Photographs of a UFO

  • Thread starter Coheda
  • Start date
In summary, a person saw a UFO and took three pictures of it, but the pictures are not of good enough quality to draw any conclusions. The person asked what the object is, but without additional contextual information, it is impossible to say. The conversation then turns to analyzing the photos and questioning the reliability of visual identification. The person shares details about when and where the photos were taken, but the conversation ends without a definitive answer about the UFO.
  • #1
Coheda
15
0
This was the last photo taken of the craft as it left to the north:

2976635828_764d32abdb.jpg


Zoom photo:

2975710345_720cec30ee.jpg


Cropped photo:

2976563342_9b2cccb9d7.jpg


What the heck is this thing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Without a corroborating account listing details, this is meaningless.
 
  • #3
What?

I saw a UFO the other day, and I took three pictures of it. What more is there to say? Here are the pictures. What is it?
 
  • #4
You asked the question and got the answer: What is it? It is impossible to say. Those pictures don't mean anything. They are not of good enough quality and there is no additional contextual information from which to draw any conclusions at all. Heck, the first sentence you wrote sounds like you pulled a random sentence out of a paragraph!
 
  • #5
You say it was a craft, what kind of craft did you see? What kind of craft noises did it make? Did it have craft motion?

Though I do identify a rotated(120CCW) skull and crossbones in the top left corner of the first picture.
 
  • #6
russ_watters said:
You asked the question and got the answer: What is it? It is impossible to say. Those pictures don't mean anything. They are not of good enough quality and there is no additional contextual information from which to draw any conclusions at all. Heck, the first sentence you wrote sounds like you pulled a random sentence out of a paragraph!

*facepalm*

Okay, what kind of flying object looks like this, then? The context is meaningless-- I took them in georgia, how does that effect what is in the picture?

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.

K.J.Healey said:
You say it was a craft, what kind of craft did you see? What kind of craft noises did it make? Did it have craft motion?

Though I do identify a rotated(120CCW) skull and crossbones in the top left corner of the first picture.

I saw that. It looked like a big, squarish dart, didn't make any noise that I could tell, and flew around about as fast as a Learjet.

What? Skull and crossbones? :?
 
  • #7
Are these not more CGI images like the ones you were posting in chat last night?
 
  • #8
Hootenanny said:
Are these not more CGI images like the ones you were posting in chat last night?

I hope not, because it's shockingly unimpressive for a CGI image.
 
  • #9
What orientation is its longitudinal axis to its flying direction?
What is the relationship between the two photos, which look like completely different craft?
etc.
etc.

Come on. Just tell us everything you experienced. When, where, time of day, sounds, etc. It's all important.
 
  • #10
K.J.Healey said:
Though I do identify a rotated(120CCW) skull and crossbones in the top left corner of the first picture.
Where is this? I don't see it.
 
  • #11
DaveC426913 said:
Where is this? I don't see it.

Rotated about 135 deg CCW. Looks like left orbital bone :smile:
 
  • #12
Borek said:
Rotated about 135 deg CCW. Looks like left orbital bone :smile:
Ah there it is.
 
  • #13
Coheda said:
*facepalm*

Okay, what kind of flying object looks like this, then? The context is meaningless-- I took them in georgia, how does that effect what is in the picture?

Seriously though. I think you're putting too much faith in the method of mere visual identification. "What is in the picture" is just a blurry dot with light and dark smudges.

With context, we can deduce more than this. This is why we need details.


I'm confused. You mention a "third picture" and a "second picture" and then a "last picture". Is there a "first picture"?


In pic3 (wide angle), we can see a hotspot from the sun in the upper left. This means we can interpret the light area of the craft in pic2 as sunlit and the dark area as in shadow. This gives us a shape of a squat hexagonal prism seen end-on. (It might not be so squat if there's serious foreshortening happening.)

In pic 1, OTOH, we assume sunlight is coming from the right of the pic. We see a long, narrow, 3-lobed shape.

What is the orientation of pic 1 with respect to pic 2? How can we possibly see two completely different sillouettes of the same craft? Tell us what angles we're seeing the two from.



Seriously, write out the account from beginning to end, it will give us a lot to go on.
 
  • #14
Hootenanny said:
Are these not more CGI images like the ones you were posting in chat last night?

No-- I was comparing the object to every picture of a 'UFO' I have ever seen.

DaveC426913 said:
What orientation is its longitudinal axis to its flying direction?
What is the relationship between the two photos, which look like completely different craft?
etc.
etc.

Come on. Just tell us everything you experienced. When, where, time of day, sounds, etc. It's all important.

It was midafternoon (3 - 4:30), and I was outside my Cousin's house. 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.

DaveC426913 said:
Seriously though. I think you're putting too much faith in the method of mere visual identification. "What is in the picture" is just a blurry dot with light and dark smudges.

With context, we can deduce more than this. This is why we need details.


I'm confused. You mention a "third picture" and a "second picture" and then a "last picture". Is there a "first picture"?


In pic3 (wide angle), we can see a hotspot from the sun in the upper left. This means we can interpret the light area of the craft in pic2 as sunlit and the dark area as in shadow. This gives us a shape of a squat hexagonal prism seen end-on. (It might not be so squat if there's serious foreshortening happening.)

In pic 1, OTOH, we assume sunlight is coming from the right of the pic. We see a long, narrow, 3-lobed shape.

What is the orientation of pic 1 with respect to pic 2? How can we possibly see two completely different sillouettes of the same craft? Tell us what angles we're seeing the two from.



Seriously, write out the account from beginning to end, it will give us a lot to go on.

I'll refer to the pictures in the order I posted them;

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.
 
  • #15
Coheda said:
Okay, what kind of flying object looks like this, then? The context is meaningless-- I took them in georgia, how does that effect what is in the picture?
That's not enough. We need camera type, lens length, zoom used, resolution, how much you cropped them, time of day, direction you were facing, how many pictures are in the series, how much time elapsed between them, etc. That's context.
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.
How much time elapsed total?
I saw that. It looked like a big, squarish dart, didn't make any noise that I could tell, and flew around about as fast as a Learjet.
So could it have been a Learjet?

This is one of the biggest problems with UFO pictures and their identification. People who see them/take them are often unbelievabely unhelpful in providing the necessary information to evaluate the photos. If a buddy of yours comes up to you and says "I saw a naked woman yesterday" and then walks away, don't you want to chase him down and beat him over the head for not providing more information?
 
  • #16
gareth said:
I hope not, because it's shockingly unimpressive for a CGI image.
Agreed, but no doubt, good hoaxsters will pick up on that flaw in CGI fakes and adapt.
 
  • #17
UFO.jpg


UFO over Warsaw :rofl:
 
  • #18
russ_watters said:
That's not enough. We need camera type, lens length, zoom used, resolution, how much you cropped them, time of day, direction you were facing, how many pictures are in the series, how much time elapsed between them, etc. That's context. How much time elapsed total? So could it have been a Learjet?

This is one of the biggest problems with UFO pictures and their identification. People who see them/take them are often unbelievabely unhelpful in providing the necessary information to evaluate the photos. If a buddy of yours comes up to you and says "I saw a naked woman yesterday" and then walks away, don't you want to chase him down and beat him over the head for not providing more information?

Some kind of Olympus. I don't have the camera right with me, but it's a pathetically old camera-- The images were shot at first in low-resolution with the last in 800*600. I cropped the first down to better show the object-- The rest of the picture was just sky anyway. The second and third I did not crop, the photos were taken in the afternoon, around 3:30, I was facing west in the first two images I took and south in the last. There is about a one-second elapse between the first and second pictures and about a 7-second delay between the second and the third. I only took three photographs. No, I doubt sincerely it was a learjet by the way it looks and its lack of sound.

Borek said:
UFO.jpg


UFO over Warsaw :rofl:

That's a balloon. you can see the string in the zoom.
 
  • #19
With something like this, it might be compelling if, for example, multiple, independent, credible witnesses observed inexplicable behavior or characterstics. But you haven't even explained why you think this is something more than a non-descript blob. My first guess might be that it was a string of balloons. Is there any reason to think otherwise?
 
  • #20
Not for you-- But I saw it fly around.
 
  • #21
Coheda said:
Not for you-- But I saw it fly around.

What precisely did you see it do?
 
  • #22
Oops, never mind, I had missed a couple of posts.
 
  • #23
Why do you think this is something special?
 
  • #24
The shape of it-- It made no noise. I have no clue what it was/is. Hence, it is a UFO.
 
  • #25
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.
 
  • #26
Coheda said:
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.
 
  • #28
LightbulbSun said:
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.
 
  • #29
Ivan Seeking said:
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...

LightbulbSun said:
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.

Ivan Seeking said:
You might check to see if anyone else reported anything unusual.
http://www.ufocenter.com/

Cool.
 
  • #30
Coheda said:
It was below 5000 feet up... It is an effing TUBE, with a sphere on the front.

And you know this how?
 
  • #31
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.
 
  • #32
Hanfonius said:
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.

Hanfonius said:
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:
 
  • #33
Coheda said:
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.
 
  • #34
Are these the original, uncompressed pictures? Even cropping and resaving will cause loss. Can you post the originals?
 
  • #35
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?


Coheda said:
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.

Coheda said:
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.


Coheda said:
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?
 
<h2>1. What is a UFO?</h2><p>A UFO, or Unidentified Flying Object, is any object or light that is seen in the sky that cannot be identified as a known aircraft or natural phenomenon.</p><h2>2. What makes a photograph of a UFO credible?</h2><p>A photograph of a UFO is considered credible if it is clear and in focus, shows the object from multiple angles, and is taken by a reliable source with no apparent motive for faking the image.</p><h2>3. How do scientists analyze photographs of UFOs?</h2><p>Scientists analyze photographs of UFOs by examining the quality and authenticity of the image, looking for any signs of tampering or manipulation, and comparing it to other known objects or phenomena.</p><h2>4. Can photographs of UFOs be used as evidence of extraterrestrial life?</h2><p>No, photographs of UFOs alone cannot be used as evidence of extraterrestrial life. They can be used as potential evidence of unidentified objects in the sky, but further investigation and evidence is needed to determine the origin of the object.</p><h2>5. Are there any common explanations for photographs of UFOs?</h2><p>Some common explanations for photographs of UFOs include misidentified aircraft or natural phenomena, hoaxes or fakes, or camera malfunctions. However, there are also some unexplained cases that remain a mystery.</p>

1. What is a UFO?

A UFO, or Unidentified Flying Object, is any object or light that is seen in the sky that cannot be identified as a known aircraft or natural phenomenon.

2. What makes a photograph of a UFO credible?

A photograph of a UFO is considered credible if it is clear and in focus, shows the object from multiple angles, and is taken by a reliable source with no apparent motive for faking the image.

3. How do scientists analyze photographs of UFOs?

Scientists analyze photographs of UFOs by examining the quality and authenticity of the image, looking for any signs of tampering or manipulation, and comparing it to other known objects or phenomena.

4. Can photographs of UFOs be used as evidence of extraterrestrial life?

No, photographs of UFOs alone cannot be used as evidence of extraterrestrial life. They can be used as potential evidence of unidentified objects in the sky, but further investigation and evidence is needed to determine the origin of the object.

5. Are there any common explanations for photographs of UFOs?

Some common explanations for photographs of UFOs include misidentified aircraft or natural phenomena, hoaxes or fakes, or camera malfunctions. However, there are also some unexplained cases that remain a mystery.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
2K
Back
Top