Photo-Surprise

Hi there,

In France we call this kinds of pictures photo-surprise because
the "witness" did not see anything while taking the picture. He did take
one picture before (30 sec) and one after (30 sec too more or less).
I 've never seen them but it was confirmed to me by the witness
and nothing was on them.

The picture was taken @ 10h58.40 sec on 09/01/2006 in Le Bar Sur Loup
in the French Riviera region.

DATA :

Cam : panasonic (will soon know the exact model)
[size=temps d'expo : 1/400e
diaph : f/6,3
focale : 35mm
date : 01-09-2006 (09-01-2006 in English)
program normal
pas de retouche auto
pas de flash


img.rock-hosting.com...

Zoomed in :



Retouched for contrast :

i263.photobucket.com...



Olivier Lavielle's house and the red spot showing the top of the church
which stands about 60 m of the photographer.

i263.photobucket.com...

Same thing with another angle :

i263.photobucket.com...

Sun coordinates :

i263.photobucket.com...


"Witness" testimony :

www.uforc.com...

TV reports :

www.dailymotion.com...
www.dailymotion.com...


Well, I did get in touch with Mr Patenet of the GEIPAN (French official UFO study group) and he told me that the DGAC (FAA equiv) told him that they had multiple radar returns that same morning, but nothing unusual just fake radar returns on both primary radars of the area.

So, pretty nice UFO isn't it ?


Peace,
Europa


Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by Dulcimer]

The picture seems to be taken with a "Panasonic DMC-FZ30". Capable of taking pictures in 3000 pixels ++ and still we only got a 1024 pixel picture ? Is there any larger pictures we can get ?

However i can´t find anything that point out that this is "photoshopped".

There is a darker spot just under the "ufo", maybe a shadow, glare (reflection), heat ?

Originally posted by Luminal
The picture seems to be taken with a "Panasonic DMC-FZ30". Capable of taking pictures in 3000 pixels ++ and still we only got a 1024 pixel picture ? Is there any larger pictures we can get ?
However i can´t find anything that point out that this is "photoshopped".
There is a darker spot just under the "ufo", maybe a shadow, glare (reflection), heat ?

Hi there,

Try this link : img.rock-hosting.com...

Otherwise I'll send it to you by email.

The shadow under what I call X comes from the fact that X is moving,
4 different photographers confirmed it to me.

Peace,
Europa

[edit on 7-3-2008 by Europa733]

Ok, very nice. Might be a "flying saucer" after all, who know´s

Don´t know what else to say, exept it´s a great picture!

/Lumi

Here's a few versions I did from the raw image posted to try to enhance any detail or get an idea of perspective:

Completely typical and familiar lenticular shape of a bird blurred by the slow shutter speed of a digital camera. There have been dozens of these pop up in UFO land over the past several years.

Why wasn't it seen? Simple. Who pays attention to birds flying around in the background of a picture they're taking?

Bird.

Thanks for sharing this one, and for presenting it in such a well documented way .
In my opinion, it may be a bird, they can put on very odd shapes, while nose diving;

pheraps, he's a friend of this one:

Of course, i could be wrong. Just my two cents.

[edit on 1/4/2008 by internos]

reply to post by internos


Dude seriously a bird? I've taken pics of birds in flight on purpose and that's a stretch, especially considering size relation and position of the object(appears to be behind the tower) to the bird in the front. Neat gif though

Originally posted by Shakesbeer
reply to post by internos

 

Dude seriously a bird? I've taken pics of birds in flight on purpose and that's a stretch, especially considering size relation and position of the object(appears to be behind the tower) to the bird in the front. Neat gif though

Yes, seriously a bird, very seriously.
Pheraps you need to take some more pictures of birds.
But i'd be interested in HOW can you guess about the distance from the camera of an object when you talk about a 2D image showing different objects that are being hit in different ways by the sunlight: whow, much interested. Did you make a triangulation, pheraps? Do you have some more pictures of the same object taken from different angles?
If yes, then you're right, if not, then you're wrong, "Dude" .


[edit on 8/3/2008 by internos]

reply to post by Nohup


Hit the nail on the head..

I vote bird

Also think is a bird, is it me or does it look like an american bald eagle?
I could be wrong heck I'm no bird expert.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for paying attention and giving your thoughts about it.

I appreciate and this is a good starter.


Well, this picture has been rewieved by the CNEGU team which are in
my country the skeptics (scientists) and probably the most serious ufologists
in France. To give you an idea these guys debunked Corp Circles by doing
experiments and showing that everything is explainable.

And guess what, these guys think it could be a bird too or many other things,
including a saucer pretty far away and going super fast. The thing is, they
only looked at the photo, it's just a guess.

Now let me tell you what I think.

As you can see, we're lucky enough to see a pigeon on the church, which is
60 meters away. Which means that if X is a bird, it has to be much closer to the observer. Pretty simple to understand.

i263.photobucket.com...

Now, let's have a look at some birds pictures (thought to be ufos b4)

A goose :



A seagull :



As you can see, even with blurry photos of birds, you can tell most of the times where is the head and where is the tail because the body seen sideways is not symetrical and sometimes you can even see the wings. Problem is if it was a bird seen sideways, why are the wings so blurry when you know that the shutter speed was 1/400 sec and why is it (look like) so symetrical ?



Our "bird" looks symetrical and his wings are blurry when pigeons for exemple have a 5 moves/sec maximum speed when they're flying with no speed. This is what made me think that it might be an insect instead.

But, there's more...

Let's look at a duck taken with :

EXIF: Modèle: Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Ouverture: f/13.0 | Vitesse: 1/400 s | ISO: 200 | Focale: 70 mm | Mesure: (1)



The exif data is different but it's was taken with the same shutter speed at a much closer distance (relative speed increase)...

Now, let's look at the odd shadow, could it be this ? :



or that ? :




Now you understand why I am not thinking it is a bird, even if I cannot rule it
out because in order to do so, I would have to do a few experiments...

I did use Stellarium to check on the Sun's position because X's color goes from gray to dark gray (a little bit too much for me) and my question is, could it be caused by the motion blur as shown in the picture above or is
it just the projected shade ? It has to be calculated also...

Let's go on, I DO NOT THINK THAT OCCAM'S RAZOR IS NECESSARY, why, because all these hypothesis (birds, insects, pollen, freesbee, etc...) can be tested.

My 2 cent (guess) on this picture, is that it is either a very small insect flying very close to the camera and towards it or away from it but not flying sideways or lateraly compared to the observer or a UFO seen at a distance
and flying very fast.

In order for me to do the camera experiments, I would need to get scales to compare, this means that the photo have to be analyzed & measured to figure out how close is X if it was a bird, insect, pollen ?

Once done and known, I will proceed in a set of experiments followig a rigorous protocol that will be given to me by the CNEGU science team.

I'm asking your help to calculate X's distance if it was a pigeon to start with..

Pretty hard, I know, few people know how to do it...

Thanks in advance.

Peace,
Europa


[edit on 8-3-2008 by Europa733]

[edit on 8-3-2008 by Europa733]

I did an approx according to rule, thumbs*pi
Supposing the size of a pigeon ~ 20cm = 2 ruler units @ 60 m (the pigeon on the church tower)
Object at 15 ruler units, size 20cm (if it's a pigeon) would yield a distance of about 8m.

Now it would be interesting to see if you'd take a picture with the same cam and settings of a pigeon in flight at this distance and see it the result would be identical.
On a side note, either the camera man or the church tower didn't adjust to summer time settings cause you state the pic was taken at 10:58:40 whereas the church indicates 11:53.

Interesting picture by all means!

Originally posted by icblue
I did an approx according to rule, thumbs*pi

Supposing the size of a pigeon ~ 20cm = 2 ruler units @ 60 m (the pigeon on the church tower)
Object at 15 ruler units, size 20cm (if it's a pigeon) would yield a distance of about 8m.

Now it would be interesting to see if you'd take a picture with the same cam and settings of a pigeon in flight at this distance and see it the result would be identical.
On a side note, either the camera man or the church tower didn't adjust to summer time settings cause you state the pic was taken at 10:58:40 whereas the church indicates 11:53.

Interesting picture by all means!

Hi there,

First of all, the clock on the church's roof is wrong, it has been double checked buy both the GEIPAN and the Nice airport police. You can also tell it's wrong by looking at the Stellarium image I took and by comparing the Sun's position (angular height)

Off course, I'll do a couple of experiments with a camera but following a very strict protocol.

To calculate the distance of X if it was a pigeon is a little more complicated...


Thanks for your message.

Peace,
Europa


[edit on 8-3-2008 by Europa733]

For everyone saying that is a bird taken at slow shutter speed obviously doesnt realize that 1/400 of a second shutter speed is not a slow shutter speed. Take a picture of yourself flailing your arms as fast as you can at 1/400 of a second and see how much you blur. I vote not a bird, but possible insect close to camera.

Originally posted by samureyed
For everyone saying that is a bird taken at slow shutter speed obviously doesnt realize that 1/400 of a second shutter speed is not a slow shutter speed. Take a picture of yourself flailing your arms as fast as you can at 1/400 of a second and see how much you blur. I vote not a bird, but possible insect close to camera.

Hi,


Question : if indeed it is an insect flying close to the camera and lateraly compared to the observer, shouldn't we get the "Rods" like effect ?

Peace,
Buck

reply to post by Europa733


Im not sure, All im saying is 1/400th of a second is a very short amount of time. If it was 1/30 or 1/60 then I would agree it could be a bird.

Originally posted by samureyed
reply to post by Europa733

 

Im not sure, All im saying is 1/400th of a second is a very short amount of time. If it was 1/30 or 1/60 then I would agree it could be a bird.

Hi,

Well, even so I did not demonstrate it yet through experiments, I totally agree with you as you know.

Peace,
Europa aka Buck

[edit on 8-3-2008 by Europa733]

Same old explanation, same ole people in the same ole debunk order hmmm me see's a pattern emerging.

I dont think its a bird, not that it counts for much, everytime a picture like this turns up its the same explanation every time, ive never seen a shiny bird for one, and this explanation always turns up when the photographer tells us they did not see the object before or during taking the picture.

I am going to remove bird from my book of explanations from now on because i just dont see a bird in any of the its a bird explanation posts.

So i ask why can it not be just what it is? A UFO?

sorry for the rant but it is the same routine it apears the bird has taken over from swamp gas and sun glare.

reply to post by internos


Yeah, there's a lot of birds in the image: