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

reply to post by Daniyal


Sorry, but I have to say it.

You are not fooling me. You did not see that with your binoculars/eyes. That object you are showing us was caused by the movement of your camera and the fact you had a long exposure setting. Your camera was responsible for creating that "UFO", and your very own images prove that to be true. The shape of the "UFO" is exactly the same shape as the lights in the background.

This means you moved the camera around while taking a picture to create streaks, and you know this. I know you know this... What you did is called "light painting". Basically you painted a random object, and you are calling it a "UFO".

Light Painting:



Basically, you used a star, or planet, or aircraft, to paint a fake "UFO", and you are on here trying to tell us that you saw this fake "UFO" with your own eyes as it is.....

I got to call B.S.

Originally posted by 0ne10
reply to post by Daniyal

 

Sorry, but I have to say it.

You are not fooling me. You did not see that with your binoculars/eyes. That object you are showing us was caused by the movement of your camera and the fact you had a long exposure setting. Your camera was responsible for creating that "UFO", and your very own images prove that to be true. The shape of the "UFO" is exactly the same shape as the lights in the background.

This means you moved the camera around while taking a picture to create streaks, and you know this. I know you know this... What you did is called "light painting". Basically you painted a random object, and you are calling it a "UFO".

Light Painting:

Basically, you used a star, or planet, or aircraft, to paint a fake "UFO", and you are on here trying to tell us that you saw this fake "UFO" with your own eyes as it is.....


I got to call B.S.

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

man you are aggressive.

reply to post by cronotrigger30


The evidence clearly shows that the object he is claiming to have seen was created by his camera movement and the exposure settings. It is impossible for him to have seen the same object he claims to have seen with his eyes and binoculars.

It's like claiming to have seen that smiley face that guy draws in the video I showed you.

It's just not possible.

reply to post by Daniyal


Daniyal.....

Thank you for posting your videos.

Unfortunately, the quality of the videos is very poor.

Therefore, I don't think I can really draw any conclusions as to what the objects might be therein.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

yup, some people on here are very well educated in this, like trained to spot fakes
i had some 1st sgt's. who had their attitudes... their on here for a purpose...i'd say

reply to post by Daniyal


Daniyal.....

how the heck do you get all that information?

Download a decent EXIF viewer.

I use Opanda:

www.opanda.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Well, maybe your right, but what I saw was deffinetely not a star. Anything but a star, hey, I believe it`s man made, maybe even some kind of satellite, but I KNOW it was NOT a star, I saw this a couple of months back, and now I am see`ing it again, except this time I didn`t let it get away.

Btw, thanks for the link ``maybe... maybe not``

reply to post by 0ne10


What the.. I am not trying to fool you!
Like I said, anything but a star!

reply to post by Daniyal


I just don't see why you would claim this WHOLE object, as is shown, is what you saw with your eyes...

I know you didn't see that WHOLE thing with your eyes because it is a streak of light created by your 8 second exposure setting. You moved your camera and it created that WHOLE streak. I know this because that whole streak matches all the other streaks on that same image.

These streaks are an illusion created by your camera settings... here is an example:

cloudplasma.co.uk...

light trails from traffic

long exposure shot taken on the move

If you were trying to tell me that you saw this:

...I would understand.

However, you are trying to tell me that you saw this:

...which I know is just a streak created by the small dot. The small dot is like the head of a pen, and the rest of the image is the scribble that was created by the head of the pen when you moved your camera around.

Something just doesn't add up here...