- #1
hypatia
- 1,177
- 9
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article637499.ece
Last edited by a moderator:
My first thought, too, Dave. Flying left to right, wings blurred (more than the body) due to motion.DaveC426913 said:Oh fer Pete's sake - it's a freakin' http://www.fredmiranda.com/A6_Daschund/index_files/seagull01.jpg" !
Jumped right out at me...
That's[/URL] a good one.Andre said:I'd vote for sea gull too
http://www.hrphotocontest.com/data/gallery1/6441/54434.jpg
PlasmaSphere said:Saying that, it definitely fits the typical saucer stereotype. hmmm. I'm undecided.
Agreed. Wonderful photograph.Evo said:That's a good one.
It's a sure bet he didn't see it either because it was a mundane object that he ignored without thinking (seagull - I agree that that is a very likely possibility) or that it is an artifact of some sort (dust/ bug on the lens, etc).In a weird twist, Kelvin, 55, did not even see the UFO at the time.
As far as fuzzy- photos-that-could-be-anything goes, this is a very poor example. I would say that there is very little doubt that it's a bird.Ivan Seeking said:it is just another fuzzy photo that could be anything.
DaveC426913 said:As far as fuzzy- photos-that-could-be-anything goes, this is a very poor example. I would say that there is very little doubt that it's a bird.
But as you can see in the link, the ufo/flying saucer crowd likes to chalk such photos up as big wins, but they don't get to. We don't have to be sure that it's a bird to make it worth dropping, but we would have to be pretty sure that it's a flying saucer to pay more attention. That's the way burden of proof works with extrordinary claims.Ivan Seeking said:I think we can guess that it might be a bird but only by playing the numbers. It is more likely to be a bird because not too many other things fly around. But a fuzzy photo is just a fuzzy photo. I think trying to make more of it is exactly what the UFO crowd gets slammed for doing.
Well, it's just a report in a rag paper. I expect UFOers see it as giving them a bad name.russ_watters said:Still, as these things go, that's a pretty big wiff by the ufo/flying saucer crowd. How many big wiffs does it take before we can generally just ignore them?
Point of order: nowhere in that article does it claim that the photographer ever even thought it was a UFO let alone tried to claim it was such.CrawfordK said:What a scam that guy must have earned a few for that.
Well, there was this quote:DaveC426913 said:Point of order: nowhere in that article does it claim that the photographer ever even thought it was a UFO let alone tried to claim it was such.
First rule of selling: when making a claim, make the strongest claim you can. i.e. since the article never suggests he thought it was a UFO, that means he never did, or they would have most certainly used that.
“When I got home I couldn’t believe what I had. I thought, ‘Wow, where did that come from?’ I’m not the sort to believe in UFOs — now I’m not so sure.”
This has all been filtered through the paper's writers and editors. They're making a story out of it.turbo-1 said:Well, there was this quote:
“When I got home I couldn’t believe what I had. I thought, ‘Wow, where did that come from?’ I’m not the sort to believe in UFOs — now I’m not so sure.”
Then, there was the fact that he posed for a picture with a concerned look on his face with his camera pointed skyward (as opposed to toward the horizon to capture the tankers). If he did not believe that the gull was a UFO, how did his photo come to be in the possession of UFO-fans and get printed in a sensationalist rag?
DaveC426913
Once you agree to be interviewed, you're not really in control of what happens to the story, except by what you don't say.
Well, my point was that the photographer was gullible/suggestive enough to look at his own photo and "see" a flying saucer and bring it to the attention of a publication, and then to play along when they decided to publish his photo and story. He could have previewed his images and tried to figure out what this blurry bird was, but instead he apparently chose to bring the photo to the attention of the rag paper as a possible UFO photograph. It is not at all remarkable that he didn't notice a UFO when he took the shot - when you are at the sea-shore, gulls are a dime a dozen.DougF said:Sad but true!
If I were a betting man, I'd bet that it wasn't him that first starting making a serious claim about it being a UFO, and it wasn't his idea to take it to the paper. But that he did go along with it.turbo-1 said:Well, my point was that the photographer was gullible/suggestive enough to look at his own photo and "see" a flying saucer and bring it to the attention of a publication...
Brexit is the term used to describe the United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union (EU).
The UK officially left the EU on January 31, 2020, following a referendum in 2016 where the majority of British citizens voted to leave the EU.
Brexit will have significant economic, political, and social impacts on the UK. It will involve changes in trade, immigration policies, and regulations, as the UK will no longer be a part of the EU single market. It may also affect the UK's relationship with other countries and its role in international organizations.
Yes, Brexit will likely have an impact on travel to and from the UK. The UK will no longer be a part of the EU's freedom of movement policy, which means there may be changes in visa requirements for UK citizens traveling to EU countries and vice versa. There may also be changes in travel regulations and customs procedures.
Brexit may have a significant impact on the scientific community in the UK. The UK will no longer have access to EU research funding and collaborations, which may affect the progress and success of scientific research in the country. It may also lead to a brain drain of talented scientists leaving the UK for other EU countries with more opportunities for funding and collaboration.