly a talent. When it comes to this kind of stuff though, he is totally off the mark and either uneducated or having a laugh.

In short, seeing that he is now on this forum, and his comments, I'll assume he's just taking the piss.

Why? Because these are very clearly lens artifacts, and even a basic photographer would know about this. Our poster here appears to be very accomplished in the photography department. Yet after 50+ pages for Flickr photos (really pretty good ones too) he suddenly cries UFO?

Doesn't compute for me.

I think you nailed it there.

I'll raise you one publicity stunt. A good one at that. Send in crappy pics to the local media, MSM grabs ahold of it, it goes viral, millions of people visit his flickr, see his other photos, notice his talent, and he has had his 15 minutes of fame, over some crappy UFO pics, but recognition of his real talent. Good job, Jason.

Originally posted by Jasonlreeve
reply to post by ommadawn

 

because i saw one with my eyes!

Which picture do you refer to?

reply to post by smurfy


The 1 sec exposure! the photo with only x1 object in! Looks like a funnel!

Originally posted by ommadawn

Originally posted by Jasonlreeve
reply to post by ommadawn

 

I have given all i can on this! I am an educated photographer and i DO know about lens flare. And YES, it does look very very much like lens flare. I will only say this one more time!

I SAW X1 OBJECT IN THE SKY WITH MY OWN EYES! I DONT KNOW HOW TO GET THIS ACROSS TO YOU NON BELIEVERS!

ANYONE WHO CALLS ME A RUBBISH PHOTOGRAPHER IS A MUG! WHEN YOU CLEARLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY!

I have seen the other photos on Flickr, and I think they are artistically highly commendable.

These photos come with claims that require far more proof.
This is a critical thinking forum.

edit on 20-11-2011 by ommadawn because: spelling correction

I also object to the CAPS and name-calling. When the author of UFO pics resorts to emotional outbursts during what should be a coherent and factual conversation, the question of credibility comes into play.

I've been playing with software on the pics. I've zoomed in on the pics to 3200% magnification. I've ruled out the possibility of image manipulation, no suspicious artifacts, IMHO, so what you see is what the camera recorded.

Lens artifacts are the next logical course to pursue.

However, Jason has said his camera was stolen, and returned a month later by the police. A missing camera?

I'll toss out a theory: Jason did photograph UFOs, and they sent down an agent to steal his camera and erase the damnable evidence. When Jason got his camera back, TPTB in cohorts with the Aliens, had already edited the pics.

Has anyone else noticed the EXIF data as to the original picture date? Why wait so long to report it to the media?

I'm sorry, there are way to many inconsistencies in this story for the free-thinker to believe. I'm leaning hard toward publicity stunt, and that's just MHO.

reply to post by Druid42


My camera was stolen on the 8th of August, I took these photos on the 4th August!

I did not report this to anybody in the time period between these two dates, basically because I am a very busy man. At the time I suppose I wasn't really that interested because I was so busy!

Then on the 8th August my camera was stolen in the riots and I had NO Camera for ages!

This is a very hard thing to live through as a photographer, you feel lost without your camera! lol

Then about a month later the MET Police recovered the camera, The Police digital forensic types took ALL the images off the card and used them in there investigations.

I asked for the photos back and they could not restore the photos to the sd card! (not sure what they did)

I used recovery software to get the images back off the card, then I looked through all the images i last took.
My mind was on the photos i took of the riots, but then i saw the photos i took the night i saw something in the sky.

I looked into them and searched the net for answers to what i saw. I also sent it in the the local news and various UFO Sites. No none really seemed to be that interested, it took 4 weeks before the WH Times (local paper) sent me an email!

This is what happend to the long journey of these images!

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by pianopraze

 

Awesome pics. Copyright respected!

However, where is the UFO?

Thank you

I've never seen a UFO in my life. My post was to show it couldn't be a 20 minute exposure as there were no star trails... my comment was based on the pics in the link in the OP.

However, ArMaP showed the high quality original here which does show star trails of the right amount for a 2o minute exposure.

However the close up crop of that image on the OP's flicker pages... again does not show star trails. Link to photo.

How some stars are streaking and others are not on a 20 minute exposure is puzzling to say the least, troubling at worst. I don't claim to be an expert, but something still smells fishy here... all stars should streak in a 20 minute exposure as showed in my post.

Originally posted by pianopraze
How some stars are streaking and others are not on a 20 minute exposure is puzzling to say the least, troubling at worst.

The many coloured dots are noise, noticeable because of the long exposure, I think.

With a photo taken with the lens covered we could see if the noise would match, and if it did we could remove it (or at least try to) from the original photo.

reply to post by pianopraze


That is puzzling! I guess that because the stars are so far away the camera only just picks them out! Good question, that needs an answer i cannot give im afraid!

reply to post by ArMaP


With a really long exposure time like i did, it would of course be a lot of noise, but some of them i reckon are distant stars.

Jason, you are digging your hole even deeper. Just tell us the truth.

My camera was stolen on the 8th of August, I took these photos on the 4th August! I did not report this to anybody in the time period between these two dates, basically because I am a very busy man. At the time I suppose I wasn't really that interested because I was so busy! Then on the 8th August my camera was stolen in the riots and I had NO Camera for ages! This is a very hard thing to live through as a photographer, you feel lost without your camera! lol

First of all, you are a professional photographer, and only have 1 camera? No backups, no spare lenses?

Secondly, didn't you download the pics onto your PC via USB the night you took the pics? Personally, If I thought I had pics of a UFO, I'd download them right away, and make MULTIPLE backups. I guess being "busy" overrides the first documented proof of alien life?

Thirdly, The pics were taken on August 4th, 2011? You waited four days, then use the excuse of your camera being stolen? You made the news Here, which is three months later, and suddenly you think they are important? Puh-leese.

Is it getting stinky in here yet?

Publicity stunt for notoriety. Anyone else?

reply to post by Jasonlreeve


I don't see how a fainter star wouldn't leave a faint trail instead of a point.

Can you take a long exposure photo with the lens cap on? If it was noise it will probably affect the same pixels.

I am stunned by the liberal use of the word "stunning"