Photographs of a UFO

  • Thread starter Coheda
  • Start date
The shape of it-- It made no noise. I have no clue what it was/is. Hence, it is a UFO.
No, sorry, it isn't. It was very likely an object you could identify. A lot of things that are high up in the air don't produce any sound on the ground. It's called the sound channel.
 
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
No, sorry, it isn't. It was very likely an object you could identify. A lot of things that are high up in the air don't produce any sound on the ground. It's called the sound channel.
Unless you know what it is, it is a UFO. It is known that ~90-95% of all UFOs reported can be explained as ordinary objects. The other five percent of so is what interests serious investigators.

Interestingly, it is also believed that only about one in ten UFO observations are reported.
 
15
0
Ah, well, as has been said, there is no reason to think this is anything unusual. It just looked unusual. Perhaps it was some kind of ultra-lite aircraft, or an experimental plane, or a string of balloons in a shifting wind.
Possibly an experimental plane... But this was in GA, so... It wasn't a string of balloons-- The flight was too fast and looked to... Controlled. I wish I had a video, now...

No, sorry, it isn't. It was very likely an object you could identify. A lot of things that are high up in the air don't produce any sound on the ground. It's called the sound channel.
It was below 5000 feet up... It is an effing TUBE, with a sphere on the front.

You might check to see if anyone else reported anything unusual.
http://www.ufocenter.com/
Cool.
 
It was below 5000 feet up... It is an effing TUBE, with a sphere on the front.
And you know this how?
 
36
0
The observer saw 'something', and he took photographs of this 'something'.

Reading the responses he is receiving, it is obvious that everybody is absolutely convinced that there is a rational explanation for what he saw. No matter what he might say, he will feel he is being called either a liar, or he is being ridiculed.

Is it surprising that so many people are afraid of coming forward with details of what they saw? If I saw a real interplanetary craft, or a ghost, and if I had taken perfect quality photographs of it, I would be very reluctant to come forward because of the inevitable hammering I would receive from the scientific community.

Tunnel vision is not a healthy attitude for an enquiring mind. The scientific mind should be unbiased.
 
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,332
1,940
Reading the responses he is receiving, it is obvious that everybody is absolutely convinced that there is a rational explanation for what he saw.

No matter what he might say, he will feel he is being called either a liar, or he is being ridiculed.
No one is convinced of ANYTHING until we have enough evidence at our disposal. All we're trying to do is squeeze that evidence out of the witness. But man it's like getting blood from a stone.

Please point to a single reference in this thread where someone even hinted at him being a liar or ridiculing him.

Tunnel vision is not a healthy attitude for an enquiring mind. The scientific mind should be unbiased.
If we were any less biased our brains would fall out. We are practically bending over backwards to help this guy identify what he saw.

Now stop trying to stir the pot. :grumpy:
 
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,332
1,940
It is an effing TUBE, with a sphere on the front.
Wait. What? Where did this come from?

You have a description of it? You didn't feel this was an important piece of the puzzle?? We don't see a tube with a sphere on the front because we're just looking at flat pictures. You were there. You can much better interpret those images than we can. context is everything.
 
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,332
1,940
Are these the original, uncompressed pictures? Even cropping and resaving will cause loss. Can you post the originals?
 
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,332
1,940
For the sake of clarity moving forward, I propose unambiguous labels for the photos so we can all refer to them better than "first (taken last)", "second (taken first)", etc.

So, 3 pics:
string of blobs
near cube
distant cube

Agreed?


Basically, it went over my head when I was watching it, it was heading West, which is when I took the third picture and second picture. Then, a few seconds later, it looped around and flew away to the north-- which is when I took the last photo.
The second and last pictures were taken when the craft was headed west-- Ahead of me, in the photo, which is why it looks so odd. In the first photo, The craft had looped around, through a cloud, and was heading north and directly above me.

The first and photo was taken from a different angle on the craft because it had completed a wide loop above me and was heading north.

The second and last photos were taken from the rear of the craft while it was heading west.
These accounts seem to differ. Or at least, I can't make heads or tails of them. In one you say it was first heading West and then North, but in the other you say it was heading North then West. (I grant this is my failing, not yours. Please humour me.)

Can you please recount it in the order it happened, and referencing the pics?
 
15
0
And you know this how?
Because I looked at the photographs I took of it. The first one in the OP clearly shows a consistent tube-like structue with a spherical 'head' pointing in the direction of travel.

No one is convinced of ANYTHING until we have enough evidence at our disposal. All we're trying to do is squeeze that evidence out of the witness. But man it's like getting blood from a stone.

Please point to a single reference in this thread where someone even hinted at him being a liar or ridiculing him.


If we were any less biased our brains would fall out. We are practically bending over backwards to help this guy identify what he saw.

Now stop trying to stir the pot. :grumpy:
I've already explained pretty much everything.

Wait. What? Where did this come from?

You have a description of it? You didn't feel this was an important piece of the puzzle?? We don't see a tube with a sphere on the front because we're just looking at flat pictures. You were there. You can much better interpret those images than we can. context is everything.
In the first picture on the page it can be discerned that this object is a consistent tube-- Not like an airframe, which usually gets smaller to one end. This object, as can also be seen in the first picture, seemed to have a shperical 'head' on the front. This wasn't as noticable to me on the ground until AFTER I took the photos, because it was so small when i could see it from the bottom.

Are these the original, uncompressed pictures? Even cropping and resaving will cause loss. Can you post the originals?
Yes, and yes, and no. The only one that's not original is the last picture in the OP.

For the sake of clarity moving forward, I propose unambiguous labels for the photos so we can all refer to them better than "first (taken last)", "second (taken first)", etc.

So, 3 pics:
string of blobs
near cube
distant cube

Agreed?
Yes.

These accounts seem to differ. Or at least, I can't make heads or tails of them. In one you say it was first heading West and then North, but in the other you say it was heading North then West. (I grant this is my failing, not yours. Please humour me.)

Can you please recount it in the order it happened, and referencing the pics?
Okay, again, here's what happened:

Photo 3: the object was flying away from me, and pitching upward into the air. It was heading almost right toward the sun, which was in the west-- It was around 3:30

Photo 2: Same as photo 3.

Between photos 2 and 1, the object went up into the clouds, and turned to the south. It then countinued to climb and turn until it went right over me, heading north.

Now, during this time, it just seemed like an airplane-- I just thought my perspective was warped on the object UNTIL it went over me and I took Photo 1. There were no wings. Additionally, the plane made no noise but was under the clouds, which were fairly low that day. About 8000 feet average for the cumulus in the shots. I think. They were cumulus, so they weren't that high. I went to take more pictures, but it was gone.
 
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,332
1,940
Oh for Pete's sake.

"Photo 3: the object was flying away from me, and pitching upward into the air..."
We were going to use names rather than ambiguous numbers to label the pics, right?
"'distant cube photo': The object was flying away from me, and pitching upward into the air..."


AND
We were going list the events IN THE ORDER THEY HAPPENED, right?

"Between photos 2 and 1 ... it went right over me, heading north. ... UNTIL it went over me and I took Photo 1. "

If I pull out the timeline bits (merely for brevity), the above states that you took Photo 1 between photos 1 and 2. I'm sure that's not what you meant but, it is so hard to simply list all the events, observations and photos in order??



Look.

We have tried our darnest to help you figure this out. We've asked and asked for a sensical accounting - one that simply lists events in order as they happened. I've gotten pedantic about it because you keep jumping all over the place and repeating yourself. And we haven't even gotten a single, un-marred, detailed account of events from you.

I think everyone else has gotten bored. I'm about to give up.


If we fail to get an account to back up these pics, I'm going to request that the thread be closed.
 
Last edited:
Because I looked at the photographs I took of it. The first one in the OP clearly shows a consistent tube-like structue with a spherical 'head' pointing in the direction of travel.
How did you calculate it's altitude? Looking at the photographs isn't going to give you a figure. Typically, if you don't hear any sound from the object, it is in the higher part of the tropopause. Below 5000 feet is less than a mile up and you would of definitely heard a lot of sound coming from the object. That is why I am skeptical of your figure.
 
Now, during this time, it just seemed like an airplane-- I just thought my perspective was warped on the object UNTIL it went over me and I took Photo 1. There were no wings. Additionally, the plane made no noise but was under the clouds, which were fairly low that day. About 8000 feet average for the cumulus in the shots. I think. They were cumulus, so they weren't that high. I went to take more pictures, but it was gone.
I can't see the clouds much in the last photo, but in the first photo those clouds look thin and wispy, which would make them cirrus clouds. Those are high-level clouds typically found at heights greater than 20,000 feet. That would explain why you heard no sound coming from the object.
 
15
0
No, that was a thin Cumulus, You can see part of one in the last photo.

How did you calculate it's altitude? Looking at the photographs isn't going to give you a figure. Typically, if you don't hear any sound from the object, it is in the higher part of the tropopause. Below 5000 feet is less than a mile up and you would of definitely heard a lot of sound coming from the object. That is why I am skeptical of your figure.
The clouds were at about 7000-8000 feet, like I said. The object was below them for most of the flight, went through one during the loop, and then continued to climb before disapearing.

It didn't make any noise, nor did it look like a plane, therefore it wasn't a plane.
 
179
1
where are the pictures? I would like to see them but they dont show up?
 
4,453
57
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Yes, and there is nothing particularly striking about this account.
 

Related Threads for: Photographs of a UFO

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
9K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
53
Views
18K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
Top