Last edited by a moderator:
My first thought, too, Dave. Flying left to right, wings blurred (more than the body) due to motion.Oh fer Pete's sake - it's a freakin' http://www.fredmiranda.com/A6_Daschund/index_files/seagull01.jpg" [Broken]!
Jumped right out at me...
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.
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.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.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?