Ufo over cornwall

Ok, looking at this picture I cannot honestly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is a flying ship of some sort, but I can guarantee that none of you here can prove that it is a seagull. Prove it. Grab me some feathers, find some bird feces, go to that very location that does give bearing for distance on the very nature of that photograph having background and foreground (if it were just a blob in the sky that is one thing, this is a full photograph) and take another picture of that very same 'bird', go right ahead. You can't and you won't.

Seagulls are the standard excuse to prevent further discussion on more important aspects of the incident. The article even gave the make and model of the camera for crying out loud, yet how mature does one have to be to make fun of an elderly man's glasses? This man most likely never wanted anything to do with a UFO picture, and had no idea till afterward that anything was there. He likes ships, not trying to look like a fool!

This photograph is only EVIDENCE, not proof either way. Thinking that a nearly symmetrical dark spot is instantly a bird really speaks to me of a lack of imagination of the bird callers, rather than stupidity on the behalf of some guy who likes to ship watch. At least one person said that it was a digital hoax, at least that is more realistic. What about dirt on the lens? A malfunctioning digital camera, or anything but a bird?

Not a single bird image produced on this thread is very close at all to that picture, yet in flies a flurry of one liner posts going 'yup it's a bird'. Give reasons, and actual better photography than the obviously insulting joke photos. At least the first blurred bird photo was similar, and I appreciate that, but the context of the post was unfair to the photographer.

A little respect goes a long way in the fields of the paranormal and conspiracies, and it would be nice to go to a thread with potential evidence and have a nice discussion about the possibilities for or against the topic, rather than getting a bunch of people who made up their minds before a real conversation even started.

Remember, proof is what you make of it.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by GideonHM]

Its not a seagull at all, its only a small bird in rapid left to right flight, you can see its eye on the right side of the 'disc'..

If his frame rate was say 1/30 or even 1/60 it would perfectly look like that.

I can’t see anything other than a bird.




The birds in the main picture are obviously flying in the other direction, but I think it's still clear the UFO is a bird of some description.

[edit on 2/1/2008 by Jibbs]

Oh no not another unidentified bird debate!!

It is a sad day for me, if Nick gives this authenticity. It just cries "Birdie" to me. I can't see what else it could be.

It is in a pedantic sense a UFO, as in it is an unidentified species of bird..too blurred.

In fact that is the best to hope for...it is too blurred to positively identify it as anything.

reply to post by thebeliever81


I think it is a craft. The proportions are too large for it to be a bird. A bird at that distance would not clearly be defined and in my opinion would appear as a blur without definition.

I am curious to know if there was a response or report from the ships below. That could clarify things for everyone.

I would like to apologise to Nick Pope. His comments were taken out of context and were in actual fact soundbites taken from a lengthy interview.

Mental note: Stop. Think. Think again. Act.

reply to post by Siren


yes me too. i cannot for the life of me make out a bird i just see a large metallic starship. IMO this is way more convincing than any of the drone pictures!

[edit on 2-1-2008 by thebeliever81]

reply to post by Siren


Really? Even after looking at SGP's images, you still cant see how it is obviously a bird?



Im really surprised.

I think this is a case of REEEEEEALY wanting to see a UFO, no matter what.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by greeneyedleo]

[edit on 2-1-2008 by greeneyedleo]

I think that getting info from other witnesses would be very helpful. However, if the man didn't see it initially and the camera picked it up in a cloaked state, then there wouldn't be witnesses.

Also, then perhaps finding out what species of bird this is would also prove helpful to the other side of the argument. I can't put my finger on it, and it is very hard to tell, but on closer examination I could see what is described as an eye, yet the underside having a straight black line doesn't strike me as avian.

reply to post by Jibbs


"I can’t see anything other than a bird. "


LOOK CLOSER GODDAM IT!!!!!

reply to post by skibtz



Nice one, that made me chuckle.





Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 2-1-2008 by elevatedone]

www.myalbum.com...

reply to post by TrojanNutzConspiracy




Your link isn't working, the pic is too big.

reply to post by Siren


Once more, it is impossible to know the size without knowing the distance and vice-versa.

Saying that it was at 2 miles when it was only seen in the photo is just ignorant or misleading.

Even knowing that that camera with that lens captures, for example, a 10º angle, if we do not know the size of the object we can not know at what distance it was. An object that would appear covering 1/5 of the width of the photo (2º) could be a small object near the camera, where it could cover those 2º without any problem (like when we forget out fingers in front of the lens ) or it could be a huge object very far away, like the Sun.

If the UFO/seagull was in front of a branch it would be easy to say that it was a small object, if it was behind one of the ships it would be huge, but as we do not have any near reference that can be used nobody can say for sure at what distance it was or what size it was.

As for the "metallic" look, that is one thing that fools many people and is used in all representations of metallic object. When we see a digital photo of a steel fork, for example, we do not see any metal, we see only a combination of different shades of grey that make our brain interpret it as metal, and one of the reasons (maybe the most important) is because we know the object and we know that those objects are made of metal.

But it could be a photo of a plastic fork painted to look like steel.

So, to me, this looks like a seagull with a grey back (although i can not account for the dark stripe at the bottom) a distance probably slightly bigger than the distance to those branches.

reply to post by ArMaP

So, to me, this looks like a seagull with a grey back (although i can not account for the dark stripe at the bottom)

If you will look at the images that SGP posted, you will see that the Seagull has a black belly...at least a streak of black on its belly

Birds used to be reptiles(reptoids)? Rite or wrong?
You can believe what you want but its still a bird to me!!

Originally posted by codex code
Wow good find!

The picture is nice and clear (in a sense)! There are many stories that go like that … taking a picture of nature or at a certain view and there it is! A UFO! If he didn’t see it does it me that the ufos have some sort of clocking devises? How come when a picture is snapped do the ufos show up?

How about the fact that when they are in full flow they are too fast for the naked eye to see, thats the obvious conclusion for me.

Here is my interpretation of the craft.

hmm

does rather look like a seagull, plus the right side of the object looks like a gulls head looking down out of focus its not 100% simetrical thats for sure and after all..

you wouldnt realy notise a seagull living by the coast you would get used to them and genraly ignore them if you was focusing on something you wanted to take a picture of, its realy easy to miss stuff you dont want to see it i find, thats my theory on why he probly didnt see the object in the first place, because it was nothing out of the norm,

Originally posted by GideonHM
Seagulls are the standard excuse to prevent further discussion on more important aspects of the incident. The article even gave the make and model of the camera for crying out loud, yet how mature does one have to be to make fun of an elderly man's glasses? This man most likely never wanted anything to do with a UFO picture, and had no idea till afterward that anything was there. He likes ships, not trying to look like a fool!

No-one mentioned HIS glasses. I was referring to Nick Pope's glasses, i.e. the " top ufologist" who gave his opinion of the photo to the national newspaper. He's doing himself ( and other researchers) no favours promoting this pic as a genuine UFO. As for the man who took the pic, in all honesty I hope he got a nice wad of money from the paper for his photo. Good luck to him and well done.

Originally posted by GideonHMThis photograph is only EVIDENCE, not proof either way. Thinking that a nearly symmetrical dark spot is instantly a bird really speaks to me of a lack of imagination of the bird callers, rather than stupidity on the behalf of some guy who likes to ship watch. At least one person said that it was a digital hoax, at least that is more realistic. What about dirt on the lens? A malfunctioning digital camera, or anything but a bird?

It IS a bird.

Originally posted by GideonHMNot a single bird image produced on this thread is very close at all to that picture, yet in flies a flurry of one liner posts going 'yup it's a bird'. Give reasons, and actual better photography than the obviously insulting joke photos. At least the first blurred bird photo was similar, and I appreciate that, but the context of the post was unfair to the photographer

I haven't read anywhere on this thread where the photographer was insulted. And if you were insulted then you need an injection of humour. We're allowed to have different opinions, it's a debating forum. We can argue too but let's not row.Even the guy who started the thread thinks it looks more like a seagull than a UFO. Most of the other pics AND drawings are very similar to the "UFO" pic and they're all birds and the "reasons" you ask for are all here too.