UFO snapped over Thames

I do not think this is a reflection of the car windshield.
Reflections should overshadow other objects, this object is not doing this:


Not sure what is infront of this object, looks like a post or something....(?)

Not that this really matters that much since it is dependent on the angle of the camera, but the tilt looks different:



This could actually be a real cloaked ufo
But i might be wrong, i am not an expert on images, cameras and how they work, i am only guessing.

reply to post by II HAL II



But from front seat, over the seat in back? That would change angle of reflection greatly. We can say it is facing forward though, you are correct. (Is that the left side of the road in UK?) so that's right.

Posts in front of the object in the second image is interesting, if not just in transparent reflection. Not enough photo for that. Get rid of the red square Sun!

ZG



[edit on 2/28/2008 by ZeroGhost]

reply to post by ZeroGhost


Yeah... we're crazy people...

All I'm saying is compare my reflection picture to the one in the OP.... it just doesn't fit in my opinion.... anyway you sit.

Again I don't think this is a real UFO just not a mini reflection.





[edit on 28-2-2008 by II HAL II]

Originally posted by Balez
This could actually be a real cloaked ufo

Why is it that the sophisticated cloaking devices of these brilliant aliens is so easily thwarted by a relatively cheap digital camera? Obviously a design flaw of some kind.

reply to post by Nohup


It could be a design flaw, or that they thought it improbable that anyone would point a camera at just the location they are at.


EDIT: spellfix

[edit on 28-2-2008 by Balez]

reply to post by Balez


The reflection is not behind the post, if you look at the other picture, you'll see it naturally fades away at approximately the point the "post" is.

If that's the best aliens can do, I think we're pretty safe from invasion. A particularly sharp balloon could probably finish them all off.

I do 3D and are doing some modeling now in Max, and Maya. I will see how the highlights need be lit on an internal and external ring for a light source that would match. Can't post but will see while working.

Also, I would not disbelieve it could cloak, but if a camera could see it that would seem to discount that as cams are passive and record light (photons). It is more likely if in that area that everyone local to the event was "memory erased" if it was doing business there. (Who the heck knows what that business would be, stopping for Chips??). The cam would show it was there, but the neuron schemata would not.

ZG

I have no idea what it is but given it was seen by nobody else - including the photographer at the time - one has to doubt its authenticity. Or do alien spacecraft have cloaking devices which make them invisible to radar, eyes, but not digital cameras?

reply to post by II HAL II


IMHO, you are facing something like Mission: impossible, and kudos to you .
We have no clue what was the position/orientation/environment/lighting/setting of the phone/ position in the car of the girl who took the footage, and so on. Besides, we don't know what was the car.
I fear that we're missing a step: i mean, to assest what was the model of the car for sure. Let's assume that after some/many/too many efforts you'd find an exact match but in the meantime we'd find out that the car was a Volkswagen Beetle...


[edit on 28/2/2008 by internos]

Not sure if this has been brought up yet but this is the issue I have with the photo. It is the same problem I have with all accounts that say something like this. From the original article:

A STUDENT was left shocked when she checked her tourist snaps of the London skyline - and spotted what looks like a flying saucer.

But when she looked back at the January 19 night time pictures of Tower Bridge and the London Eye, she was shocked to see an apparent UFO.

That is what makes it so unbelievable to me. How do you not see a big fat UFO right in front of you when taking a photo and then only notice it in the photo after the fact?

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Balez

 

The reflection is not behind the post, if you look at the other picture, you'll see it naturally fades away at approximately the point the "post" is.

If that's the best aliens can do, I think we're pretty safe from invasion. A particularly sharp balloon could probably finish them all off.

Watch out for them sharp balloons! That's funny.

Good observe. MAN I hate having no resolution to work with. Like reading tea leaves. Aliens must be keeping only the low-res cams operational when being shot.

Devious bastard Aliens! Keeping us picking at fleas instead of serving a Ham.


Knock at the door....
Ooo! just got new software in the post. Must go install-must go install...

Microsoft must be run by mind numbing aliens too.:

ZG

reply to post by internos


LOL true and the funny thing is I still think its fake..... after doing it though, I've managed to convince myself the first picture was taken outside the car.... I could be wrong of course and I also wanted to say the case wasn't closed like it was being said at the beginning of this thread (a long time ago it feels). I think some ATS image guys should step in now.... and shoot me or us down in flames..... *runs away*.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Balez

 

The reflection is not behind the post, if you look at the other picture, you'll see it naturally fades away at approximately the point the "post" is.

If that's the best aliens can do, I think we're pretty safe from invasion. A particularly sharp balloon could probably finish them all off.

I'm not sure but i think i see a part of this 'ufo' behind this post, as i said i am not an expert on these things, but i am learning

Originally posted by II HAL II
reply to post by internos

 

LOL true and the funny thing is I still think its fake..... after doing it though, I've managed to convince myself the first picture was taken outside the car.... I could be wrong of course and I also wanted to say the case wasn't closed like it was being said at the beginning of this thread (a long time ago it feels). I think some ATS image guys should step in now.... and shoot me or us down in flames..... *runs away*.

When the purpose it to deny ignorance, there's no waste of time, mate . And i think that what you're doing now, is not a waste of time at all: soon or later, it will turn to be useful, trust me. For example, how do you think you could get the same grainy shot? Now i was trying with another car, but there's no way at all. Pheraps weather conditions? I wonder what could determine such a "noise" in the whole photo... Pheraps steam in the internal part of the windshield?

I'd say it was a reflection of something certainly.

I love the typical MoD response, unless its something that they consider a threat, they don;t care. Case in point was what happened at RAF Rendlesham, I've read the declassified reports and they agree that something happened, but that it 'wasn't of defense significance' so stopped caring.

If an alien mothership buzzed the London eye in the middle of summer and half of london saw it, the MoD would still say 'it's nothing important' if they were already aware of what it was. You have to worry exactly who or what they give permission of our airspace too.

Sorry for the slightly off topic post, but it bares saying...

reply to post by II HAL II


Hal, thanks for taking the time to get those pictures for us! However, I'm still on the fence. If you don't mind, could you please drive your mini to the london bridge in the exact spot and try to recreate the exact photo...

Joking!!

Your neighbours are probably thinking you've finally flipped your lid sitting out in the car snapping pictures LOL

Again, thanks

Michelle

Well can somebody with an expertize in photography come up with a statement about the authenticity?

The fact that the object wasn't visible to the naked eye but some how only to the camera is not a news. Do you remember the pic of that little girl at the bottom of the small hill? When the pic was developed they saw that at the top was also a sort of astronaut that wasn't visible at the moment when the photo was taken.

reply to post by Michelle129


Thanks no problem.... funny you should say that about my neighbours, after every picture (with flash) I sat there and waited to see if the curtains twitched.... lucky enough they didn't, I think.

And I work at London Bridge too so I may do one day.....lol.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

reply to post by Telos


Do you mean Jim Templeton's daughter's case?

When Jim Templeton took a charming picture of his 5 year old daughter in the English countryside in May 1964, there was nothing strange. But when he was handed the developed photograph, a strange character in white suit seems to stand or float behind the small girl's shoulder, too high and strangely oblique. Kodak excluded any tampering or error with the picture, the press published the story, "Men In Black" visited Templeton, and the case has links up to a Blue Streak missile test range at the other end of the world, in Australia.

Here is a detailed account of the exceptionally strange events and a larger version of the photograph:
ufologie.net...

You're right, but that one was an unique shot, while the alleged ufo in London kept being visible even after 8 minutes from a moving car, more or less at the same perspective: the only possible explanation, in this case, would be that the craft was following the car, if i'm not mistaken ...


But the case that you've mentioned is intriguing to say the least ...

If you don't see something when you take the picture then it magically "shows up" later, rather than hypothesize about cloaking devices and invisibility suits, I generally surmise that the photographer didn't notice it at the time because it was mundane and simply not worth noticing. It's like those shocking invisible "saucer" photos taken by the seashore that only show up later and look suspiciously like seagulls. Who sees birds, or reflections, or somebody just standing in the background of a photo? Maybe a pro photographer can train themselves a little better in this, but most ordinary dopes like me really don't pay too much attention to what's going on in the background.

I still say the key is in matching the colors. Do a color select with Photoshop and find out what other elements of the picture are a match for the color of the "saucer."

I also still say that it's still junk, no matter how hard you parse it.