Are these photos good enough to be considered evidence for the reality of UFOs (not aliens)?

originally posted by: ch1n1t0
a reply to: neformore

You make a good point there, but I don't think the object is different in DPI - I've ran it through the fotoforensics website and it didn't show discrepancy in the areas where the object was. You can try doing that yourself HERE

neformore is right, the ufo is much sharper than the plane. Just look at the photo without that fotoforensics analysis which isn't really telling us anything conclusive. Here's a closer view of one of the OP pics:



If it's fake that would be one explanation, another possibility is that the unidentified object is much closer to the camera than the plane. In the blue book days fakes ran at about 1% but since it's so easy to make good fakes these days I doubt the percentage is still that low, though I'm not sure exactly what it is now.

As you suggested, getting the original image for analysis should be helpful and in the digital age this should be a lot easier than getting film negative originals, because an exact digital copy is possible where there is no such thing as an exact copy of a film negative.

a reply to: redoubt

BTW lovely photoshop skills And I do get what you mean. Let me set this straight, I'm not here to prove, disprove, or change anyone's mind, I'm here to shed light on what I find to be extremely intriguing details (all of them taken together) that include multiple witness testimony and repeated in nature, in a pretty fine set area in the very center of my country.

But I totally get your point here and I agree - photos alone would not prove one bit and I don't suppose these photos alone would really cut the cake. However, I'm inclined on believing the more information is gathered about these sightings, the closer we might be getting to the truth.

Of course, that's if it wasn't just regular military tech, the sighting of which has caused me to waste a pair of pants and a few hundred/if not thousand/ hours of researching, travelling to the place and staying up all night in the cold to witness them again... well, I'd say "Silly me!" if that would be the case. It would also be kind of comforting if I manage to gather strong details about what we have actually observed (and the dozens of other witnesses in the area), stuff like - x craft is capable of doing all of these moves AND silently at that, y craft is a triangle, z craft could be this particular project in action. Once I get such details I can finally get on with my life and stop wasting time writing such write-ups and digging into these cases just because we saw some military balloons, as I've earlier mentioned... Oh, how I wish...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Dear Arbitrageur, it's an honor having you join the conversation. Yes, I am taking the focus of the object when compared to the plane into account and came to the same conclusion. However, if you look at the general picture and don't compare just the plane and the other object, and please, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that - the plane is furthest in the background, then you have the object (lets call that middle distance) and then up closest you have the electricity pole and grass.

If you have set the focus on the object itself everything with a closer distance from the point of the camera AND higher distance as well, will appear unfocused. If there is anything else in that very same distance as the object in question it will also appear in focus, all other objects will seem blurry. And do correct me if I'm wrong on this, but even the cheapest "soap" cameras do that? In addition to this, if you take a look at the type of blur that takes place closer than the focus length (the object) in the pole and grass that's nearest, and then compare to the plane and everything else behind the object's hypothetical distance, you will notice that it's widely different and withstanding such a theory. Let me ask a few DOP friends and I'll be back.

Also, when looking at the original (and whole) photo with that in mind, the UFO doesn't look all that out of place on the photo?

Bear in mind, as a previous comment noted, the camera used seems to be a pretty decent one at that, and the photos altogether are not all that blurry or shaky.

The more I think about it, the best it would be to get the hands on the RAW files so that this would be proven tampered or not... And that's step 1. After eventually getting on a consensus there, step 2 would be getting to know the rest of the details in terms of flight characteristic and discussing them. And just then, if proven to be a possibility to be something weirder than usual, I would start putting this case into context with the rest of the cases I have dug into so far, since I started in late 2010.

Additionally, we have this...


which is a part of this



If we study all (3) photos together we will notice that the object is consistent in all of them and in many it appears just as blurry as is the rest of the environment (and even if we still don't have the originals, it doesn't hurt to try and validate at least a certain ratio between possibilities).

Also, there are two photos of the object with the plane in them. This

and this


Now consider that the person was constantly trying to take photos, playing with aperture and focus distance. First, this would mean that there are additional photos which are not of good quality and we haven't seen them, now if we do get our hands on all of these in original and with EXIF data, we'll be able to set a timeline of the place of the object according to the witness and camera POV with even the worst photos that would be totally blurry being helpful... Also, if there are more of them with the plane and object together in a photo...

Now that would be something.

So... by all means, lets discuss what we have so far and hope that we would have the chance to dissect more photos as well

All this talk of A-10's...

Given the picture, it looks like a rural agricultural area. The fixed wing aircraft could very likely be a crop dusting aircraft spraying a field. I see this type of maneuver all the time right outside my windows as they spray wheat and corn. Frankly, if you think an A-10 pilot is good...you should watch a crop dusting pilot sometime!!! Sometimes it looks like these guys defy physics and aerodynamics.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It's harsh winter here (you can tell from the dead vegetation /yellow hybernating grass and naked branches/ all over the photos), we have had about a week time of temperatures above 15-20 degrees Celsius until today. Today and the month before the said week, it's been -3 degrees and below with snow covering most of Bulgaria. So no crop-planes, though it would be a perfectly fine explanation of the plane if it was a different time of year.

a reply to: ch1n1t0

Temps of 15-20 degrees C (59-68 F) are some of the best times to spray for certain insects and noxious weeds...before they are able to grow and multiply.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Still, I find it highly unlikely they would do this in early January? Bulgaria's in the Northern Hemisphere, which means we have until late April for the winter to go away and we'd reach Spring time, when something like this is most usual (and when the said temperatures are not an anomaly, but are consistent).

If, however, you claim that having the chance to spray four months before Spring due to one week of anomalous high temperatures is something that from agricultural perspective would reap benefit in any way, I would say it is possible, as I know nothing about crops and agriculture.

And with the US/Bulgarian military base that's just about 20-30 kilometers away and the history of many sightings of jets and military excersises in the area, I wouldn't be surprised if that really was an A10.

a reply to: ch1n1t0

Now consider that the person was constantly trying to take photos, playing with aperture and focus distance.

The EXIF data indicates that auto exposure (simple mode) was being used.There is no reason to change focus for object at that distance, they are effectively at infinity.

Also, the reason I don't find it the least surprising to have such sightings (military ones AND why not weird tech that I've listed throughout the posts in the thread as well) in the area for a number of reasons.

First, from tactical perspective, Bulgaria is in a crucial position, defense wise, for the Western world. Second, the country has been suffering a financial and political crisis since 1989, people are more concerned about looking at their feet rather than looking up the sky. Also, most of the people interested in the phenomenon around here are ladies and gentlemen in their 60s who are reading tabloids mostly and can't set their point of view straight, even scientists like Luchezar Filipov fall in that category for me with dubious claims here and there that still resonate with what sounds like ole' lore from the communism days.

All in all, the middle class, who is expected to actually ponder upon such things and document them, is not well established here... Instead, we mostly get chinese lantern sightings or the northern star...

originally posted by: ch1n1t0
correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that - the plane is furthest in the background, then you have the object (lets call that middle distance) and then up closest you have the electricity pole and grass.

Agreed the plane is the most distant of the plane, UFO and tower. However it's not clear whether tower or UFO is closer or if they could be at the same distance.

If there is anything else in that very same distance as the object in question it will also appear in focus, all other objects will seem blurry. And do correct me if I'm wrong on this, but even the cheapest "soap" cameras do that?

That's not quite how it works. Let's start with this photo from the OP for which I retrieved the exif data from the website (3-3 on the website):

Here's the thumbnail:

Here's some relevant exif data:
focal length: 200mm (this is a four power magnification lens since 50mm focal length is typically x1 for a 35mm camera)
f-number: 5

Now those towers can vary in height somewhat but they are all fairly tall and therefore to see that much space above the tower in the thumbnail with a 4 power magnifying lens, one must be a considerable distance from the tower, especially when using a 200mm telephoto lens. I won't try to calculate the distance without knowing the tower height but let's say the photographer is 300 meters from the tower as an example, here's the way the calculations could work using an on-line depth of field calculator:

www.dofmaster.com...

Note that if one were to set the focus to the hyperfocal distance setting at the bottom of 418 meters, that everything from 209 meters to infinity would be in focus. Sometimes the goal of the photographer is to get infinity in focus while also getting closer objects in focus and this shows how it can be done, and the higher the f-number the better for this purpose. Obviously in this photo infinity doesn't appear to be in focus since it's not as sharp as the tower, so it's not clear where the focus was actually set, though the raw image might shed some light on that.

The more I think about it, the best it would be to get the hands on the RAW files so that this would be proven tampered or not... And that's step 1.

Agreed, those will have the best information.

a reply to: Phage

Thanks for chiming in, Phage. Although I work in post production (though I'm audio 99% of the cases) I've never dug deep into the graphic portion of it all, hence I lack the understanding. However, I think I get what you mean, since the object seems to be pretty far away, there is no lens that would be able to focus on such distance?

Also, does auto exposure mean that the camera itself decides which is the point of interest/focus distance that should be? Autofocus, as it's most commonly known? In such a case, is it possible given the relation of the object with the surroundings in terms of sharpness, prove that these photos were tampered with? Or is it a possibility that they appear like this due to the auto function taking different decisions among the span of the three photos?

EDIT TO ADD - after Arbitrageur's perfectly fine post which gives me a bit of an idea, I think there's not much necessity to reply to these questions, unless you feel like you could provide something additional to aid my understanding. I'm curious on your stance, if we get our hands on the originals on what might the object be.

a reply to: ch1n1t0

Also, does auto exposure mean that the camera itself decides which is the point of interest/focus distance that should be?

No. Auto exposure automatically adjusts aperture and shutter speed according to light levels.

I don't know if that camera has autofocus capabilities but, in any case, the "work load" on the photographer was not that much.

Proving tampering can be a tricky task. But I wonder about the metadata thumbnail not showing the plane or object. That could be a matter of them being too small.

a reply to: Phage

I gotcha. And the way these are set up (aperture and shutter speed) also provide for sharpness or alternatively, blurriness of a particular photo. And focus would play a part in this, too. At least to me, on first look the object sits natural and I have to say that I've never fell for any of the more famous CGI hoaxes that we've seen in the last 5 years, I've been around photographers, CGI artists and the likes and my father is still doing web and graphic design as a freelance job, I've also had my share of experience in trying out and learning new stuff like some Photoshop or Maya, but never dug deep on a professional level, I just like tinkering with software and try new things. In general, I would say that I have an eye that can tell CGI and shopped images easily from one which is legitimate. Now this is not proof of the validity here, and I realize it, I'm just sharing my POV, but for me, that's enough to at least consider that if this is a photoshop job, it's a good one. I'll try the best I can to get those originals...

Edit - Also, about the thumbnails not showing them, it is because the objects are pretty small in terms of the surroundings, I've also noticed it, if you click on the thumbnail, however, and zoom in you will see they're there (but very blurry, since you're zooming in on a low-quality version and not the original). The originals, as per the website, are with a resolution 5742 by 3648, so they had the chance to zoom in on the objects in order to show them clearly in the article.

Phage, I just understood you were talking about the metadata thumbnail. My bad. And that is most peculiar as they really don't seem to be visible at all, but I wonder if it might be due to them being small, as you said.

In any case, while we're waiting for an e-mail from the witness, which may very well never come (although I've wrote on a few places that if he sees my message, to write to me, and I also trust that the guys from the website will let him know I'm interested in getting in touch with him), I've told the guys from portal12 that from a journalist perspective, the right thing to do, since these photos are generating some interest, they should actually provide the originals on the website the way they received them from the witness, in high resolution that is, so these could be checked out for tampering, and once that's ruled out, we could go further. Again, these might not be RAW straight from the witness's camera, but they are as close as we can possibly get, if he himself doesn't get in touch with me. Also, since the woman from the website told me that they received the photos and a brief explanation of the flight characteristics over e-mail I suppose these haven't been included fully in the article, and I also told them I find it extremely righteous to do add them as an update. Both the "oral" details and full-resolution photos shouldn't be considered breaking the witnesses rights in any way, or his right to anonymity, unless he has specifically stated they shouldn't include the details of what was observed and the photo in hi-res...

I honestly think it's the right thing to do.


EDIT TO ADD - I'd like to note, that I haven't heard of this website so far, they've gathered a following on Facebook, and the number of likes is as an average, by Bulgarian standards, when it comes to informative websites, so they have been around for some time. I don't particularly have your average internet user habits of following media outlets, pages, people, etc. These photos popped up randomly on my facebook, because a friend of mine has commented on it and what has never happened thus far took place next - I was impressed for the very first time from the photos, just from initial looks. I thought that if these turn out to be fake - they would be a very decent Photoshop job and I still find it hard to believe. Also, so far, apart from one member, no one has went on to say that these were edited in for sure and it's still hard to tell if they were, indefinitely, which alone makes it a good fake!

a reply to: ch1n1t0

If these pictures were taken using a film camera the camera would likely be a motor drive model that transports film automatically between shots as the shutter release button was held down in auto mode.

Should be easy to calculate time of flight given the evidence if the camera design is is known.
Camera designs often share technical demographics by date and manufacturer.

a reply to: ch1n1t0

When all those thing add up it does make one wonder what is going on over there, and thanks for the links these are very interesting reads. I understand what you mean about these series of photos and knowing a bit about the area they were taken in, gives context to them. For most of us they are but images we have to scrutinize with all the others out there. I suppose Ive become used to seeing so many fakes it come naturally now. So for this discussions sake I`ll consider that the photos are in fact genuine.

Then begs the question why an A-10 Warthog ground attack aircraft would be in such close proximity to this craft. Some things I can think of is,

The aircraft was already in the area and either the pilot visually saw it and requested permission to investigate
The craft was picked up on radar and the closest aircraft was vectored in to identify it.
The A-10 was used as a cover/ escort for a secret craft so if picked up on civilian radars the military could say it was the Hog.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
All this talk of A-10's...

Given the picture, it looks like a rural agricultural area. The fixed wing aircraft could very likely be a crop dusting aircraft spraying a field. I see this type of maneuver all the time right outside my windows as they spray wheat and corn. Frankly, if you think an A-10 pilot is good...you should watch a crop dusting pilot sometime!!! Sometimes it looks like these guys defy physics and aerodynamics.

Except there is NO other aircraft now or then that even remotely resembles an A-10, especially a prop crop duster. Many crop duster pilots are ex- military pilots as well and yes can pull off some real hotdog puckerbutt stuff.

a reply to: Slichter

The camera is a Canon 7D Mark II, judging by the EXIF data.

a reply to: StratosFear

That, or it could be that the A10 was doing some kind of training and the other aircraft could be an inflatable and used as a hypothetical target or representing an enemy aircraft. But it all seems like speculation so far, I have received no e-mails, no messages, the guys from the website read my plead for releasing the photos online, but no reply yet (though it's a Sunday and they might get back to me tomorrow).

originally posted by: ch1n1t0
a reply to: StratosFear

That, or it could be that the A10 was doing some kind of training and the other aircraft could be an inflatable and used as a hypothetical target or representing an enemy aircraft. But it all seems like speculation so far, I have received no e-mails, no messages, the guys from the website read my plead for releasing the photos online, but no reply yet (though it's a Sunday and they might get back to me tomorrow).

We can speculate as far as our experience lets us, having alot of knowledge on military aircraft and the tactics they use has its usefulness in cases like these. I cannot recall the last time I heard about inflatable targets used by ground attack aircraft but I dont think they do this anymore. Especially not for air to ground weapons training, anti-helo possibly but then again not that likely.

Hopefully you get a reply back with some back story to the images you posted as I`m interested in what it was too. Being on ATS helps out alot as there are aviation experts that would be ideal to ask that do not really go into the UFO forum much. Let me send a few pms and see what opinions some may share back.