MUFON:UFO Caught on Camera While Ghosthunting [Admin Update]

reply to post by eaglewingz


If it is a double-exposure, it is a very likely explanation for what the object could be. I was wondering about the ring too.

Tho it is probably a landing gear for the ghost space ship...

This thing is not "air borne" so technically it is NOT a Unidentified Flying Object

More like Unidentified "lodged in a Tree" Object

I do not see the correlation of this being a UFO , or UFOligy

What i find odd is it is not solid. This may not be easily explained but I am not impressed either.


I will go with double exposure

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Unknown Soldier]

Originally posted by eaglewingz
I'm looking at that object and something keeps nagging at the back of my mind. Finally got it, birdfeeder!

Ring at the bottom for the birds to stand on, funnel-shaped seed holder, hole for the birds to eat through, and a strap at the top to hang it with.

Not an exact match, but here's one with the ring and strap :
www.backyardchirper.com...

I think you're right I googled, binged, yahood and flickred but found no exact match either. On flickr I found this one which is kind of close.

www.flickr.com...


[edit on 10-6-2010 by cripmeister]

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
reply to post by cripmeister

 

I'll wait for you to post your test pictures!

Bad news I'm afraid. The sun doesn't set completely around here this time of year. Stupid me forgot about that. Maybe someone else would give it a try?? If so use night mode (with flash) and make sure the exposure is at 3 sec as this was the setting in the SOTU photo.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by cripmeister]

The birdfeeder with double exposure suits me

I keep being bothered by the alleged shadows of the leaves on the object but it may be an illusion. Anyway I don't think we can get anything more from this picture...

reply to post by cripmeister


It's okay. I can wait six months...

You know, I just thought... The "UFO" is built like a bird feeder... Birds come from dinosaurs. We are invaded by Reptilians...

Lastly, I, too, am a bit bothered by the illusory pushed branches projecting shadows on the double-exposed object...

Originally posted by DAMOo
The birdfeeder with double exposure suits me

I keep being bothered by the alleged shadows of the leaves on the object but it may be an illusion. Anyway I don't think we can get anything more from this picture...

So are you saying the photo is a total fabrication?

T.

Nah, I say that unless we find a proof that something else has been captured here, the most probable explanation is a double exposure.
Nevertheless, looking closer, it still seems to me that we can see the shadows of the leaves on the object, which would mean that it is NOT a double exposure. BUT given the poor quality of the picture, the grain when zooming... I can't assert anything with undeniable proves.
SO, unless someone brings something new on the table, my personal conviction, in front of the facts, for lack of anything better, will be the double exposure.

Originally posted by DAMOo
Nah, I say that unless we find a proof that something else has been captured here, the most probable explanation is a double exposure.
Nevertheless, looking closer, it still seems to me that we can see the shadows of the leaves on the object, which would mean that it is NOT a double exposure. BUT given the poor quality of the picture, the grain when zooming... I can't assert anything with undeniable proves.
SO, unless someone brings something new on the table, my personal conviction, in front of the facts, for lack of anything better, will be the double exposure.

Well, you do know this is a digital photo right? There is really no such thing as an in-camera double exposure with digital photography. So either the photo is a complete fabrication or there is a real object there. The grain is also another indication that an object is there. The grain is a byproduct of high ISO settings used in low-light environments. The grain is uniform throughout the entire photo. If the object was added after the fact, the grain would not match.

T.

EDITED FOR CONTENT & GRAMMAR

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Triangulum]

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Triangulum]

reply to post by Triangulum


There are digital cameras on the market that have a multiple-exposure setting, such as the Nikon D2X:

www.nikonians.org...

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


That's not a true double exposure in the context of what is being discussed here. Those are digital, in-camera, effects and if used would qualify the picture as a fabrication. Also the camera used here is a Pentax Optio A20 a $300, consumer level, digital camera. The D2X is a prosumer camera with an MSRP of $5000.

www.dpreview.com...
www.dpreview.com...

T.

ON EDIT: The MSRP of the D2X was actually $6299.


[edit on 11-6-2010 by Triangulum]

reply to post by Triangulum


You're right that -- if that is just a "ghost" image (NOT in the supernatural sense) of a mundane object -- it may be unlikely that it was accidentally done.

However (and I'm not a photo expert, so I could be wrong about this) I think there may be ways that this image was accidentally achieved: this could possibly be some sort of accidental reflection of a mundane object on the camera lens...or perhaps it is some mechanism on the inside of the camera reflecting its image onto the lens or CCD.

Perhaps it's like when the eye doctor does that test on you (shining the light in your eye while your eyes are looking up) that allows you to catch a glimpse of your retina reflecting off of the inside of your eyelid.



[edit on 6/11/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Triangulum

 

You're right that -- if that is just a "ghost" image (NOT in the supernatural sense) of a mundane object -- it may be unlikely that it was accidentally done.

However (and I'm not a photo expert, so I could be wrong about this) I think there may be ways that this image was accidentally achieved: this could possibly be some sort of accidental reflection of a mundane object on the camera lens...or perhaps it is some mechanism on the inside of the camera reflecting its image onto the lens or CCD.

I'm saying perhaps it's like when the eye doctor does that test on you (shining the light in your eye while your eyes are looking up) that allows you to catch a glimpse of your retina reflecting off of the inside of your eyelid.


[edit on 6/11/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Well, I think we need some consistency here. In the case of the woman who photographed an alleged UFO in Sydney Australia; much discussion over the case concerned what appeared to be a reflection or "double-exposure" in the image. IIRC, skeptics claimed that what you are suggesting was impossible . That line of thought won out, the case was labeled a hoax and the reputation of the woman who volunteered her photos and time was tarnished.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

T.

I'm going to say this as non-combative as I possibly can but.....haven't we evolved from these blurry, out-of-focus, ink-blot-test photos by now?

I mean, we no longer accept rabbit-ears on our TVs or tin-foil crunched up on our radio antennas any longer so how is this remotely acceptable?
Our cameras/cells phones and videos expect to capture much better quality now a days. Unless of course we're capturing glimpses of another dimension but.....I highly doubt this is the case here.

Hell, we have technology to tailor-make our own children now! Designer-DNA if you will so how in the world are we even giving these photos any consideration? I don't get it but then again, this world is very confusing to me now-a-days anyway.

Peace~

Originally posted by Triangulum
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

That's not a true double exposure in the context of what is being discussed here. Those are digital, in-camera, effects and if used would qualify the picture as a fabrication. Also the camera used here is a Pentax Optio A20 a $300, consumer level, digital camera. The D2X is a prosumer camera with an MSRP of $5000.

www.dpreview.com...
www.dpreview.com...

T.

ON EDIT: The MSRP of the D2X was actually $6299.


[edit on 11-6-2010 by Triangulum]

You're right, there is no such thing as double exposures when it comes to digital cameras. But if you use night mode on a cheap camera you can achieve a similar effect. Check out my photo on page 2.

Originally posted by Triangulum
Well, I think we need some consistency here. In the case of the woman who photographed an alleged UFO in Sydney Australia; much discussion over the case concerned what appeared to be a reflection or "double-exposure" in the image. IIRC, skeptics claimed that what you are suggesting was impossible . That line of thought won out, the case was labeled a hoax and the reputation of the woman who volunteered her photos and time was tarnished.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

T.

I wasn't part of that discussion, so I don't know how they came to the conclusion (in that particular case) that it could NOT be an internal reflection off of the inside of the lens or CCD, or external reflection off of the lens. I don't know who concluded that, nor what the reasons were for that conclusion.

I would like some camera experts here for THIS particular image to tell me that it could not possibly be an internal reflection. Perhaps it can't possibly be a reflection -- That's fine. However, that Australian picture seemed different enough from this image that I would not apply what was discussed there to this case. There may have been reasons specific to that image that would disqualify the "internal reflection" theory.

In the case of the Australian woman, I thought the reflection explanation was irrelevant because it seemed likely (to me at least) that the object in question was just a spot on the windshield/windscreen.

[edit on 6/11/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by One Moment
I'm going to say this as non-combative as I possibly can but.....haven't we evolved from these blurry, out-of-focus, ink-blot-test photos by now?

I mean, we no longer accept rabbit-ears on our TVs or tin-foil crunched up on our radio antennas any longer so how is this remotely acceptable?
Our cameras/cells phones and videos expect to capture much better quality now a days. Unless of course we're capturing glimpses of another dimension but.....I highly doubt this is the case here.

Hell, we have technology to tailor-make our own children now! Designer-DNA if you will so how in the world are we even giving these photos any consideration? I don't get it but then again, this world is very confusing to me now-a-days anyway.

Peace~

Sorry to disagree but this is actually a very good photo considering the conditions and camera being used. With the exception of the grain, objects within the illumination envelope of the flash are sharp and bright. The grain is actually normal because of the high ISO settings needed for low-light conditions. Yes we have great technology but you can't buy it for $300US. Cheap cameras use small CCDs that capture a minuscule amount of light. Small CCDs are used because they are cheap.

T.

GRAMMAR EDIT

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Triangulum]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People



Right, right. I don't want to get back into that case. I'm just asking for some consistency. That being said whether or not the "UFO" was a spot on the windshield directly hinged on if the anomaly was a reflection in the window or a camera artifact.

T.

Originally posted by cripmeister
You're right, there is no such thing as double exposures when it comes to digital cameras. But if you use night mode on a cheap camera you can achieve a similar effect. Check out my photo on page 2.

That's a good result. However there are signs, in the photo itself, of how it was done. I can't detect any such signs in the MUFON photo. It also is a fabrication. That's what I'm trying to find out here do we think these folks fabricated the photo or not.

T.

Originally posted by Triangulum
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Right, right. I don't want to get back into that case. I'm just asking for some consistency. That being said whether or not the "UFO" was a spot on the windshield directly hinged on if the anomaly was a reflection in the window or a camera artifact.

T.

Yes -- You're right in saying that we should not discuss that case in detail here. It's not my intention to derail this thread (there's still an ongoing discussion of that case in its own thread)...

I just don't think we can automatically apply what was discussed there to this image -- they are too different. I think the reflection theory warrants some discussion in regards to THIS photo, no matter what was previously discussed in that other case.