I would like to know if anyone else saw it, multiple independant witnesses is the best way to confirm something like this. There should have been loads of people at the coast looking out to sea, the british coast is one of the most populated in the world, and i would be suspicious if it ws only him that saw it.
Saying that, it definately fits the typical saucer stereotype. hmmm. i'm undecided.
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...
Might be a Gull, with motion blur from the camera. It looks like its much closer to shore then the ships.
Plasma, he didnt say he saw it, only that he dicovered it on the photo after downloading it.
My first thought, too, Dave. Flying left to right, wings blurred (more than the body) due to motion.
It's a goshawk.
I'd vote for sea gull too
That's[/URL] a good one.
hmmmmm, i'm decided...... Its a gull
saying that, its a pretty damn fat gull if it is a bird. Amazing it can fly at all.
Agreed. Wonderful photograph.
I would have to agree with bird of some sort.
Having looked at the returning NASA shuttle as it passed over between Austin and Waco texas, at around 10,000+ mph, you see a fireball and nothing on the shuttle is burning, just friction in action
It will be a long time before i accept that anything can move thru our atmosphere without leaving some trace. -:)
I wish I had it uploaded on my computer, but my brother took a nice picture in the desert in Nevada of some cloud formations which have been mistaken as UFO sightings many times in the past. So even cloud formations can dupe us.
This is telling:
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).
Without eyewitnesses to corroborate the sighting or to provide explicit details about the object, and without any evidence that the object moved in an inexplicable manner, it is just another fuzzy photo that could be anything.
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.
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.
I spent a goodly amount of time with this photo with my photoshop program tonight. Without much work, you could clearly see the head of the 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.
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?
I think it was actually two people quoted in a cheesy news story. If you choose to ignore everyone and the entire field because of stories like this, then you had better throw away your science books the next time someone proposes a perpetual motion machine. The logic is just as solid.
Well, it's just a report in a rag paper. I expect UFOers see it as giving them a bad name.
Separate names with a comma.