Very unusual object photographed in Arizona sky

a reply to: gortex

Are you just trolling me or are you serious?

The wings in your pic are not even close to being perfectly vertical, and the motion is obvious. There is a head, tail, feathers, and a beak. The object in question does not possess these characteristics necessarily. Can't you find one image that matches the object? I wonder why?

a reply to: htapath

Are you just trolling me or are you serious?

That is a question I could ask of you , you photographed a bird but you want to pretend it was something else even though the majority of members on this thread can see it for what it is.
Enjoy your game.

originally posted by: alienreality
a reply to: wmd_2008

Look one post above yours and you can see mine, which essentially answers most of what has you perturbed.
If you missed my earlier post showing an enhancement of that "light" which did not look like it should be there, you can read it first, or again if you missed the details.
I found the lighter spots on the right underside wing a bit odd. What do you think it might be? Just glare? Sure could be just that.
I really think you can do better than this. Less putting foot in mouth replies might be a start

But then that wouldn't be as much fun for you, I know..

Have some Coffee!

You are looking at a smartphone picture with a resolution of on 72 dpi !!! It is also saved as a jepg so it's a lossy format which creates artifacts.

Some of us on here have a very keen interest in photography some of us from when it was film manual focus & exposure and we developed our own film!!!

a reply to: htapath

This thread has turned into a circus.

With all the pics of birds I would say an Aviary better suits.

originally posted by: htapath
a reply to: gortex

Are you just trolling me or are you serious?

The wings in your pic are not even close to being perfectly vertical, and the motion is obvious. There is a head, tail, feathers, and a beak. The object in question does not possess these characteristics necessarily. Can't you find one image that matches the object? I wonder why?

Here is an image of a hawk with it's wings in in similar position at a low resolution, it's not quite at the same angle as it would be in your picture but have a look.



Now if you press control & + plus on your keyboard to enlarge the view on screen you will see the problems and how detail disappears very quickly.

On your image you see what could be the head and the tail could be hidden due to the angle and POOR resolution of your phone camera picture and being a jpeg picture.

a reply to: htapath

I would suggest focussing on the object instead of objecting to its existence.

The poster did, they gave their opinion of it being a bug on the window.


Your replies in this thread are extremely telling and Blue shift hit the nail on the head when they described this thread in a post of theirs on page 6, here it is

This is just the latest in a long line of cases where somebody posts something supposedly asking us what we think something is, and then essentially refusing to accept a reasonable explanation. Which indicates that they weren't really interested in knowing what it really is, or our opinions, but instead only wanted us to pat them on the back or something for having finally after all these years capturing incontrovertible proof of... whatever.

So true, this thread is a great example

Some (hopeful) words of wisdom.

Its very easy to convince yourself that you have seen something.

Its also very easy to confuse yourself about an image of something in the sky, especially if you desperately want it to be something special.

But...

The people who come to ATS have seen lots of things like this. Some are birdwatchers, some are aviation enthusiasts and some are UFO researchers. What they all have on their side is experience.

So when people are saying they see a bird here, its because they are seeing a bird.

OP - There is nothing wrong with being mistaken. There is absolutely nothing wrong at all with being wrong about something. Its happened to every single one of us at one time or another.

Stubbornly refusing the consensus of your peers who have spent time analysing such things in the past and have stopped by to offer their opinions and give examples of it however, is obtuseness.

Please think about that. No one is attacking you. No one is making fun of you. You are - in this case - very probably just mistaken. Thats life. The best thing to do is deal with it graciously.

a reply to: htapath

You declaring that ATS has collectively made some determination is a ludicrous statement.

Is it,

Read your thread, see how many posts are in it and then see how many posts give their opinion of it being a bird.

It might not be the whole collective but a fair majority so its not as ludicrous as it might seem to you.

a reply to: eriktheawful

You can't find an image of a bird in flight that even vaguely resembles the object in question with all of the nuances can you? I urge you not to keep wasting your time trying to locate such an image, because quite frankly it does not exist. That much is painfully obvious to me. You would have me believe that I caught a one in a gazillion shot of a common bird that just so happens to be void of 3/4 of the characteristics of an actual bird?

But now you post an image of a helicopter to illustrate what exactly? The helicopter has all the correct parts visible which allow it to fly and perform as a helicopter. It's in the correct proportion that one would expect for a helicopter. There is nothing present or missing that would suggest that this is anything but a helicopter.

The object in question resembles a bird to you only because you refuse to acknowledge that there are some vital parts missing. All you see are the wing-like features, period. And even they are in an orientation that is not consistent with a bird in flight. With wings that massive, either the head or tail would be most apparent. A
feather or two on the wingtips would also help, wouldn't you say?

How far do you want to take this? I have all the time in the world and am dutifully up for the challenge.

a reply to: htapath

You must be kidding me.

No,

Because in the same post you posted this

Why do you keep insisting it's a bird when there are obvious anomalies which suggest otherwise? A headless, featherless bird with no tail or feet? A bird with out of proportion wings that appear to be rigid, perfectly vertical, and show no evidence of lateral motion? A bird that has a face-like appendage protruding from the inside of one wing and dots of light along the perimeter of the other? Oh and it just so happens that the bird is the same shape as the clouds and wasn't visible to the photographer?

You have to be kidding, all this was addressed in a logical and rational manner but you need there to be some unknown anomaly because the clouds looked strange or what not.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: htapath

Are you just trolling me or are you serious?

That is a question I could ask of you , you photographed a bird but you want to pretend it was something else even though the majority of members on this thread can see it for what it is.
Enjoy your game.

I've existed in a minority for most of my life. Some of the experiences I've had are said to impossible and non-existent by the majority of people. I wish you and the majority all the luck in the world.

a reply to: htapath

I need to get this straight...

You acknowledge wing-like features...

And even they are in an orientation that is not consistent with a bird in flight.

This statement is false. There are plenty of photos of birds with their wings in a downward position while in flight.

With wings that massive, either the head or tail would be most apparent.

Perhaps...if the photo was taken with a better quality camera, we would see the head and tail of the bird in question.

Yet, you claim,

In conclusion, the object in question is not a bird.

How can you make this claim?

The camera you used to take the photo does not have the capability to take high definition photos.

originally posted by: alienreality

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: htapath

a few members who have commented already like myself are keen photographers.

Really? You posted a reply to me that was asking questions, all of which I had answered in a post just before that and I even posted several images of black vultures and discussed some of the attributes of that bird, but you didn't see it and didn't even check. Plus you missed the other images way earlier I posted and say you didn't see anything even after all was explained in detail.. Not traits that I would think a "keen" photographer would want to have. A keen photographer should at least be able to stand up straight and give the impression they aren't sleep walking..

I commented on the op picture and I ask about your claimed light , I will put this as gently as I can but when someone enlarges an object a few pixels across on a 72 dpi resolution picture and expects to seen some detail they obviously DON'T have a clue.

When the local camera clubs in my area post competition images they are reduced in size ie overall pixel size and the resolution is change to 72 dpi why do we do that Well if someone tries to use your image and tires to enlarge it guess what they end up with a PIXELATED image very quickly.

a reply to: htapath

In many of your posts in this thread, you have made some rather absolute statements, as though trying to indicate that you have mastery in photography.

I'm afraid all you have done is shown your ignorance in this field.

My image of a helicopter, shows what a camera is capable of: imaging an object that is moving quite fast, imaging it fast enough that it looks like it is simply sitting there, and not moving.

You insist over and over that you can not see any movement in your picture, therefore it can not be a bird, when in fact your statement is so wrong, it makes the word wrong, look right.

Even your smartphone camera can image things that are moving fast enough to where it does not look like it is moving.

There have been many pictures posted in this thread to show birds from different angles and different distances. Some show detail, some do not, and yet:

You refuse to acknowledge them because they do not look EXACTLY like your picture.

That shows several things: being closed minded, refusing to accept reality, and denying ignorance, but instead, embracing it.

I, along with others, have spent literally DECADES using cameras, from old film photography to advanced DSLR cameras. I (and a few others on this thread), have spent years taking images of not just everyday things, but of objects of beauty in our skies at night.......something that takes not only many years of experience, but learning quite a bit about what our cameras can and can not do. What they can and can not image.

You've posted a single, let me repeat that quite clearly: A SINGLE IMAGE of an object in the sky. You do not have any other images of it to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can not be a bird. You do NOT have any other images of it to show, based upon different angles and using simple trigonometry, the actual size, height, and distance of it.

Yet you insist that it is the size of a 747, yet was not moving (but you didn't actually see it with your own eyes....how do you know it was not moving if you did not see it with your own eyes? you have only a picture, which was imaged in a fraction of a second........no way to tell if it was moving or not).
You insist that it was far away........yet the single image you have can not show how far away it was really. It's in the sky and not next to the things on the ground.

I called my 11 year old son in here, and I simply showed him the picture (nice clouds is one comment he made). I asked him what the object was. He said he could not tell. So I zoomed in, and with NO hesitation whatsoever, he said:

"That's a bird."

No prompting from me at all.

I asked him why it was a bird. He said you could see the wings on their down flap, and those were no doubt wings. He thought he could even make out the beak to the left of the main part of the "object".

You can insist that this is not a bird if you like. That's your right.

But do not attempt to dictate to those of us that know how cameras work quite well, what a camera can or can not do. Do not make obviously ignorant statements (such as lack of motion, size, distance, or height), or yes, we will come out of the wood work and correct you. This forum is about denying ignorance......not promoting it.

There are a multitude of images on the web of different kinds of birds, in all manner of flight. Some, you can't even tell that it's a bird.

:shakes head:

And they say us skeptics are "closed minded"........

originally posted by: totallackey
a reply to: htapath

I've not changed my stance at all and have stood firm on my assertion that the object cannot be identified definitively.

No, you have not stood firm...
Because in a post above, you make this statement...

In conclusion, the object in question is not a bird.

So then, what is it? You are making a definitive statement. Prove it is not a bird.

We must be on completely different wavelengths. My assertion is that I can't definitively identify the object. However, I can state without any doubt whatsoever some of the things it ISN'T. One of them just happens to be a bird. The object is also not a helicopter, an airplane, or a figment of my imagination.

I HAVE stood firm and this has been my stance for the entirety of this thread. If you can be bothered to go back and read all the posts, you will find that I dispelled the bird hypothesis when it was first suggested by the first poster. Do you honestly think that I would have created this thread and endured twelve pages of tomfoolery if I had any doubt that this wasn't a bird?

Wait... don't answer that last question. I really don't want to know your opinion of me and it was only rhetorical.

originally posted by: htapath

originally posted by: totallackey
a reply to: htapath

I've not changed my stance at all and have stood firm on my assertion that the object cannot be identified definitively.

No, you have not stood firm...
Because in a post above, you make this statement...

In conclusion, the object in question is not a bird.

So then, what is it? You are making a definitive statement. Prove it is not a bird.

We must be on completely different wavelengths. My assertion is that I can't definitively identify the object. However, I can state without any doubt whatsoever some of the things it ISN'T. One of them just happens to be a bird. The object is also not a helicopter, an airplane, or a figment of my imagination.

I HAVE stood firm and this has been my stance for the entirety of this thread. If you can be bothered to go back and read all the posts, you will find that I dispelled the bird hypothesis when it was first suggested by the first poster. Do you honestly think that I would have created this thread and endured twelve pages of tomfoolery if I had any doubt that this wasn't a bird?

Wait... don't answer that last question. I really don't want to know your opinion of me and it was only rhetorical.

Okay...I am keeping with the terms and conditions...When I make a definitive statement, ATS requires a source, unless of course the subject is posted in Skunk Works or the Grey Area or Dreams and Predictions..

You have made a definitive statement. You stated,

In conclusion, the object in question is not a bird.

Once again, I ask you to prove this assertion.

originally posted by: totallackey
Plus, I checked the weather for March 21, 2014...

Winds between 9 and 21 miles per hour...

This has already been covered. Instead of trying trip me up by looking for inconsistencies in my story, you might try reading the thread in its entirety before posting questions that have already been covered. This thread is about twice the size it should be, due to this occurring over and over. I could understand if the thread was 50 pages long, but it isn't. At least not yet.

Short answer, the wind was calm at the time of the photograph.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: htapath

This thread has turned into a circus.

With all the pics of birds I would say an Aviary better suits.

Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

a reply to: htapath


Hi I posted the exif data from your picture it's 72 dpi which is low res your pictures look fine but if you enlarge a picture of that dpi it becomes pixelated very quickly, it also gave the shutter speed of 1/3000th of a second iirc which would freeze a bird in flight easily.

On your image the object is approx 19 pixels front to back.

Here is a picture of a bird of pray wings in a similar position and it's sightly larger at around 25 pixels on the image this image is also 72 dpi again press control & + at same time to zoom in and see how quickly detail is lost look how similar this bird is on this small image to you object!!!

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: htapath
a reply to: gortex

Are you just trolling me or are you serious?

The wings in your pic are not even close to being perfectly vertical, and the motion is obvious. There is a head, tail, feathers, and a beak. The object in question does not possess these characteristics necessarily. Can't you find one image that matches the object? I wonder why?

Here is an image of a hawk with it's wings in in similar position at a low resolution, it's not quite at the same angle as it would be in your picture but have a look.

Now if you press control & + plus on your keyboard to enlarge the view on screen you will see the problems and how detail disappears very quickly.

On your image you see what could be the head and the tail could be hidden due to the angle and POOR resolution of your phone camera picture and being a jpeg picture.

I'm on a small screen here and that pic is just way too small to make out any detail whatsoever.