- #1
Coheda
- 15
- 0
This was the last photo taken of the craft as it left to the north:
Zoom photo:
Cropped photo:
What the heck is this thing?
Zoom photo:
Cropped photo:
What the heck is this thing?
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!
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.
Hootenanny said:Are these not more CGI images like the ones you were posting in chat last night?
Where is this? I don't see it.K.J.Healey said:Though I do identify a rotated(120CCW) skull and crossbones in the top left corner of the first picture.
DaveC426913 said:Where is this? I don't see it.
Ah there it is.Borek said:Rotated about 135 deg CCW. Looks like left orbital bone
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?
Hootenanny said:Are these not more CGI images like the ones you were posting in chat last night?
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.
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.
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.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?
How much time elapsed total?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.
So could it have been a Learjet?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.
Agreed, but no doubt, good hoaxsters will pick up on that flaw in CGI fakes and adapt.gareth said:I hope not, because it's shockingly unimpressive for a CGI image.
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?
Borek said:
UFO over Warsaw :rofl:
Coheda said:Not for you-- But I saw it fly around.
Coheda said:The shape of it-- It made no noise. I have no clue what it was/is. Hence, it is a UFO.
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.
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.
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.
Ivan Seeking said:You might check to see if anyone else reported anything unusual.
http://www.ufocenter.com/
Coheda said:It was below 5000 feet up... It is an effing TUBE, with a sphere on the front.
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.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.
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.Hanfonius said:Tunnel vision is not a healthy attitude for an enquiring mind. The scientific mind should be unbiased.
Wait. What? Where did this come from?Coheda said:It is an effing TUBE, with a sphere on the front.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.