Flying saucer spotted over Portsmouth

reply to post by Enceladus


It looks like its hanging from one large rope in the air as Tesla
sort of described it.

The flat bottom puts out electrical waves into the electrically rigid air.

Electrons stream out of the top. Sort of an inverted capital T circuit.
Yeah, making the air ridged is what its all about.

Don't lose power.

Was this photo taken using a Nikon camera?

That is also a long exposure shot, and in my opinion I find it a fake. The size of the image is quite small, and does not allow you to see it as a high res image. I take lots of night photos, and most of the time to take a stable none blurrly image I need to have my tripod, or find a flat surface in which I can hold my camera and keep it stabilized for however amount of seconds you need to capture a night shot.

From looking at the photo posted, it needs about 4 seconds or so to capture that scene.. And the reason why I think its a fake is because if that ufo were caught during flight. It would look like a streak of gray light flying across the sky.

Im a big photo nerd, and like I said before do a lot of night photography. Its a cool photo, but fake in my opinion.

I'm calling hoax on this one.

When zooming in on the object in Microsfot Paint, you'll notice that the pixels around the UFO and of the UFO itself are distorted whereas the rest of the picture is not.

Nice blending of the object into the picture, but not good enough at the pixel level.

reply to post by avriel



not sure you are in the right place the op has no arrows on the road and there is a wall on the left whe you have a fence,

Someone on here has obviously never heard off light pollution.

reply to post by Apsaroke


why does you picture not look like the op's the ops has a lighter upper surface than yours did you blur it? Are you a disinfo agent?

and don't forget you not aalysising the orignal pocture.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by puzzled2]

Originally posted by puzzled2
reply to post by Apsaroke

 

why does you picture not look like the op's the ops has a lighter upper surface than yours did you blur it? Are you a disinfo agent?

and don't forget you not aalysising the orignal pocture.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by puzzled2]

*sighs* Oh for the love of Pete.

Follow these steps:

Step 1: Right click the first photo and save picture as down to your own computer.

Step 2: Load the picture in Microsoft Paint

Step 3: Choose the little magnyfiing glass and cllick on the "ufo", this will magnify the object.

Step 4: Look at the pixels around the ufo to the pixels in the rest of the zoomed in area.

Step 5 is optional:
A. Go to Edit->Copy
B. File->New
C. Edit->Paste
D. File->Save As

And you too can have a nifty zoomed in picture of the supposed UFO.

Originally posted by puzzled2
reply to post by avriel

 

not sure you are in the right place the op has no arrows on the road and there is a wall on the left whe you have a fence,

Someone on here has obviously never heard off light pollution.

It's definately the right place. in fact its the only place that it could be in portsmouth. As I say the wall (its actually trees) and the little wooden fence is to the left and below in my picture. Also if you look on the original image there are arrows but the point of view is low down so its hard to make them out. you can see th tip of one on the surface. Remember my picture was taken from above I'll get a picture on my way home today from the same viewpoint as the original

With my expert photography skills I was able to reveal what this ufo truly looks like:



Just kidding, I found this somewhere and thought is was a great picture.

reply to post by Apsaroke


ok did that looked at the whole pixture and are you saying the hoax drew in th white lines on the road? because I see the same sort of distortion on there as you point out on the ufo.

The image looks genuine to me. But it ain't no flying saucer.

The articles covering this say it was taken while driving home. I think that the UFO is actually a reflection of a car approaching behind the photographer.

Depending on the shape of the cars back end, it could appear that the light is tilted because of how the car obscures the oncoming light.

The photograph (I have no exif data) is probably a slow exposure. Any movement would cause the light source to blur. If the light was approaching in a straight line, this would explain the lack of side to side blur.

Of course he would not see it while taking the photo. It was not in the sky.

Im no image expert, but I think its a decent explanation.

Hey! This resembles the Nazi UFOs of the 40s....




Purported Nazi UFO.
Courtesy: Eyepod

Heck! Designs haven't changed much, what?

Very good shot, looks authentic to me!

The "Source" link seems to be broken - the article is no longer on the news site.

Coincidence? Possibly not....

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Wow, thats an awesome picture, so very clear

The only problem I have with it, is whether or not it would be that visible within the fog. I guess it depends on what height the fog was at on the night. Anyone able to dig up the weather observations for portsmouth on that date?

and what date would that be? Seeing as its not listed. It annoys me slightly when people ask, is anyone able to dig this or that up? Surely you can type in "weather portsmouth" into google. Why not do it yourself.

Originally posted by Dulcimer
The image looks genuine to me. But it ain't no flying saucer.

The articles covering this say it was taken while driving home. I think that the UFO is actually a reflection of a car approaching behind the photographer.

Depending on the shape of the cars back end, it could appear that the light is tilted because of how the car obscures the oncoming light.

The photograph (I have no exif data) is probably a slow exposure. Any movement would cause the light source to blur. If the light was approaching in a straight line, this would explain the lack of side to side blur.

Of course he would not see it while taking the photo. It was not in the sky.

Im no image expert, but I think its a decent explanation.

i think thats a ridiculous explanation. Sorry for being so blunt. But to suggest that a car from behind could superimpose an image onto the guys photo, or reflect light to look like that. You mention the presumption of a long exposure, and hence it getting blurred, however the supposed UFO is sharp and clear. Also how exactly would something behind the photographer reflect onto the lense? I really think more thought should go into explaining why this is not a UFO, and merely a reflection.

Originally posted by Dulcimer
The image looks genuine to me. But it ain't no flying saucer.

The articles covering this say it was taken while driving home. I think that the UFO is actually a reflection of a car approaching behind the photographer.

Depending on the shape of the cars back end, it could appear that the light is tilted because of how the car obscures the oncoming light.

The photograph (I have no exif data) is probably a slow exposure. Any movement would cause the light source to blur. If the light was approaching in a straight line, this would explain the lack of side to side blur.

Of course he would not see it while taking the photo. It was not in the sky.

Im no image expert, but I think its a decent explanation.

i think thats a ridiculous explanation. Sorry for being so blunt. But to suggest that a car from behind could superimpose an image onto the guys photo, or reflect light to look like that. You mention the presumption of a long exposure, and hence it getting blurred, however the supposed UFO is sharp and clear. Also how exactly would something behind the photographer reflect onto the lense? I really think more thought should go into explaining why this is not a UFO, and merely a reflection.

I would love to assess the ORIGINAL picture. For all the self proclamed experts using paint: keep in mind that this is NOT the original picture, but a smal version of it on a news site. chaning format F%$ks up the picture, not to mention what happens if the picture's format was changed from raw to jpg at low compression.

We really can not be sure what is in that pic until the original has been looked at.

Looks cool enough though. reminds me of all the old ufo books I read when I was kid. Maybe Kenneth Arnold spoke the truth....

By the way, if this is really a long exposure pic, and we do not see any motion blurrin, shouldn't we take in to account that in stead of flying, the UFO was just hovering there?

Just to fill you all in on a few things...

His website is at: shipu.co.uk with full contact information available so its not too hard to contact the guy and ask him for the original nef file. (the chroma noise on the pic looks like a nikon at a high iso to me, though with honesty its impossible to be sure without the original)

You'll note that a lot of his work involves 'heavy' post processing via photoshop. So strictly speaking its Digital art, not photography as you can also gather from the following titbit from the uni of portsmouth:

University of Portsmouth

Habibur Rahman
Habibur Rahman, 27, is a Portsmouth-based photgrapher and recent graduate of the University of Portsmouth's School of Art, Design and Media.

With support from Cibas, he has embarked on a freelance career creating and exhibiting his artwork and is developing a portfolio of clilents as a photojournalist including, Portsmouth Football Club, City Life Magazine and The (Portsmouth) News.

He said, "Cibas advisors taught me about copyright laws and how to protect my work, which was something I hadn't thought much about before. It's important if I'm going to sell my work. The advisors are in tune with how creative people think but they also have great business sense."

And also from one of the comments on the Portsmouth news has something to say.
Comment 4


Things to note:

The Image was processed on a Mac or within a mac profile as you can see if you read the header of the images within the jpg.
The system used was registered to
"H a b R a h m a n / S o l e n t N e w s a n d P h o t o A g e n c y S o u t h a m p t o n"

Also the username was Ducky...

That said, none of these particular factors condemn the image as a fake.
The Color is easily explained as a high iso with a slightly warm color balance in combination with the sodium arc glare of the road lights reflecting from the fog and it would be unusual for a light reflection since there appears to be no visible ghosting. (Though, again here the image is too small to be able to guarantee that)

At this stage though any discrepancy within the various representations we have will be due to the fact that the image has been jpg'd and will contain serious compression artifacts.

If anyone can shoot me down, fire away. I'll be interested to see how this one turns out.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by Absence of Self]

[edit on 13-2-2008 by Absence of Self]

This is a fake.

As a professional photographer/designer I can tell you that in these conditions with fog across the SE of England no outline of an object could be seen at distance. Even if lit up the water droplets in the air would have diffused the object into a blur (see the lights in the forground).

Also I noticed in the report of this in the Portsmouth local paper an acquaintance mentioned this...

"I was on the same uni course as Hab (He didn't graduate the same year as me due to his lack in commitment). He was partial to using Photoshop to make fake images and get himself noticed, it appears as though he is desperate for fame!"

Freelance photographer Hab Rahman - pity him.