Photographer captures stunning images of UFOs above Hatfield

News Link

This is in my local paper website.
The guy claims to have captured these images over 20 minutes and he claims they were not moving.

What do you guys think?

Starting a new thread? - Read here first

When I take pictures I get the same background as well. Especially when I go to zoom on the image.
So, I think it's legit.
Interesting and nice find.

reply to post by splittheatom


I have no idea what they could be, but what spectacular pictures!! Thanks, splittheatom!!

reply to post by splittheatom


Very interesting. That thing that looks like a one of those spinning top type toys... a dradle is it?

And another one of those was caught in a photograph during a storm or something like that. What ever that was..it appears this is the same thing or type of thing.

Originally posted by splittheatom
News Link

This is in my local paper website.
The guy claims to have captured these images over 20 minutes and he claims they were not moving.

What do you guys think?

Really interesting pics - S+F. I have no idea what it could be though.

I don't think I've ever seen any UFO pics that look like that...

Hopefully others with more knowledge and experience in this area will chime in too...

Thanks for posting.

The guy is said to have over 80 videos on his youtube, but they don't provide a link.

There has been some 'activity' around this area in recent years. People claimed to have seen blue UFO's around the local shopping centre on a few occasions.

Originally posted by splittheatom
News Link

This is in my local paper website.
The guy claims to have captured these images over 20 minutes and he claims they were not moving.

What do you guys think?

may be

reply to post by splittheatom


If, as it says on the article, that's a 20 minute exposure, where are the stars? Stars would have left trails while they were moving during those 20 minutes.

Unless we are seeing the stars, and as the lights appear out of focus, I guess that's a possibility.

They have a pretty weird shape, at the bottom of the article it says

''He has shot more than 80 videos of UFOs, mainly from his back garden, and uploaded them to video website YouTube.''

Does anyone knows his youtube channel?

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by splittheatom

 

If, as it says on the article, that's a 20 minute exposure, where are the stars? Stars would have left trails while they were moving during those 20 minutes.

Unless we are seeing the stars, and as the lights appear out of focus, I guess that's a possibility.

It's been pretty cloudy round here recently, so it could have been on a cloudy night. (I'm only a few miles away I can vouch for the cloud as it's been messing with my evenings of staring at the sky)

edit- the shape of them remind me of that picture which popped up a while ago with the lens flares. I'm not saying this is lens flare, as he said that he saw the light in the sky before he got the camera.

Is this hatfield in doncaster or hatfield in wales?

The first picture (can't link it for some reason) reminds me of cave paintings. The shapes just look like something you'd find painted on a cave wall.

I can do this easly with a camera and a RC airplane. This guy set his exposure time SUPER low and than flew the airplane in a circle to make the mushroom formation we see in the picture.

reply to post by Acidtastic


Then we should see the clouds, a 20 minute exposure is extremely long.

Originally posted by LvSLoLo
Is this hatfield in doncaster or hatfield in wales?

Welwyn Hatfield so i'm assuming Hertfordshire..?

I initially thought they looked like sprites but im not sure they'd see them from ground level?

With a canon 60d which has 18 mega pixels those spots of light must have been very small.

reply to post by splittheatom


It is refreshing to once again find a post with geniune straight forward pics in our UFO section again. I just wish that they will start revealing themselves to us in a way that no debunking is possible. Although, in some major UFO sightings I suppost they already have.

But our domering governments always find a way out of admitting to anything.

Thanks for posting! S&F.

reply to post by The Cusp


Off topic, sorry. The Cusp, I luv your avatar! Reminds me of mandalas and sacred geomitry.

Very interesting pics, thanks OP

reply to post by ArMaP


ARMAP

My reading is that the photographer took a series of pics and examined them, perhaps on a larger screen, after 20 minutes.

Cheers.

“I am a photographer and I often photograph the night sky and I knew it looked different to anything I had seen before.

“I decided to set up my camera and photograph the object.

“I set up my Canon 60D and took a series of photos.

“The object appeared to be cone shaped very high up and not moving in any direction.”

He added: “After 20 minutes I looked at what I had captured and realised there were in fact four separate lights in the sky, but not visible to the naked eye.

reply to post by Lowneck


The article isn't clear about it, that's why I said "If, as it says on the article, that's a 20 minute exposure".

The article also has this:

Photographer Jason Reeve took the dazzling pictures from outside his north-west-facing bedroom window, in Chantry Court, with a 20-minute exposure.

If, instead of a 20 minute exposure, it was a 20 minute photo session, why only one or two photos?

PS: I don't think the Canon 60D has such a long exposure time setting, from a quick search I think the maximum is 30 seconds. So it looks like it was 20 minute session (with just two photos) instead of a 20 minute exposure, as the article says.