Wichita UFO

[dlgoff]

Being from Kansas, I thought a little discussion on this one might be appropriate. Looks like the space shuttle piggy-backed to me.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1025246.html

http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2009/02/09/13/ufo2.embedded.prod_affiliate.81.jpg

[russ_watters]

It does look like the space shuttle (or something else) piggybacked, or a similar configuration to a ground-effect craft:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Wig18.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wig18.gif

I can't think of any high performance aircraft with an over-tail engine nacelle, though. It would be a possible configuration for a UAV, though.

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it's an E-3 AWACS or similar.

[dlgoff]

Why would the Air Force not want to comment on the subject if it was just a well know airplane?
McConnell Air Force Base declined to comment.
Maybe just a waste of time for them?

[Ivan Seeking]

Why would the Air Force not want to comment on the subject if it was just a well know airplane?

Maybe just a waste of time for them?

I don't know anything about this particular report, but the military often takes a few weeks to figure out what they were doing. Recall that the Phoenix Lights - the second event that night that made the evening news - was only explained [IIRC] weeks later. [it may have been much longer than that].

Also, it might have been a test flight of some kind - perhaps a new AWACS aircraft?

[dlgoff]

Okay. Then I'll be waiting to hear what they have to say.

[DaveC426913]

I think it looks like a Saab Drakken (with its air scoops way forward)
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avj35_2.gif

with a tail-mounted prototype engine in testing.

[DaveC426913]

Ohhhhhh! I've been looking at it as if the craft is advancing. It makes a lot more sense if it's receding. It almost looks like Ivan's AWACS.

[russ_watters]

It looks like a right rear quarter aspect to me, Dave. I think the fuselage looks too thick and short to be an E-3, but it could be something similar. The report implies a high performance aircraft, though (not that the report is necessarily completely accurate...).

Note to UFO enthusiasts: except that we're missing some context info that presumably the photographer provided when he reported it (specifically, camera/lens info, if the photo is cropped), the tree in the foreground is very helpful. Unless the plane is absolutely huge and/or the camera on a long lens, the plane must be inside of a mile away and only a few hundred feet off the ground. But either way, with a tape measure between the location the photo was shot and the tree, you can get a range of potential sizes and distances.

[DaveC426913]

It looks like a right rear quarter aspect to me, Dave.Yep. When I was first looking at it I thought it was right front quarter, but right rear works much better.

The report says he was facing East but doesn't say whether the craft is shown advancing or receding.

[Ivan Seeking]

The angle of the shot might account for distortions in the appearance of the fuselage.

[russ_watters]

The angle of the shot might account for distortions in the appearance of the fuselage.
Possible, not sure. Tough to pin down the exact angle we're looking at it. I don't see any under-wing engine nacelles, though. That's the main reason I'm thinking what's above is an engine.

[Ivan Seeking]

Possible, not sure. Tough to pin down the exact angle we're looking at it. I don't see any under-wing engine nacelles, though. That's the main reason I'm thinking what's above is an engine.

Hmmmmmm, you're right. It seems that we should be able to see the outline of at least one engine under the wing projected towards our left [as viewed in the photo].

[Ivan Seeking]

This is close to the view that I imagined but with the camera closer to the line along the length of the aircraft - closer to a frontal view.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Boeing_Sentry_at_Ignatievo_base.jpg/800px-Boeing_Sentry_at_Ignatievo_base.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry

[DaveC426913]

Googling, I've found some AWACS dishes mounted on some odd choices for craft. Perhaps this is a dish mounted on a Vulcan or HP Victor other such craft that has in-fuselage engine(s).

[nottheone]

AWACS? I think it was a modifed 57 Studebaker. Which makes as much sense as the stuff other people have been saying. It doesn't look anything like anything that has been suggested so far. More likely a doctored photo if it was digital. If it was actually taken with film then I might be impressed. But whatever camera he had I don't buy the slow lens excuse, he would have had plenty of time to take more than one picture. Also a slow lens implies a longer exposure if anything, nothing to do with how quickly you can take a second shot. I don't see much blurring so the shutter speed couldn't have been too slow.

[DaveC426913]

AWACS? I think it was a modifed 57 Studebaker. Which makes as much sense as the stuff other people have been saying. It doesn't look anything like anything that has been suggested so far. More likely a doctored photo if it was digital. If it was actually taken with film then I might be impressed. But whatever camera he had I don't buy the slow lens excuse, he would have had plenty of time to take more than one picture. Also a slow lens implies a longer exposure if anything, nothing to do with how quickly you can take a second shot. I don't see much blurring so the shutter speed couldn't have been too slow.
Lots of rhetoric here, but surprisingly devoid of useful content.

You don't think it looks like what people have been saying.
You apparently know how long he had to take the shot.

[nottheone]

I was in the Air Force and I'm a photographer, both film and digital, amongst other things. I don't think it looks like any of the suggested things because I have seen them in real life. I would have had plenty of time to take at least 3 to 10 pictures with a 35mm unless that thing was going mach 8 and I still would have got off more than one. I have photographed fighters doing an FCF (functional check flight). They go full afterburner, sit on their tail at the end of the runway and straight up until they are out of sight, it takes a couple of minutes afterburner the whole way. You might notice in the other picture the sky wasn't overcast so the cloud ceiling wasn't low. Maybe I am missing something with the slow lens excuse, feel free to explain it to me, I've been known to be wrong.

[Ivan Seeking]

I was in the Air Force and I'm a photographer, both film and digital, amongst other things. I don't think it looks like any of the suggested things because I have seen them in real life.

How is this different from seeing them in a photo? Beyond that, most people here have probably seen many of these aircrafts.

[Office_Shredder]

I would argue seeing them in real life is less useful than having seen them in a photograph here

[DaveC426913]

Maybe I am missing something with the slow lens excuse, feel free to explain it to me, I've been known to be wrong.

I don't really get where this whole 'slow lens is no excuse' argument is going.

Is the argument that the photographer is lying? Or is it indicative of a hoax? What?

How does 'he would have had plenty of time' get us anywhere towards an answer?

Seriously. He was there. It's his account. Who are any of us to say what should have or could have happened? The account is what it is.

Or am I missing something?

[russ_watters]

AWACS? I think it was a modifed 57 Studebaker. Which makes as much sense as the stuff other people have been saying. It doesn't look anything like anything that has been suggested so far. More likely a doctored photo if it was digital. If it was actually taken with film then I might be impressed. But whatever camera he had I don't buy the slow lens excuse, he would have had plenty of time to take more than one picture. Also a slow lens implies a longer exposure if anything, nothing to do with how quickly you can take a second shot. I don't see much blurring so the shutter speed couldn't have been too slow. For someone who claims to have some relevant knowledge, this post shows surprisingly little knowledge and a lot of attitude. "The slow lens excuse", for example - some cheap point and shoot cameras have surprisingly slow cycle times. It can take a total of couple of seconds to focus, capture, record, refocus... and that has nothing at all to do with exposure time, which is what the quote was actually referring to. You're mixing two completely separate issues.

A slow lens (high f ratio) is a simple and reasonable explanation for why the craft is not sharp but the tree is.

[russ_watters]

How does 'he would have had plenty of time' get us anywhere towards an answer?

Seriously. He was there. It's his account. Who are any of us to say what should have or could have happened? The account is what it is. Heck, the guy doesn't even have to be right! Maybe he did have more time to take more photos but was fumbling with the camera. Maybe he sneezed and accidentally turned it off. It really doesn't matter - none of that has anything to do with the content of the photo. It is not relevant contextual information.

[russ_watters]

Here's a photo of an E-3 taken with a 4:00 aspect. Note the engines are visible and note the dish is separated from the tail. A 5:00 aspect might show them on top of each other, but I haven't found a good pic online showing a view from further back. Maybe I'll try to duplicate it in MS Flight Sim. You'd really need to be specific about it to know for sure if there is any viewing aspect from which you wouldn't be able to see the engines and see the dish and tail blended together.

[Chronos]

I believe the US airforce policy is to refuse to comment on anything not cleared by the pentagon. That creates a lot of public suspiscion, but does make sense.

[Orion1]

That aircraft has been identified as the SR-91 Aurora, with a prototype Mach 4 jet.

Aurora, a Mach 4 SR-91 - 200,000-ft. altitude strategic reconnaissance vehicle.
It flew fast like a jet, made a whirling sound and left an odd glow. The object came out of the clouds really fast. It sounded kind of like a jet but much, much softer and had a whirling sound with it. There was a odd pinkish glow in the sky behind it. The flying machine's exterior looked black and shiny. The object came no closer than 1,000 feet above the ground. It swooped in as if it was on a bombing run, then in one smooth motion, it went back up.
I am very pleased with the progress that the Lockheed engineers have made with this project.

Reference:
aerospaceweb.org - Aurora (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/recon/aurora/)
Aurora - SR-71 strategic reconnaissance vehicle (http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2009/02/09/13/ufo1.standalone.prod_affiliate.81.jpg)
Aurora (aircraft) - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft))
Aurora - X-Plane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aurora_x-plane_2.jpg)

[russ_watters]

Lol, ok. There is no "Aurora" spy plane. The word is an obsolete code name for the F-117 from decades ago. People picked-up on it at the time and made some assumptions about what it might be....assumptions that were wrong.

[Orion1]

Russ, the Aurora is available for in flight simulation on the X-Plane flight simulator.

Why not take the Aurora on a few simulator flights to effectively test the Aurora's flight performance and capabilities?

Reference:
X-Plane - simulator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Plane_(simulator))

[Ivan Seeking]

A flight simulator is not evidence for anything.

However, we certainly have advanced aircraft designs not known to the public [not supposed to be known]. Whether they call it the Aurora or the Magic Flying Machine is irrelevant.

[Ivan Seeking]

btw, I was thinking of an E-3 from approximately a 1:00 or 2:00 view.

[russ_watters]

Russ, the Aurora is available for in flight simulation on the X-Plane flight simulator.

Why not take the Aurora on a few simulator flights to effectively test the Aurora's flight performance and capabilities?

Reference:
X-Plane - simulator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Plane_(simulator)) I own X-Plane, it is one of the best flight simulators out there. You can also fly, on Mars, a plane designed for that purpose. Needless to say, that plane doesn't exist either.

The wiki on the Aurora is quite informative and the first sentence particularly helpful: Aurora (also credited as the SR-91 Aurora) is the popular name for a hypothesised United States reconnaissance aircraft, believed by conspiracy theorists to be capable of hypersonic flight (speeds of over Mach 5). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)

Being the fan that I am of the Lockheed Skunk Works, I really wish that it would exist. I even have a book specifically about the Aurora. Sadly, it is mostly science fiction.

[Ivan Seeking]

But we certainly have advanced aircraft designs not yet intended for public knowledge.

Note also that wiki is no more a definitive source than is a game.

[nottheone]

For someone who claims to have some relevant knowledge, this post shows surprisingly little knowledge and a lot of attitude. "The slow lens excuse", for example - some cheap point and shoot cameras have surprisingly slow cycle times. It can take a total of couple of seconds to focus, capture, record, refocus... and that has nothing at all to do with exposure time, which is what the quote was actually referring to. You're mixing two completely separate issues.

A slow lens (high f ratio) is a simple and reasonable explanation for why the craft is not sharp but the tree is.

This is what he said, "The only problem was I had a real slow lens... . I wasn't planning on taking a picture of anything moving," he said.

This implied to me that he had a camera with a removable lens, not a fixed lens camera with auto-focus. I assumed he was something of a photographer. It also implies that he had another faster lens. He says he takes still life photo's as a hobby, again it implies he isn't using a POS. And as I said it takes a considerable amount of time for even a fast plane to disappear from sight on a clear day. It would have had to disappear in a couple of seconds for him not to take another shot so anything moving that fast would have made the one he did take blurry. I saw a bolide once which was presumably over a hundred thousand feet up going pretty fast (Much faster than any plane anyway since it never came down) and it took 5 minutes to disappear over the horizon. It was classic, it was burning different colors and left a smoke trail, that was on the east coast in the late 60's, reported by hundreds. The newspapers said an expert called it a bolide, not my term

As far as the AWAC goes, a close look at the picture is showing a white glare off of the fuselage right above the cockpit area which would be air and match the background sky color if it was an AWACS.

Since no SAAB I have ever seen has something stuck on the top like in the picture it doesn't look like that either to me.

Sorry to be so uninformed but I'm only 58, maybe when I have as much knowledge and experience as you I'll have better opinions. Like I said I have been known to be wrong but I can't see how ANY camera could have prevented him from taking more than one shot.

[Ivan Seeking]

Possibly related to advanced [secret] aircraft testing:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20060423-9999-1n23bigboom.html

Note also that secrecy is one of the primary reasons that the Groom Lake testing facility [Area 51] exists. I think it is a foregone conclusion that the military has secrets, but by definition that means that we likely don't know anything about speed, range, altitude, avionics, stealthiness, etc. Those would be the big secrets.

[DaveC426913]

Sorry to be so uninformed but I'm only 58, maybe when I have as much knowledge and experience as you I'll have better opinions.
Better opinions require knowledge, sure, but what they require even more of is logic and critical-thinking skills. This is why I challenged your first post. It's mostly rhetoric it doesn't really contribute to solving the problem.



Like I said I have been known to be wrong but I can't see how ANY camera could have prevented him from taking more than one shot.

I ask again: what is your point? Is it your claim that this UFO account is best explained by the witness lying? Because if it isn't then this line of reasoning is pointless.

[DaveC426913]

btw, I was thinking of an E-3 from approximately a 1:00 or 2:00 view.

This was what I saw at first too. But now that it's been Neckerized*, it only makes sense from a 4-5 o'clock position. It just doesn't work from a 1 o'clock position. 1] The wings don't match up tip-to-tip and, 2] what do you think the sun is glinting off on the nose?

* see what I did there?

[russ_watters]

But we certainly have advanced aircraft designs not yet intended for public knowledge. Yes, certainly. Note also that wiki is no more a definitive source than is a game. I disagree - wiki, at least, is a source and/or has sources. A game isn't a source and doesn't have sources - at least no sources that are publicly available. In this case, the manual doesn't even tell us what is intended by the Aurora plane in the game - so we don't even know if some random programmer who doesn't necessarily know anything we don't believes it to exists or not. The fact that it is in the game doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it exists.

Also, as do most people in this forum, I chose the wiki source because it is easy. However, it does include as a source, a book I have, "Skunk Works", which is a primary source by someone "in the know" at Lockheed (the director of Skunk Works) at the time the code name was accidentally released. If you like, I can type in the quote, but what I said in the first quote is a paraphrase of it. There is actually some interesting discussion of the issue - including a statement that the gov't did solicit Lockheed's help in developing such a plane and that Lockheed declined because they knew it wasn't possible.

[Orion1]

Russ, what is the maximum altitude and velocity of the Aurora in X-Plane?

The research and development of a SR-91 Aurora to replace the SR-71 Blackbird is plausible.

Does X-Plane have a SR-71 Blackbird?

[nottheone]

Since my original posts I got the photographers email and asked him some questions. Here is his reply. He also sent me a 3meg original jpg. His words in underline, he used my email and pasted his answers in.

Hi, interesting pic. Some of my friends and I have been arguing about this and I was wondering if you could clarify a couple of things.

Is it going left to right? Object was traveling from left to right.

Did you use film or digital? I used a digital Canon 40D Camera with a portrait lens

Could you explain a little clearer why you only got off one picture? None of us can understand why you had only time for one shot. I have seen fighters take off at full afterburner and it takes a couple of minutes to get out of sight on a clear day. Mostly because of the surprise of the moment, not being ready to take a photo. Also the area was lower and surrounded by trees so it moved out of view very fast.



Any chance of getting an original digital image so I can see if there are any details I can enhance? I have attached to photo, good luck. This has caused me nothing but grief and, if I had it to do again, I would just delete to photo and move on.



Looks like I wasn't too far off. He was using a good camera with a removable lens and the slow lens thing wasn't really the reason he got only one shot. His story is a little different than what was posted in the other sites. If anyone wants the original jpg leave me a note with an email and make sure you don't have an attachment limit.

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, certainly. I disagree - wiki, at least, is a source and/or has sources. A game isn't a source and doesn't have sources - at least no sources that are publicly available. In this case, the manual doesn't even tell us what is intended by the Aurora plane in the game - so we don't even know if some random programmer who doesn't necessarily know anything we don't believes it to exists or not. The fact that it is in the game doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it exists.

Also, as do most people in this forum, I chose the wiki source because it is easy. However, it does include as a source, a book I have, "Skunk Works", which is a primary source by someone "in the know" at Lockheed (the director of Skunk Works) at the time the code name was accidentally released. If you like, I can type in the quote, but what I said in the first quote is a paraphrase of it. There is actually some interesting discussion of the issue - including a statement that the gov't did solicit Lockheed's help in developing such a plane and that Lockheed declined because they knew it wasn't possible.

By definition there is no such thing as a qualified source for projects that are still classified. Therefore there is no way to discuss the subject.

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, what is the maximum altitude and velocity of the Aurora in X-Plane?

The research and development of a SR-91 Aurora to replace the SR-71 Blackbird is plausible.

Does X-Plane have a SR-71 Blackbird?


This subject [Aurora] is closed.

[DaveC426913]

A quick dialing up of the saturation reveals a couple of things:

1] There's a distinct colour difference between the "engine nacelle" and the rest of the craft. I don't what what that might mean, but what I do interpolate from it is that the sillouette is divided at that point between major surface planes: the "engine nacelle" is behind, the wing is in front - as we've been assuming.

But I'm not sure what to conclude from the fact that the upper tail tip is the same colour as the fuselage/wing. If the colour can be interpreted as major surface planes, that tail tip should be the same colour as the (vertical) engine nacelle, not the (horizontal) wing/fuselage.


2] The part we've been assuming is a cockpit canopy (dome, far right) indeed looks even more like a cockpit canopy.

[DaveC426913]

I'm trying to break away from my/our preconceptions of how we're interpreting what we're seeing. Our brains are telling us this is a cigar-shaped-winged craft with a tail engine seen from about 4-5 o'clock position. As long as we keep seeing that we'll stay stuck in a rut. So I'm trying to right-brain this: lose the symbols.


1] The glints off the craft don't make sense. There are between 5 and 7 major glints, depending how you count them. These glints will be from highly oblique angles where there's almost total reflectdion of sunlight off large, rounded surfaces.

I can see why there'd be a glint off the backbone and off the canopy. I can even see a glint off the wing leading edge.

But why would there be a glint off the tail tip? It's too high to be off the nacelle, so why would there be a large, round shape for sunlight to reflect off at the tip of the tail? Are we possibly misinterpreting?

2] Why does the right wing tip bend downward yet the left wingtip does not? Is that downward dip actually the wingtip? Or is it somethjing hanging down from the nose of the craft?


Is it possible we are seeing what we expect to see, not what is really there?

[DaveC426913]

Hi, interesting pic. Some of my friends and I have been arguing about this and I was wondering if you could clarify a couple of things.


Hey, why don't we simply ask him what he saw? Did he see wings? Wing-mounted engine nacelles? Tail-mounted nacelle? Whatever he saw, he knew it was weird enough to be worth a pic.

notthteone? Do you think he'd be amenable?
If so, don't send right away. Let's compose a list of questions we can ask him and send them in one swoop. He sounds unhappy about this experience; we may scare him off.

[nottheone]

I sent him a followup with those questions right after I got his first answer, he hasn't answered it yet. Since I got his email from a ufo site I have a feeling he may be getting a lot of unwanted attention. I was surprised he answered the first one and actually sent me the picture. If you come up with some more I will try again.

I think it looks more like it's heading away from him to the right at about 1:30. It looked to me like it was toward him at 4:00 at first. The thing sticking down on the right does look more like it's on the nose. Almost like a IR/laser pod/dome. The bright spots look like lights. The pixel pattern around the edges of the object seems to be uninterupted so it doesn't look like a quick paste job. There appears to be a large lens flare to the right which he may have mistaken for the glow when he was looking through the viewfinder, I think that camera has a through-the-lens type viewfinder so he would have seen what was in the picture.

All I can say is I wish I had seen this.

[russ_watters]

By definition there is no such thing as a qualified source for projects that are still classified. Therefore there is no way to discuss the subject. Now I'm confused - what forum are we in here and what are we discussing? Since when is a "qualified source" relevant at all in this forum? We're discussing a newspaper article about an eyewitness account by an amateur of an unknown object here, not a peer reviewed paper or Lockheed press release! If a "qualified source" is a requirement, most of the threads in this forum should be closed!

[Ivan Seeking]

We discuss claims of and evidence for unexplained phenomena, not conspiracy theories. We try to find prosaic explanations for specific claims, but we don't play guessing games about classified technology.

No specific prosaic explanation can itself lack any credible references. So we might guess that the craft was part of a black project, but there is nothing more can be said on that point because by definition we can have no credible references. The entire point is that the explanations offered can be verfied as credible and do not amount to just more internet noise.

[wolram]

If i tilt my laptop away from me until a distinct outline appears, it looks nothing like any aircraft i can imagine.

[nottheone]

.... The entire point is that the explanations offered can be verfied as credible and do not amount to just more internet noise.

Which was my point about the slow lens, it wasn't a credible excuse GIVEN THE FULL CONTEXT OF WHAT HE WAS CREDITED WITH SAYING which implied to me he had a good camera and he did in fact. As it turns out his actual comments to me made a completely different excuse which IS credible (assuming there actually ARE depressions and trees in Kansas, it looked pretty damn flat and treeless to me when I drove through it :)

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the real point here is that whatever it is, beyond a complete hoax, there is no reason to think it is anything but a military or test aircraft.

I'll leave the thread open for those who wish identify what specific craft may have been photographed, but I think we all agree that this UFO is for all practical purposes, an IFO. At the least it did not reportedly exhibit any capabilities beyond those of earthly aircrafts.

As for the afterglow reported, I tend to assume that this was simply the evening sun reflecting from the vapor trail.

[nottheone]

I agree, this doesn't have anything ET about it. As unidentifiable as it is, it looks pretty terrestrial to me.

_______________________________

In my experience 50/50 odds have a 90% chance of being wrong 100% of the time, and so do statistics like this.

[dlgoff]

Well, I'm glad I started this thread. Thanks all for a very good discussion. "...I think we all agree that this UFO is for all practical purposes, an IFO..."

[russ_watters]

I agree with Ivan's last post - and if nothing else, this has been a good exercise in photo interpretation.

Btw, I played with some models of an E-3 in flight simulator - if I can find one with a better paint scheme for this, I'll post it, but I found a few interesting things:

-It is possible for under-wing engine nacelles to disappear given the correct viewing aspect (1:00, low).
-Wintip mounted antennas (static dissipators?) can appear like downard curved wintips from some angles.
-This isn't an E-3 - the configuration of the tail and "dish" are not right. They are too close and the dish is too low. Could be a different, similar configuration awacs, though.

[DaveC426913]

Well, I'm glad I started this thread. Thanks all for a very good discussion. "...I think we all agree that this UFO is for all practical purposes, an IFO..."
Well, it's still a UFO, it's just of terrestrial origin.

[nottheone]

If this enhanced image gets approved it's darker but the contrast is clearer and the flares are clearer making them look like lights. Not sure what is going on but I read the file as just over a meg but when I upload it it says 36.5k so it may not pass.

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, it's still a UFO, it's just of terrestrial origin.

Yes, an UFOOTO. :uhh:

[Orion1]

nottheone, that image appears excellent!

how did you enhanced the image?

[nottheone]

nottheone, that image appears excellent!

how did you enhanced the image?


Corel Photo-Paint, one of the contrast lenses. I only spent a few minutes with it. Later I spent more time trying to get something out of the black area but there isn't much there that I could find. It seemed to have a little smooth gradiation towards the center.

[junglebeast]

Here's what I interpret in nottheone's touch up...

http://i39.tinypic.com/nlxx0z.jpg

[DaveC426913]

Here's what I interpret in nottheone's touch up...well, it's certainly a fresh perspective, I would not have considered that upper tail-and-pod to be a horizontal wing-and-pod.

But your extrapolated interpretation doesn'r hold water if you now compare it back to the original image (instead of nottheone's touched up version).

[junglebeast]

well, it's certainly a fresh perspective, I would not have considered that upper tail-and-pod to be a horizontal wing-and-pod.

But your extrapolated interpretation doesn'r hold water if you now compare it back to the original image (instead of nottheone's touched up version).

It seems that the original image link is broken, but I think it is the same as this image I found on Google: http://kwch.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/images/misc/ufo_original.jpg

Why do you think it does not "hold water" compare to the original image?

[DaveC426913]

Why do you think it does not "hold water" compare to the original image?
Because your interpretation is taking advantage of "enhancement artifacts" introduced by nottheone's processing. If you take your new interpretation image and place it next to the original, you'll find a lot more tweaking will be necessary to reconcile the two.

notheone's image blurs many edges, making it easier to interpolate straightish lines where there were none (eg. 1] port wing, trailing edge and 2] nose taper). If you now put your interprertation next to the original, you'll see that the trailing wing edge is not continuous and the nose taper is completely different. Those are just a few examples.

[Mzachman]

2 ideas...

Flying mole cricket with a jet strapped to it's back.... Coming at us and to the right... lol
http://paynomind.com/media/1/20090201-mole%20cricket.jpg

Or going away from us and to the right a B2 with a jet strapped to it's back. Kinda like this, only the nose angled up a little more, and pointed away from us a little more: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b2bombs.jpg

As the first flyby happens watch the angle of it.... http://www.metacafe.com/watch/775852/b2_spirit_fly_by_at_airshow/

Not saying it was a B2, but maybe something similarly shaped with a jet of some sort on the back.

[junglebeast]

I'm not quite following the points you raised, however, the fact that it is missing a vertical tail fin seems to definitively rule out the perspective I suggested.

After taking another look at the original image, I realized that it's absolutely impossible for this to be a plane of any kind at all. Based on the focus of the tree in comparison to the object it's clear that the object is significantly nearer to the camera than the tree, and that it's size is therefore quite small.

Then taking another look at the image, I'm almost positive that this is a picture of a bird. There is a downward curve in the front characteristic of a beak, and a flat tail in the back with no vertical fin indicative of a bird's tail feathers, and the odd structure over the torso is easily explained by motion blur between the flapping wings.

The bright spots aren't lights, they are reflections. Bird feathers can be quite reflective, especially when wet.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3016/crowp.jpg

[DaveC426913]

After taking another look at the original image, I realized that it's absolutely impossible for this to be a plane of any kind at all.Hang on. Your conclusion is non sequitur. While it is notable that the tree and object seem to be differently in focus, there are myriad reasons for this that do not result in a complete dismissal of the eyewitness account - which utterly contradicts your interpretation.

[junglebeast]

Hang on. Your conclusion is non sequitur. While it is notable that the tree and object seem to be differently in focus, there are myriad reasons for this that do not result in a complete dismissal of the eyewitness account - which utterly contradicts your interpretation.

Eyewitness accounts can't really be trusted given the number of proven hoaxes (eg, loch ness, crop circles, flare-balloons...) that pervade this type of thing. Especially not when the eyewitness account is the only piece of evidence that doesn't have a direct explanation. In this case, an anonymous report of "I heard something...I took a picture...I think it was a plane" is not exactly convincing to me.

The circle of confusion in the image for the tree branches is ~4.5 pixels, and for the object it is ~10.5 pixels. The fact that these two numbers are different means that the objects are at different distances. If this were an airplane, one would assume that the distance of the object was greater than the tree.

However, that's not optically possible. As the distance of an object approaches infinity the change in size of the focus of confusion approaches zero, as illustrated by this animation:

http://digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/fig1.2.8.jpg

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptable_circle_of_confusion), we can write the circle of confusion radius c as

c = A*abs(S2 - S1)/S2*f/(S1-f)

But in the same image, all of these are constants except for S2 (distance of the object), so for the purposes of the discussion it can be simplified to

c = k abs(S2-S1)/S2

where S2 is the distance of the object being imaged. The thing about this function is that c asymptotically converges quite rapidly to S1 as a function of S2. In other words, objects more distant than S1 have a very limited effect on increasing the size of confusion. That is why, for example, other very distant objects like the con trails still appear in focus in this image. If S2 is closer than S1, the size of circle of confusion increases very rapidly. This is the only way to explain the very large factor of 2.33 in the relative size of focus of confusion, and is conclusive proof that it is not an aircraft, but rather a small object in the foreground of the tree.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4353/cocobi.jpg

Most people should not need to resort to math to come to this conclusion, though, because our brains are naturally capable of interpreting this type of information. This is why when you look at the whole image (not just the cropped part around the bird) it is quite obvious that the fuzzy object is close to the view, and a rough estimate of scale can even be perceived...

[DaveC426913]

Having gone to college for photography I am aware of depth of field geometry. But you are too sure of yourself (especially ironic as you flip-flop your sureness from post-to-post).

1] If you dismiss the observer's account you might as well dismiss everything. A picture means virtually nothing without the details of the account. In this case, we are actually lucky to have a witness account. One thing the witness account does is rule out that the object is small and nearby. Without the account we would have to consider that as a possibility.

2] As mentioned before, there are other reasons than differing distance why the two objects are not necessarily blurred the same way. Interestingly, you have already explicitly mentioned one of them in your own 'bird' account. Suddenly, now that you're sure it's a bird and not a plane, you seem to give it no consideration at all.

While you raise good points worth addressing, don't shoot yourself in the foot by making any claim "absolutely". Discussing anything with someone who is convinced of their rightness is a futile exercise.

[DaveC426913]

Awesome.

The original link seems to have rotted but I've found an image of it that's 3Megs.

And if that ones rots, I've saved it to my HD.

http://kwch.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/images/misc/ufo_original.jpg

[junglebeast]

2] As mentioned before, there are other reasons than differing distance why the two objects are not necessarily blurred the same way. Interestingly, you have already explicitly mentioned one of them in your own 'bird' account. Suddenly, now that you're sure it's a bird and not a plane, you seem to give it no consideration at all.

What factors could cause it to be blurry? The most common...

A) The object could be in the distance, greater than S1. I mentioned this possibility (that it is further away from the tree) only in order to disprove and rule out that possibility. If it were true, the con-trails in the far distant background show us the asymptotic limit of the radius of confusion on the far end, which is lower than the radius of confusion of the object. If the blurring is due to being out of focus, then this proves that the object is closer than the tree...and that's just based on the mathematics of it...

B) A fast moving distant object that is motion-blurred? There are a number of reasons why this explanation is not realistic. First, even a fast moving distant plane is not likely to cause motion blur because it's apparent speed on the image plane is divided by distance. If the shutter were open long enough to cause motion blur, the tree would likely have even more motion blur due to being shot from a hand-held camera. Second, the blurring on the tail is isotropic, indicating that it is due to being out of focus rather than motion blur.

C) The object could be in the foreground. This coincides with all visual evidence. There does appear to be some motion blur, and this is in support of it being closer, because a bird in the foreground is going to have dramatically more apparent movement in the image plane due to being so much closer (and having fast flapping wings).

On top of all this, if it were a distant UFO, just look at how big it would have to be...a lot bigger than any plane by my reckoning.

[Mzachman]

It could be a kite (or glider) of some kind. If were seeing the belly of it from it's right side the little thing going down in front could be where the string attaches, and the string would be very hard to see with that much blurring. What you're saying about focus length does make sense, so that's why I ask. I could also see that easily being some kind of kite if you imagine it that way. At that angle the wings would be just about parellel to the ground and everything. Just an idea. I really have no idea.

[DaveC426913]

A) The object could be in the distance, greater than S1. I mentioned this possibility (that it is further away from the tree) only in order to disprove and rule out that possibility. If it were true, the con-trails in the far distant background show us the asymptotic limit of the radius of confusion on the far end, which is lower than the radius of confusion of the object.
The object and the contrails are effectively at infinity. They will have the same level of focus.

You have not demonstrated how out-of-focus the contrails are, you are just taking it as a given.

C) The object could be in the foreground. This coincides with all visual evidence.
It coincides with one piece of evidence if you interpret it that way. Your weapon is pointing at your foot and the safety is off...



One of most likely sources of the blur is camera-movement. That would explain why everything in the picture has (more or less) the same amount of blur and why the blur has quite sharp edges (look at the branches of the trees).

[RonL]

I'm not quite following the points you raised, however, the fact that it is missing a vertical tail fin seems to definitively rule out the perspective I suggested.

After taking another look at the original image, I realized that it's absolutely impossible for this to be a plane of any kind at all. Based on the focus of the tree in comparison to the object it's clear that the object is significantly nearer to the camera than the tree, and that it's size is therefore quite small.

Then taking another look at the image, I'm almost positive that this is a picture of a bird. There is a downward curve in the front characteristic of a beak, and a flat tail in the back with no vertical fin indicative of a bird's tail feathers, and the odd structure over the torso is easily explained by motion blur between the flapping wings.

The bright spots aren't lights, they are reflections. Bird feathers can be quite reflective, especially when wet.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3016/crowp.jpg

I had to scan the entire thread to see if anyone else would mention a bird, this is a sight I see quite often in my back yard, as birds glide through the trees making an approach to land near the water pans, and my pool, which is now a fish pond.

[junglebeast]

The object and the contrails are effectively at infinity. They will have the same level of focus.

The con-trails are effectively at infinity (this was part of my argument)...the object is not.

You have not demonstrated how out-of-focus the contrails are, you are just taking it as a given.

I did not explicitly point that out because I thought it was obvious. If you zoom in on the two regions, it is evident that the object has a blurring radius that is larger than the maximum resolution of the contrail (see figure below). This shows that the object cannot possibly be at infinity with the con-trail as you suggest.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/1279/focus.png
(and now with altered levels just to show that the foreground object does indeed blur out to that amount)
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/6537/focusb.png

Indeed, this is the basis of my argument...the con-trail being effectively at infinity shows the maximum radius of blurring that is possible to occur for an object due to being farther away than S1. Therefore, since the foreground object has significantly more blurring than the contrail, it must be closer than S1 and closer than the tree.

[DaveC426913]

You are putting far too much faith in your analysis of blurring.

[junglebeast]

You are putting far too much faith in your analysis of blurring.

Blurring can be quite a reliable depth cue. It may not have high precision, but it is still reliable. It is well known that blur analysis is used as a depth cue in humans (on several levels). We even have computer software that can make 3D reconstructions based on blur analysis.

If you took a photograph of 2 balls that you knew were the same size, and you measured one of them to have a radius of 5 pixels and the other to have a radius of 100 pixels, you would take it as proof that the larger one is closer to the camera. That is the same level of confidence that can be drawn from the blurring in this image, the only difference is that we don't need to know how large the objects are to do the analysis.

My measurements may be crude, but I am only using them to show relative depth changes. In this case, all I needed to show to prove my point was that one circle is not the same size as the other by a statistically significant amount. In this case it's about 4 or 5 times larger, and the number of pixels under the area are effectively the number of measurements that corroborate that determination. So why are you so reluctant to believe it?

[DaveC426913]

My measurements may be crude, but I am only using them to show relative depth changes. In this case, all I needed to show to prove my point was that one circle is not the same size as the other by a statistically significant amount. In this case it's about 4 or 5 times larger, and the number of pixels under the area are effectively the number of measurements that corroborate that determination. So why are you so reluctant to believe it?
The trouble is, they're not the same type of object. They couldn't be more different. One is black-against-light-sky, solid, opaque and sharp-edged, the other is white-against-light-sky, ephemeral, transparent and diffuse.


Dark objects and light objects do not blur the same way (light and lack-of-light are not two sides of the same coin).

[junglebeast]

The trouble is, they're not the same type of object. They couldn't be more different. One is black-against-light-sky, solid, opaque and sharp-edged, the other is white-against-light-sky, ephemeral, transparent and diffuse.

Dark objects and light objects do not blur the same way (light and lack-of-light are not two sides of the same coin).

Blurring due to being out of focus is a purely geometrical effect caused by the aperture not being a perfect pinhole, and white objects do blur exactly the same way as black objects.

If anything, the con-trail having a softer edge in real life only strengthens my argument that the con-trail is more in-focus than the blob, because despite having a softer edge in real life, it still appears crisper in the image than the blob.

As for being transparent...it may be translucent up close but from afar it appears opaque. The only relevance that this would have on the analysis is that if the contrast from the background is too subtle, it would not be possible to determine the extent of the object's blur radius. In this case, the edge is distinctly visible, so it's not relevant.