Disc-shaped object over Taos, NM? (June 22, 2008)

On Sunday, June 22, 2008, around 2-4pm MST, I was traveling in a car on what I believe was route 64 (possibly route 25) in Taos, heading to Santa Fe and shot a series of about 21 pictures out the passenger side window while the car was in motion. Later that day I noticed that two of the 21 pictures I took contained what, to my eyes, looks like a disc with a dome. Below are links to the two pictures in question.





I would have taken these two pictures seconds apart, so it is the same object in both. You’ll find it sticking out of the white, light-reflecting cloud formation at the bottom of the larger, undefined mass of darker grey clouds. The odd shape in question is underscored with an unusually thick, arced shadow.

I wanted to share these shots with the ATS community on the chance the strange shape might be a genuine anomaly. Now, the object looks Photoshopped even to me; all the same, this is what showed up. I can’t expect others to agree with what I see, but I felt like I had to share them. Someone in Taos may have seen this object in real life and might recognize this object. What would be a bit helpful is if someone recognizes the actual area of highway we were on (It was my first time in New Mexico so I am not familiar with the area). We were still in Taos, but when I later referred to a map, I realized this object may have been very close to Los Alamos airspace.

The camera I used is a Sony Digital Handycam, DCR-TRV22. I initially downloaded my pictures on a borrowed laptop to view them while I was in New Mexico. This laptop's imaging software application downloaded technical details of these shots that I regrettably did not email to my home computer. I do not know how to access this data to report here, but I remember reading in the technical detail shown on the borrowed laptop that the shutter speed was above 300. The Sony manual reads like a textbook on advanced physics so I am not able to locate the standard shutter speed in the product literature; however, I seem to remember that the laptop readings indicated standard shutter speed was 1/60. My spotty recollection is that these two particular pictures were captured at approximately 1/325 or 1/345 shutter speed. I remember remarking at how high the speed was.

Your honest analysis of these two pictures would be appreciated. Above all, I would like to know the true nature of this strange shape, whether it’s anomalous or just a strangley shaped cloud. I particularly welcome the scrutiny of those experienced in photography, clouds/meteorology, and UFO observers to vet the graphics and weigh in.

- Rionifics

It's just a cloud .... you can see those formations almost every cloudy day ... nothing odd here .... at least in my opinion.

Lovely pictures of the sky though. It looks like it was very lovely day.

Thanks for sharing these photos
I saw that OzWeatherman, an expert in this stuff, should be online now: i've sent him a U2U and brought this thread to his attention.
In the meantime, i post the available EXIF data for both images.

Camera: Sony DCR-TRV22
Lens: 3.3 mm
(Max aperture f/1.7)
Exposure: Auto exposure, Program AE, 1/350 sec, f/8
Flash: No flash function
File: 480 × 640 JPEG
114,383 bytes (0.11 megabytes) Image compression: 88%

Color Space sRGB
Components Configuration YCbCr
Compressed Bits Per Pixel 2
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Create Date : : : :
Custom Rendered Normal
Date/Time Original : : : :
Exif Image Size 640 × 480
Exif Version 0220
Exposure Compensation 0
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Program Program AE
Exposure Time 1/350
F Number 8.0
File Source Digital Camera
Flash No flash function
Flashpix Version 0100
Focal Length 3.3 mm
Interoperability Index R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
Interoperability Version 0100
Light Source Unknown
Make SONY
Max Aperture Value 1.7
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Camera Model Name DCR-TRV22
Modify Date : : : :
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Resolution 72 pixels/inch
Scene Capture Type Standard
Scene Type Directly photographed
Thumbnail Length 6,042
White Balance Auto
Y Cb Cr Positioning Co-sited

Camera: Sony DCR-TRV22
Lens: 3.3 mm
(Max aperture f/1.7)
Exposure: Auto exposure, Program AE, 1/350 sec, f/8
Flash: No flash function
File: 480 × 640 JPEG
123,505 bytes (0.12 megabytes) Image compression: 87%

Color Space sRGB
Components Configuration YCbCr
Compressed Bits Per Pixel 2
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Create Date : : : :
Custom Rendered Normal
Date/Time Original : : : :
Exif Image Size 640 × 480
Exif Version 0220
Exposure Compensation 0
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Program Program AE
Exposure Time 1/350
F Number 8.0
File Source Digital Camera
Flash No flash function
Flashpix Version 0100
Focal Length 3.3 mm
Interoperability Index R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
Interoperability Version 0100
Light Source Unknown
Make SONY
Max Aperture Value 1.7
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Camera Model Name DCR-TRV22
Modify Date : : : :
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Resolution 72 pixels/inch
Scene Capture Type Standard
Scene Type Directly photographed
Thumbnail Length 4,804
White Balance Auto
Y Cb Cr Positioning Co-sited

[edit on 31/8/2008 by internos]

This one is nothing more than clouds. Occasionally clouds become so heavy with ice or water vapour, that they sag, causing the clouds to form bulbous like formations, hanging below the base of a cloud. The meteorological term for this is mammatus. Im not implying that this is mammatus, but it sure does appear as though the cloud is sagging below the base

Nothing extraterrestrial here

I see a fire-breathing demon.
Your UFO is actually it's lower jaw.
Kinda has it's eyes buggin out like one of those Thai carvings.

thanks Op for posting your picture,

i was checkin this picture out and just wanted to say that there maybe something circular behind the cloud. looked strange to me so i thought i would show you .....



perfect place to hide if you ask me...

Originally posted by internos
i post the available EXIF data for both images.

I don't see that EXIF really matters anymore, considering applications, even free ones, are widely available to edit the EXIF.

Originally posted by Misfit
I don't see that EXIF really matters anymore, considering applications, even free ones, are widely available to edit the EXIF.

Yes i know it, thank you though, LOL: are you asking to ME to don't post EXIF data anymore, mate? LOL
And BTW, i've posted them because the OP didn't recall the shutter speed, see below:

Originally posted by Rionifics
This laptop's imaging software application downloaded technical details of these shots that I regrettably did not email to my home computer. I do not know how to access this data to report here, but I remember reading in the technical detail shown on the borrowed laptop that the shutter speed was above 300. The Sony manual reads like a textbook on advanced physics so I am not able to locate the standard shutter speed in the product literature; however, I seem to remember that the laptop readings indicated standard shutter speed was 1/60. My spotty recollection is that these two particular pictures were captured at approximately 1/325 or 1/345 shutter speed. I remember remarking at how high the speed was.

I advise you to read before posting, next time: thank you.

[edit on 31/8/2008 by internos]

Its clearly some sort of "sky fossil". Almost certainly a creature that once flourished in the skies and probably came from Mars.

Originally posted by internos
are you asking to ME to don't post EXIF data anymore, mate? LOL

Uh, no? I simply made a comment about EXIF, considering the big hoohah on UFO pics is "where's the exif where's the exif".

And BTW, i've posted them because the OP didn't recall the shutter speed, see below:

Nor did he ask for it, he simply said he didn't recall. But I am to assume that's why you posteed it? All you said was "here's the exif" - period.

I advise you to read before posting, next time: thank you.

Maybe the advice would be to get off your high horse, all I did was make a damn coment about exif data. Jeezuz man !!!

reply to post by Misfit

Your post was implying that exif data were useless and ind this case they were NOT. Your post was also implying that the OP may have faked them.
Anyway: if you have to add to the thread ON TOPIC then add, if not please sing your song elsewhere, thank you.

Originally posted by internos
reply to post by Misfit

 

Your post was implying that exif data were useless and ind this case they were NOT. Your post was also implying that the OP may have faked them.
Anyway: if you have to add to the thread ON TOPIC then add, if not please sing your song elsewhere, thank you.

What the hell is wrong with you? My post implied nothing, my post stated that exif can be altered, period. Any implications to that came about wholly in your mind.

The exif in this case was only obvious as pertinant after you stated why you posted it, considering it was never requested.

My post was on topic, the topic of exif that you posted.

Gawd almighty damn, are you on a god trip or something?

reply to post by Misfit

LOL, ok: i understand what you mean
After the OP i've sent a message to one of our experts: since he was coming here to post his take on the photos in the OP, and since the OP didn't know an important data like the shutter sped i've posted it, so the expert would have been able to look at them before posting: EXIF data may help for many reasons, like in evaluating the consistence of what we see with what is contained in them: while they are easy to fake with some software, it's a little harder to fake them keeping the consistance of some data like, for example, the focal lenght, with what is shown in the image: another example are the long exposure shots of helicopters and planes: if one fakes exif data and reduces, for example, the shutter speed from 3 seconds to 1/256, but in the photo can be spotted a detail that proves for sure that it was a long exposure shot, then the photo was a long exposure shot and exif data were faked
paradoxically, faked EXIF data can even prove that the photos are faked, depending by a long series of facets and on how the analysis are made: i mean, they are almost never completely useless, while their absence of course is almost always a very negative clue.
I hope that this clarifies all, mate

Hey all,

I appreciate everone's honesty and I had a little good-natured laugh off of some of the comments. (One of my friends at work also saw the same dragon head in the clouds. ) Thanks very much, Internos, for posting the shutter speed and all of the other data. I'll paste the data into a file to keep in my records. Since I'm so new at this, I like the idea of having that data at my fingertips. When something odd shows up on a photo, I like to arm myself with as much hard data as I can.

I must say, I still think it's anomalous. I've never seen a cloud--never seen anything that I've ever in my life thought was a "UFO". I've seen blimps, helicopters, planes, shooting stars, I've never before in my life seen a UFO or mistaken any object for one. (I know, there's always a first time. And this could be it.) I've always had excellent vision--never needed glasses. I left a few paragraphs out of my original post for the sake of brevity. It's wordy and boring I'm sure, but offers a bit of backstory:
-----------------------------------------------

The day before I took these two pictures, I had taken over 150 digital shots of mountains and sky as a passenger on an approximately 4-hour drive through a region which contains an alleged ‘UFO hot zone’--somewhere along the road that leads from Toas, New Mexico into Colorado. It was my first time UFO hunting and I took loads of shots on the hope something might show up. My strategy was to take 2-4 shots in succession, varying the zoom, in case my camera happened to be aimed at something that might be cloaked, or traveling at a speed faster than the human eye can register. (This is why I wound up with 2 shots that contain this odd shape.) Nothing even remotely resembling a craft showed up.

The next day, Sunday, June 22nd, while traveling from Taos to Santa Fe. I took about another 21 shots during this trip that lasted no more than an hour and a half. I didn’t really expect anything but figured if I was ever going to see a UFO, it would be while I was in still in New Mexico. Again, the two photos containing the strange shape came out of this series of pictures.

Understand that when I took these two shots, I was not aiming the camera at the object. While the odd shape may have been visible to the bare eye at the time I captured it on my borrowed digital camera, I did not notice/see any such shape when I selected these scenes to shoot with my own eyes, nor did I notice the strange shape in the eye of the camera for either shot. To this day I find this very odd because the thick shadow underscoring the disc shape is a very noticeable feature--especially in the first photo--and immediately drew my eye. And the object is very close to the center of the first shot so I don’t understand how I could have possibly missed this when I was looking in the sky for anomalies to begin with. The lens was not on zoom so the object should have been at least as visible as it is in the photos. So how could I have not seen this with my own eyes?

-------------------------------------------------

When I went back and reviewed all 180+ sky-containing shots on my camera’s 1.5 inch lcd screen, I found the anomaly right away in the first shot due to it’s solid white form, which made it stand out from the white cloud behind it--almost like the effect of looking at a film negative. It had a distinctive outline that did not fit in with its surroundings.

If you look at the clouds, it’s a large mass of rather misty, undefined vapor. If the odd shape--what I like to refere to as an anamoly--is indeed a cloud, it seems to me that it exhibits a definition in its outline, and symmetry in its shape that is highly unusual for any cloud I’ve ever seen, and is atypical of the cloud mass in the back ground of the pictures.

(continued in next post)

When I went back and reviewed all 280+ sky-containing shots on my camera’s 1.5 inch lcd screen, I found the anomaly right away in the first shot due to it’s solid white content that made it stand out from the surrounding cloud, and a distinctive outline that did not fit in with the clouds behind it. If you look at the clouds, it’s a large mass of rather misty, undefined vapor. If the shape in question is a cloud, it seems to me that it exhibits a definition in its outline, symmetry in its shape that is quite unusual for any cloud I’ve ever seen, and is atypical of the the rest of the cloud mass in these two pictures. The dome shape on top seems centered. I mean, the shape just does not seem to have the kind of random, irregularly formed features of your average cloud.

About 2 weeks ago, I had examined the photos on a friend’s Mac, which had more sophisticated image settings than I have on mine. I enlarged the picture until it was highly pixelated and realized the left end of the object does not come down in a point as I had interpreted from image at its proper size. Pixelation seems to indicate the left end of the anomaly is a symmetrical, curved end of an elliptical-shaped object–like when a flat plate held at eye level is tipped down a few inches in the direction of the observer; that linear profile turns into an ellipse. But on the enlarged photo, the pixels show the left end of the anomaly is shaded, giving the object in the image the appearance of having depth and a relatively flat surface on top.

The dome shape on top seems centered. It just does not seem to have the kind of random, irregularly formed features that I have observed with clouds. To be fair, up until a few months ago, I had done little cloud-watching in my life. (I pay a whole lot more attention to them now though. Believe it. :-\ )

There seems to be a weak point in the shadow underneath, that also seems to be fairly centered in relation to the object.

On the enlarged image, I noticed the pixels indicating light/light reflection formed almost an upside down “w”shape that was, again I would argue, awfully symmetrical for it to be simple water vapor and condensation in the atmosphere.

Also, on the enlarged image, most of the white area of the anomaly and the cloud behind it is made up of slightly off-white pixels. There is a smattering of a few really bright white pixels here and there–the points of most intense light reflection. Now these bright white pixels were in the clouds too. They seemed to be clustered more frequently close to the edges/outline of the cloud mass. Now, on the object, there’s a clearly disproportionate number of these bright white pixels along the “edge” of the disc, correlated with the arc of the shadow underneath. The light reflection gives it the appearance of a flat, round top surface. I mean like geometrically round. Not cloud round. LOL.

I understand it’s supposed to be a cloud; Occam’s razor and all that. But I swear, the more I study it, the less it’s looking like a cloud. I could be completely wrong, but I’m not going to dismiss easily what my eyes and common sense are telling me about my observations. .

I will try to get back onto my friend’s computer to enlarge the pic and post it so other folks can see why I continue to think this is not a cloud. I'm not saying it's a disc, but I will maintain that it looks like a disc. :-) Just keeping it real, folks. I may not get to that task until the weekend but I'll try to step on it.

- Rionifics