UFO Close up!

If it were me i would have ran a mile the minute i saw the thing, i don't want to be probed!

It's the second pic that interests me - very much reminds me of a thread I posted about some pics my bro took
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The shape is similar - real difference is the cloud cover

Originally posted by budski

It's the second pic that interests me - very much reminds me of a thread I posted about some pics my bro took
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The shape is similar - real difference is the cloud cover

Yeah there are quite similar, luminous objects. The second picture i posted was taken by a Canadian pilot if i recall correctly, the backround is on the website but it seems pretty legitimate.

Originally posted by budski

It's the second pic that interests me - very much reminds me of a thread I posted about some pics my bro took
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The shape is similar - real difference is the cloud cover

I just had a look at your pics. I'm wondering if you've caught a single raindrop in the light as it was falling. There's plenty of cloud cover but it looks pretty thin, maybe a shaft of sunlight got through?

[edit on 27-7-2007 by wigit]

this is exactly the same shape UFO seen on the Nasa tether incident, this could well be the real thing, the discs in the tether incident video all have that chunk cut out.

uk.youtube.com...

Originally posted by wigit

Originally posted by budski

It's the second pic that interests me - very much reminds me of a thread I posted about some pics my bro took
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The shape is similar - real difference is the cloud cover

I just had a look at your pics. I'm wondering if you've caught a single raindrop in the light as it was falling. There's plenty of cloud cover but it looks pretty thin, maybe a shaft of sunlight got through?

[edit on 27-7-2007 by wigit]

If you read the whole post, you'll see that the rain had not yet started, and that the sun was way over to the left.

Read the whole thread and these points have been covered, with the consensus that it was ball lightning - this from mr. ritzman.

Ok guys, please don't lynch me for double posting - I didn't have enough room in each post to display all the data.

Here is the EXIF/IFD data from the ufo picture.

Canon EXIF MakerNote Guide

TXT File Containing the MakerNote & UserComment Values
(I put em in a TXT file because those values are HUGE - can anyone translate these two tags?)

Exif IFD0

* Camera Make = Canon
[color=#80c0e0]* Camera Model = Canon PowerShot A700
* Picture Orientation = normal (1)
* X-Resolution = 180/1 = 180.00
* Y-Resolution = 180/1 = 180.00
* X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
* Last Modified Date/Time = 2006:03:14 11:05:15
* Y/Cb/Cr Positioning (Subsampling) = centered / center of pixel array (1)

[edit on 7/27/2007 by damajikninja]

Exif Sub IFD

* Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/60 second = 0.01667 second
* Lens F-Number/F-Stop = 35/10 = F3.50
* Exif Version = 0220
[color=#80c0e0]* Original Date/Time = 2006:03:14 11:05:15
* Digitization Date/Time = 2006:03:14 11:05:15
* Components Configuration = 0x01,0x02,0x03,0x00 / YCbCr
* Compressed Bits per Pixel = 5/1 = 5.00
* Shutter Speed Value (APEX) = 189/32
Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/59.97 second
* Aperture Value (APEX) = 116/32
Aperture = F3.51
* Exposure Bias (EV) = 0/3 = 0.00
* Max Aperture Value (APEX) = 116/32 = 3.63
Max Aperture = F3.51
* Metering Mode = pattern / multi-segment (5)
* Flash = Flash fired, auto mode, red-eye reduction mode
* Focal Length = 13159/1000 mm = 13.16 mm
* FlashPix Version = 0100
* Colour Space = sRGB (1)
* Image Width = 2816 pixels
* Image Height = 2112 pixels
* Focal Plane X-Resolution = 2816000/225 = 12515.56
* Focal Plane Y-Resolution = 2112000/169 = 12497.04
* Focal Plane X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
* Image Sensing Method = one-chip color area sensor (2)
* Image Source = digital still camera (DSC)
* Custom Rendered = normal process (0)
* Exposure Mode = auto exposure (0)
* White Balance = auto (0)
* Digital Zoom Ratio = 2816/2816 = 1.00
* Scene Capture Type = standard (0)

Exif IFD1

* Compression = JPEG compression (6)
* X-Resolution = 180/1 = 180.00
* Y-Resolution = 180/1 = 180.00
* X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
* Offset to the start byte (SOI) of JPEG compressed thumbnail data = 5108
* JPEG Interchange Format Length = 6968

Exif Interoperability IFD

* Interoperability Index = R98
* Interoperability Version = 0100
* Related Image Width = 2816
* Related Image Length = 2112

(User Comment and Maker Note tags excluded for length)

[edit on 7/27/2007 by damajikninja]

Originally posted by Smugallo
what do you mean release the original exactly, the photograph is the original.

How do you know that? Somehow, I doubt that a 500 by 412 GIF is the original of anything. It's too low res for a scan, even from 1991, when nearly everyone was still shooting film.

Originally posted by gonquin
this is exactly the same shape UFO seen on the Nasa tether incident, this could well be the real thing, the discs in the tether incident video all have that chunk cut out.

uk.youtube.com...

I'm not so sure it's the same as the UFO's seen on Nasa's footage, for one the footage or the objects sorry caught on the Nasa tapes could apparantly only be seen in the UV/Ultraviolet spectrum as far as i am aware, and i cannot see the small cutaway on the side and the distinctive dark hole in the middle on these images.

Now that I've looked at those EXIF tags a little bit, I have found a glaring problem...

The picture was taken with a Canon PowerShot A700 - which was not around in 1991 when this picture was allegedly taken. Not to mention that the EXIF data says the picture was taken in 2006, which is the same year this camera was released. HOAX?



[edit on 7/27/2007 by damajikninja]

Funny how it looks exactly like a gas burner (looking down on it).

I can see the pilot flames to the right and the obvious ring of jets around the outside edge. IMO it's a cook top burner of some sort.

Originally posted by budski

If you read the whole post, you'll see that the rain had not yet started, and that the sun was way over to the left.

Read the whole thread and these points have been covered, with the consensus that it was ball lightning - this from mr. ritzman.

I did read the whole thread. I was only making a suggestion. The rain hadn't yet started but it still could be a single tiny raindrop caught on camera.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by wigit]

Very good links on UFO research.

It links to triangles as well:
www.thewhyfiles.net...

As you see from your links:

www.ufoevidence.org...

and

www.hyper.net...

There is flat technology at work in the saucer and in triangles four fold.
No videos of Nazi craft but the same would be evident.


A great pick of links.

If I need to tell anyone about saucers I'll use those thee links above.


Please note the angular arrangement of electrical corona, as the 30 degree
preset horizontal flying directions observed by William Lyne in the 1950s.

Estimate the diameter of the craft and and calculate the frequency of
the possible enclosed wave. The high frequency is necessary but the
electric field strength makes it hover or propel.

These photos are either in stopped or stalled motion, and just like
the electric aether light in Tesla's darken room to demonstrate
electrical effects to Samuel Clements, er Mark Twain, the night
pictures show up the electrical corona. Some cameras pick up bright
light effects in daylight as seen in recent photos on ATS.

Mucho points


[edit on 7/27/2007 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by damajikninja
Exif Sub IFD

* Flash = Flash fired, auto mode, red-eye reduction mode
* Focal Length = 13159/1000 mm = 13.16 mm
* FlashPix Version = 0100
* Colour Space = sRGB (1)
[edit on 7/27/2007 by damajikninja]

I see that the flash fired. I wonder why? Anyway, this could easily be on e of the "Flash Orbs" recently debunked by Bruce Maccabee, among others. Unfortunately, the links to Maccabee's site aren't working right now.

That circular indent on the bottom of the spacecraft must be where they suck people up lol. does look a little out of place but what the hell do i know about spacecrafts right.

As for the credible sources, like the pilot in the other link, you guys should check out the Disclosure Project if you havnt alreasy.

I just posted that link in my Thread "All the different ET species" but ill post it here too for all those who havnt seen it yet. Enjoy!

Originally posted by disownedsky
I see that the flash fired. I wonder why?

Possible explanations, IMO:

A) The object in the picture is actually something else (like a gas burner) and the picture was taken in a closed, dark place. (We should analyze the focus values)

B) The camera was pointing straight up into the sky to capture the "UFO", and the camera decided the fading background of the sky was dark enough to require the flash.

I am more concerned with the timestamp and camera model issues. Those are rather damning, IMHO.

Originally posted by damajikninja
I am more concerned with the timestamp and camera model issues. Those are rather damning, IMHO.

It's probably a picture of a picture.

Beautiful photo. I'd like a high-quality version for my desktop.

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
It's probably a picture of a picture.

Yes, I considered this, too. I would love to further analyze the EXIF data to see if we can glean more information about this image. There is a HUGE data string in both the MakerNotes and UserComments values that I have yet to translate from HEX.

Also, if we can figure out how far zoomed the lens was and what focus settings were used, we might can infer how far away the object was from the camera. If it is indeed a UFO picture, then we should have high amounts of zoom. If it is a picture of a picture, then the zoom levels should be greatly diminished, with great focus.

Where are my EXIF experts?

I thought the first photo looked like an upside-down coffee cup on a saucer on top of a gas burner. Look and you can even see the handle poking to the upper right-hand corner.

The 2nd photo looks a little more likely, yet it just doesn't look right for some reason.