Possible UFO('s), Ottawa, Ontario, North-West

Octocber 17th, 2010
First View: 9:00pm
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
North-West Direction

Tried from different camera's, came up with same results, seeming like a flickering object with the naked eye. Just like Montreal a few days back and what I saw but didn't think much of a few weeks back.

Montreal UFO CBC

Images provided below:


















Time of each picture can be provided.

Discuss, debunk, hopefully, something good comes out of it.

Hmm. at first glance it looks like an out of place cloud but I cant say for sure,. Is the camera upright the whole time or does the object rotate? Because if its rotating and keeping its shape then it wouldn't be a cloud..

I wouldn't doubt its something strange, I live in central Ontario and have seen my fair share of strangeness in the sky.

If you'll look at the street lights or whatever on the bottom, you can see that it's a timed exposure with a fair amount of jitter. I get the same effect with my camera in "fireworks" mode taking pictures in the dark.

Could be a plane. Could be a jet. Could be anything, but it's so out of focus and jittery you can't tell.

Here are my shots:

jpgmag.com...

reply to post by OUNjahhryn


There was absoloutely no cloud, but it was a bit further than the clouds as it hid behind the clouds, than once I could see absoloutely no clouds, I took pictures, I wanted to take pictures with telescope, but can't find the @#$*%!( lenses now!

The camera was firm enough I can say, I took the pictures both with/without flash, same results.

Also, as I see, the stars are pretty firm, and not at all like that.

reply to post by sykickvision


It's not a jet for sure, as I live close to the airport, and jets do not come from that way, and I took a picture of a jet with camera, results were different. Not at all like the one's in picture. A sattelite?

its a helicopter, one of the pictures has a clear outline of a helicopter, but the picture are so blurry and out of focus.

It looks like someone tried to take a picture of a celestial object, aircraft, or something using a very long exposure time, however, they didn't use a tripod so the camera was shaking and the light was being expose to the senor/film in multiple places causing what looks like a random cloud of light created by one small point source.

Supporting evidence:

1: The lights on the bottom of the last few images shows signs of long exposure setting.
2: The lights on the bottom of the last few images shows signs of camera movement during the exposure.

So whatever we are looking at is an illusion created by the camera movement and long exposure of a much smaller object. The smaller object was probably a star or planet, aircraft, or a highlight reflection, etc.

On this image you see this:

And on this image you see this:

The "UFO" shape roughly matches the shape of the lights on the bottom. This can be explained by camera movement. During the long exposure the camera moved, and its path of movement created these unique shapes both on the lights and the object that was filmed.

If you look close at the second image, the "UFO" shows a star which is most probably the object that was exposed to the cameras sensor/film as the camera was moving, which created this "UFO".

One thing is for sure... whoever created these images knew very well that they were taking long exposures, and the object in the camera does not look the same as the object they saw with their eyes. I think this may be a deliberate hoax.

Originally posted by Daniyal

hopefully i did this right, there seems to be time lapse, they are blurry and out of focus, but this pic should show a helicopter outline, it was proberbly hovering at this point.

reply to post by 0ne10



Yeah too bad its got that waviness, Its frustrating when you see something in the sky that amazes you but its so difficult to have equipment ready at all times to capture phenomenon appropriately.

its very possible that something was seen, but its impossible to come to any conclusion based on the photographs provided.

Better luck next time tho.

reply to post by lifeform11


It wasen't a helicopter, I promise you actually, I believe it isn't a helicopter so much, I rather think it was a plane

I ill try to take pictures without whatever exposure thing you're talking about if still there, I didn't try with just one picture, and I don't know if it's anything, I just took pictures of what caught my eye.

i see what all is being said,
the object can be over exposed...
can some one please explain why the background is clear??

reply to post by Daniyal


maybe it was'nt but that picture looks like one, so what was i suppose to think? it was a u.f.o.? a tank? what?

It's not there anymore 9:27pm -> 11:20pm according to first shot to last sight

reply to post by Daniyal


The EXIF data of one of the images says:


Filename : micpjq.jpg
JFIF_APP1 : Exif
Main Information
Make : SAMSUNG TECHWIN CO., LTD.
Model : Digimax A6
Orientation : left-hand side
XResolution : 96/3
YResolution : 96/3
ResolutionUnit : Inch
Software : 1.0
DateTime : 2010:10:17 21:05:19
YCbCrPositioning : co-sited
Copyright : Copyright 2004
ExifInfoOffset : 242
Sub Information
ExposureTime : 8.00Sec
FNumber : F4.9
ExposureProgram : Aperture Priority
ISOSpeedRatings : 100
ExifVersion : 0210
DateTimeOriginal : 2010:10:17 21:05:19
DateTimeDigitized : 2010:10:17 21:05:19
ComponentConfiguration : YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel : 11596680/5947392 (bit/pixel)
ShutterSpeedValue : 8.00Sec
ApertureValue : F4.9
ExposureBiasValue : EV0.0
MaxApertureValue : F2.7
MeteringMode : MultiSpot
LightSource : Unidentified
Flash : Fired
FocalLength : 22.74(mm)
MakerNote : Unknown Format : 460Bytes (Offset:766)
FlashPixVersion : 0100
ColorSpace : sRGB
ExifImageWidth : 2816
ExifImageHeight : 2112
ExifInteroperabilityOffset : 1204
SensingMethod : OneChipColorArea sensor
FileSource : DSC
SceneType : A directly photographed image
ExposureMode : Auto
WhiteBalance : Auto
DigitalZoomRatio : 100/100
FocalLength(35mm) : 87(mm)
SceneCaptureType : Night scene
Sharpness : Normal
ExifR98
ExifR : R98
Version : 0100
Thumbnail Information
Compression : OLDJPEG
Orientation : left-hand side
XResolution : 96/1
YResolution : 96/1
ResolutionUnit : Inch
JPEGInterchangeFormat : 1340
JPEGInterchangeFormatLength : 4054


The exposure time was 8 full seconds... that is a long time to let light hit the camera sensor. When the exposure is 8 seconds and the camera shakes, it creates streaks of light. So the images just show large streaks of light right now...

Are you trying to claim these streaks are an object?

reply to post by 0ne10


Not claiming, but I can say the camera was firm, I actually don't know how to put the exposure off, but I put it on a firm area because of other pictures being messed up when I was holding it. but the stars in the background don't have the same results as this, even checking with Jupiter, it was not the same.

Unrelated, but how the heck do you get all that information?

reply to post by Daniyal


This is between Montreal "UFO" and tonights "UFO".

Originally posted by Daniyal
Tried from different camera's, came up with same results,

I checked all the images and they all came from the same camera. Do you have pictures from a different camera?

Originally posted by Daniyal
Not claiming, but I can say the camera was firm, I actually don't know how to put the exposure off, but I put it on a firm area because of other pictures being messed up when I was holding it.

Well clearly according to your last images, your camera was not firm. You can see the streaks of light caused by the movement of the camera, so the camera was moving. Because your "UFO" streak matches the streaks from the lights, this means the "UFO" you are claiming to have seen is not real. What these pictures show is not what you saw with your eyes.

Originally posted by Daniyal
but the stars in the background don't have the same results as this, even checking with Jupiter, it was not the same.

You must have moved your camera so much that one star shows up in multiple places because of the exposure setting.

This image shows stars on the houses....

So I have a hard time believing this sighting.

Originally posted by Daniyal
Unrelated, but how the heck do you get all that information?

It's called EXIF data. Google it.

reply to post by Daniyal

Originally posted by Daniyal
This is between Montreal "UFO" and tonights "UFO".

Are you trying to tell us that the object labeled "My Picture" is what you saw with your eyes?

Originally posted by 0ne10

Originally posted by Daniyal
Tried from different camera's, came up with same results,

I checked all the images and they all came from the same camera. Do you have pictures from a different camera?

Originally posted by Daniyal
Not claiming, but I can say the camera was firm, I actually don't know how to put the exposure off, but I put it on a firm area because of other pictures being messed up when I was holding it.

Well clearly according to your last images, your camera was not firm. You can see the streaks of light caused by the movement of the camera, so the camera was moving. Because your "UFO" streak matches the streaks from the lights, this means the "UFO" you are claiming to have seen is not real. What these pictures show is not what you saw with your eyes.

Originally posted by Daniyal
but the stars in the background don't have the same results as this, even checking with Jupiter, it was not the same.

You must have moved your camera so much that one star shows up in multiple places because of the exposure setting.

This image shows stars on the houses....

So I have a hard time believing this sighting.

Originally posted by Daniyal
Unrelated, but how the heck do you get all that information?

It's called EXIF data. Google it.

edit on 17-10-2010 by 0ne10 because: (no reason given)

The other stars did not act aggresively as this, it did not get into wierd shapes, etc, 8sec exposure time, but trust me, I held it on that with some pictures without moving a mm, especially the zoomed in ones that were places on a firm place.

reply to post by 0ne10


It's what I saw zoomed in, I used my binoculars which are very decent one's, they can look at very far distances, what I saw was that, it was something I would say out of the ordinary, hey it can be anything, i am open minded to that, but I saw this with my family, so I trust and don't trust it 50/50. Can anwser questions for 10 more minutes until I goto sleep.