Wichita UFO report draws wide attention

Originally posted by Zenic
Lenses don't have speeds... Shutters do.

No.
www.digicamhelp.com...

So the slow lens was a telephoto zoom lens. Given the small field of view of such a lens, the tree could not be close, and the blurry bird was certainly much closer than the tree.

In my opinion it looks like B2 bomber carrying some other plane or missile on top. We can see only stabilizer of that carried plane, and we can’t see stabilizer of the carrier. The only known plane which big enough to carry other small plane or missile is B2 bomber.

reply to post by chefcollin



WHY DO YOU WORRY ABOUT IT? what will be will be and unless by some chance you seeing some strange object in the sky will somehow change things and make them better, then be my guest

Some research that I just did - Comparison of object in UFO photo to crows and seagulls.

When I first looked at this object in the UFO photo, my first impression was "It's a bird." I decided to do some research by actually looking at photos of crows and seagulls, taking a close look at them to see whether they match the object in the photo. There is no match.

Some posters have mentioned that the object in the photo looks like a crow. Looking at the photo of the object, if it is a bird, it is more likely a seagull, not a crow, because of the position of the beak pointing downward during flight. Seagulls tend to fly with their head pointed down, crows don't.

Assumption: On the UFO photo, the bird's head is to the right with a fuzzy view of the beak pointing downward as a seagull in flight.
Basic fact: Both a crow and a seagull can retract their legs completely when in free flight.

The first thing I did was to search Flickr.com for "crow in flight" and "seagull in flight" (without using quotes). I looked at a lot of photos, but I am giving links to the following four photos:

1 Two crows in flight (side view)
flickr.com...

2 Two crows in flight (looking upward at the bottom of the birds)
flickr.com...

3 Seagull in flight with wings above head (side view)
flickr.com...

4 Seagull in flight (looking upward at the bottom of the bird)
flickr.com...


I chose some photos and made three measurements. All three measurements are of a bird in flight. I viewed the bird from the side to make the measurements.

Distance "A" is from the tip of the bird's beak to the front of the wings.
Distance "B" is from the front of the bird's wing to the back of the bird's wing.
Distance "C" is from the back of the bird's wing to the tip of the tail.

I subjectively measured these distances for the UFO, a crow, and a seagull and then expressed it as a percentage. Below are the numbers that I came up with.
UFO: A=38% B=30% C=32%
crow A=24% B=38% C=38% [or possibly more like 24/40/36]
seagull A=34% B=38% C=28%

I used the ruler here:
gnomecoder.files.wordpress.com...

Interpretations
1. It's fairly easy to see that the numbers don't match. The most telling comparison is with the emasurements of B. "B" is just way too small on the "UFO."
2. Look at the photos of crows and seagulls and notice where the wings are with regard to "are they toward the front or toward the rear of the body." Then look at the UFO. On the UFO, the wings are much to far toward the rear of the "body" for it to qualify for any kind of relevant comparison to a crow or seagull.
3. Look at the photos of crows and seagulls. The wingspan for both is more than two times the total length of the body. These are huge wings! Now look at the photo of the UFO. If that UFO is a crow or a seagull I don't know how such huge wings created such a tiny profile in the photo of the UFO. Not only that, but the shape of the "wings" in the UFO doesn’t even match that of a bird. Particularly, there are sharp angles in the shape - you won't see that in a bird.
4. This comment pertains to crows, not seagulls. When a crow flies, the feathers at the end of the wing separate into approximately five individual feathers. I see no evidence of this in the object in the UFO photo.
5. Another problem with the photo of the UFO is the extremely narrow top-to-bottom profile of the very end of the tail. One occasionally sees this in a photo of a bird, but it is rather rare. Another problem is that this part of the object in the photo has a strange top-to-bottom bend in it which I have never seen in a bird's tail.
6. The object in the photo has several reflections on it. I have never seen a reflection coming off a bird! Objects like glass, shiny metal, and crystals give off reflections. Birds don't! I challenge anyone on this message board to provide a link to a photo of a bird which has a reflection coming off of it.

Final conclusion
So does the object in the photo compare well to a bird? Absolutely not. I have no idea what the object in the photo is.

Looks metallic to me due to the bright reflections though I know that geese and other birds will reflect light. If my memory serves though most of the reflections attributed to birds were not in broad daylight.

I try to be open minded about everything. So I suppose that a reflection off a bird is a possibility. I wouldn't completely eliminate the possibility. I just don't think most birds are shiny enough. Most reflections I see in everyday life are off automobiles where there is plenty of shiny metal, shiny paint, glass, and mirrors.


[edit on 12-2-2009 by Alan Saltsman]

not trying to debunk this or anything, but had a look at the whole picture, and the first thing i noticed is the resolution on the trees is pretty good, you can see individual branches, but the object is very blurred, obviously it is farther away, but it doesn't seem to fit.

Could just be me tho

One more possibility:
The fact that the object in the UFO photo is blurred could be due to the fact that it is a small stationary object in the foreground which is not in the center of the frame. In this situation, the autofocus on the camera would focus on something in the background (the trees). Objects close to the camera would then be blurred. Objects behind the trees would actually be in focus because they would, like the trees, effectively be at infinity.

Of course, this explanation indicates that it probably is a hoax unless the object actually was about the size of a model airplane and happened to be stationary when the guy took the photo.

Come on guys and girls. This is a Crow passing between the photographer and trees. The autofocus is on the trees as the bird flies in front of the camera. Not the first time that an out of focus bird as been presented as a UFO. This out of focus Seagull was one such image.

Originally posted by Alan Saltsman
When I first looked at this object in the UFO photo, my first impression was "It's a bird." I decided to do some research by actually looking at photos of crows and seagulls, taking a close look at them to see whether they match the object in the photo. There is no match.

Good try but your argument is fatally flawed:
1. No other bird is possible, only crows and seagulls?
2. The shape is too blurry and dark to tell where the wing starts. Sunlight is reflected in 5 areas. Don't assume the biggest area between the wings and the head is empty space. It is lighter than the background.
3. You can't find a photo of a bird that matches exactly this picture. So it's not a bird. Are you serious? Wings are flexible, perspective alone makes a billion different shapes. It's like shadow theater:

I challenge anyone on this message board to provide a link to a photo of a bird which has a reflection coming off of it.

The shiny cowbird:
www.geometer.org...
www.tsuru-bird.net...

Other shiny birds on the wonderful flickr website:
Bird 1
Bird 2

But this bird doesn't have to be especially shiny. It doesn't have to be black either. The real reason why it reflects light is because the angle to the Sun is very flat. See the two spots of light on the head? They are very close to the edge of the dark shape. So the 3 biggest reflective areas can only be on the wings, not on the side.

Like this:


-It's out of focus, therefore it's close. Depth of field on a zoom lens goes to infinity.
-It's close, therefore it's small, not SR-71 sized.
-It's close and there is no motion blur, therefore it's moving slowly.
-It's shaped like a bird, you can't count feathers because it's blurry.

Conclusion: it's an unidentified... bird.

[edit on 2009-2-12 by nablator]

yeah,very similar,looks to me like a B2 conveying a parasite fighter/missile reminiscent of earlier "FICON" projects?

reply to post by chefcollin


***UPDATE*** - 13-2-09 - A Local talk radio station here in Wichita has interviewed the anonymous photographer and he said this photo was taken MID-MORNING, between 8:30 and 9 - but here is the ringer - He claims he was facing EAST and the "OBJECT" was flying NORTH BOUND - therefore all of you that claim it is a bird are DEAD WRONG!! because that would mean the bird was flying backwards... But I am just sure you nay-sayers have a theory to explain that as well, some sort of "reverse flight avian anomaly" or something or maybe it is the fabled "Kansas Backward Flying Finch" or something...

[edit on 13-2-2009 by chefcollin]

Originally posted by chefcollin
***UPDATE*** - 13-2-09 - A Local talk radio station here in Wichita has interviewed the anonymous photographer and he said this photo was taken MID-MORNING, between 10:30 and 11 - but here is the ringer - He claims he was facing EAST and the "OBJECT" was flying NORTH BOUND - therefore all of you that claim it is a bird are DEAD WRONG!!

UPDATE: The guy already changed his story.

From your OP story:

The man who captured the image said he took the photo at 8:42 a.m. Friday near 210th and Prairie Creek Road, about three miles south of Rose Hill.

Either way it doesn't matter what the guy says if the evidence (in this case the photos) don't support his claims.

The photos are of a bird in mid flight out of focus. And since he tried to pass that off as a UFO that flew fast like a jet, I'm guessing nothing he says can be trusted anyway.

Originally posted by elevatedone
That looks like the space shuttle riding piggyback on a 747.

Linky

[edit on 10-2-2009 by elevatedone]

I completely agree... look at this one...

Two questions for supporters of the Shuttle/747 theory :

1. What happened to the 747's tail?
2. How does the 747 remain aloft without said tail?

I am addressing posters who think the object in the photo is a bird.

For birds who are medium-sized to large, there are two body plans with regard to their head, neck, and wings.

Case #1
Birds like a crows, seagulls, hawks, ospreys, eagles, and vultures have a short neck, plus the neck is wider than the head. The wings are toward the front of the bird.

Case #2
Birds like ducks and geese have a long neck, plus the neck is narrower than the head. The wings are toward the rear of the bird.

Look at the object in the photo, the "bird" has a long neck, plus the neck is slightly wider than the head. The wings are toward the back. So the body plan doesn't match any large birds. And for you who state that this is a crow, crows don't have long necks with the result that the wings are toward the rear of the body. A crow's wings are toward the front of the bird.

Birds with a short, wide neck (wings are toward the front of the bird)
Crow in flight
flickr.com...

Hawk in flight
flickr.com...

Osprey (neck is short, and is thicker than the head)
flickr.com...

Bald Eagle in flight
www.flickr.com...

Vulture in flight
www.flickr.com...

Birds with a long, narrow neck (wings are toward the rear of the bird)
Canadian Geese in flight
www.flickr.com...

Duck in flight
flickr.com...

At least one poster said that blurring changed the shape of the object in the photo. Mild blurring does not significantly change the shape of an object. Severe blurring will, and will eventually turn any object into a featureless blob. I see plenty of details in the shape of the object in the photo. Look at the stick-like "tail" on the left of the photo.

When a bird in flight's wings are not visible from the side it is because they are on the sides of the bird. In this photo the wings are clearly above the bird. So where are the rest of the wings? They aren't there. As far as I know, blurring doesn't take a large opaque wing and then somehow cut it back to nothing. Also, as I am looking at this photo, it seems that only the edges of the object are blurred. I don't see a large scale blur that turns the object into a featureless blob. And if blur got rid of the wings, then why didn't it also get rid of the beak and the stick-like tail?

My discussion about the shape of the neck of large birds covers just about every medium to large-sized bird that one would see in Kansas. The object in the photo doesn't match up. Your explanation that blurring has changed the shape doesn't hold up.

Summarizing
1. Birds with long, fat necks don't exist.
2. Blurring doesn't explain away the shapes seen in the photo.
3. The shape of the photo doesn't match a crow, seagull, hawk, osprey, eagle, vulture, duck, or goose.

I would have liked to quote your text, but the last time I did that it showed up as "External quote." I used the orange icon. I'm new to this message board.

Lastly, I appreciated your photos of reflections off of birds. They obviously exists, although the best ones seem to be on birds photographed in a studio under very bright lights. I also noticed the reflections followed the shape of the bird (a linear reflection off a beak or wing). However, the reflections on the "object" are mostly points of light like you would see reflecting off an automobile, suggesting to me that the object is metal, not feathers.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


I'm commenting only on the photo with the seagull in it. On the surface of things this looks like a solid debunking. Except for this. Take the photo of the seagull and blur it 30 times in Irfanview. You will see two things:

1. The beak on the seagull gets wider (thicker). It doesn't stay narrow and needlelik as the "UFO." So there is no match!

2. After blurring 30 times, the wings were still there - all of both of them! Getting a photo of a bird from the side with little or none of the wings showing is almost an impossibility. I estimate a seagull's wings are 2.5 to 3.0 feet wide. You are trying to tell me that they were perfectly positioned in front of and behind the bird so that they weren't visible in the photo? You must be dreaming or else you have no experience studying photos of birds.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Alan Saltsman]

first of all I don't think it is a boeing 747 with the sts on top of it because why would they transport the sts . both are being prepared to go back in space and there is no evidence for it to be found a transport of it was scheduled .
second I don't believe its a bird because of its size when comparing with background information like the trees ect.
if it was a bird it would be flying very close to the camera and there for less out of focus then it is now bringing that in to view it must fly further away and is there for significantly bigger than a bird.
than what remains are several other explanations , like E.T craft , usaf or other branch prototype or secret craft being first coming to mind.
As for that i am thinking it is a secret space craft for a secret branch of the government or private institute .

Originally posted by Alan Saltsman
It doesn't stay narrow and needlelik as the "UFO." So there is no match!

How is the beak on the UFO "needle-like"?

The bird is flying from left to right clutching a round, white object in its beak. Probably a berry such as a snowberry or Mulberry fruit.

The "needle-like" protrusion is the tail.

Getting a photo of a bird from the side with little or none of the wings showing is almost an impossibility.

Really? A couple minutes searching found just such a picture. So it is a possibility. All it takes is one instance to create the picture.




[edit on 2/14/2009 by eaglewingz]

you wrote:
"How is the beak on the UFO "needle-like"?

The bird is flying from left to right clutching a round, white object in its beak. Probably a berry such as a snowberry or Mulberry fruit.

The "needle-like" protrusion is the tail. "

Please read the first sentence on my post. It says "I'm commenting only on the photo with the seagull in it." In other words I was referring back to another post where the person tries to debunk a UFO as being a seagull. I'm not talking about the "crow UFO."