Photographer captures stunning images of UFOs above Hatfield

reply to post by ArMaP


You're right, so far as true, unadulterated pix of sprites would be. But I question some of the data put forth. Maybe some creative editing going on? I dunno.

reply to post by pianopraze


Awesome pics. Copyright respected!

However, where is the UFO?

Certainly strange.



Reminds me of the beginning of a small fireball, would be nice to see some video. Kind of like you would see in a mushroom cloud, only smaller and more symmetrical.



Could be someone flicking a lighter or something in the reflection of a window? Not saying that's the case, but it almost even looks like a hand holding it in the first pic though.

Given that it wasn't actually a 20 minute exposure, it doesn't seem to be.

O hey, more vague pixelated dot lights in the sky (or reflected in the window..), how original and "stunning". These are worthless, they could be dozens of mundane things and the fact that he took long exposures on a spot of light is just silly. Another worthless "ufo" photo that will lead nowhere.

reply to post by ArMaP


I belive there is a hack for most cameras that can get very long exposer times but as you said no "star trails"
If the camera was fixed and it was a twenty min exposer there would be Star trails, he would need to have it mounted on a tripod that moved at the same speed as the earth rotates so the objects were in the same place
I find this highly unlikely given the situation ie in his bedroom
Eather there is something making these objects in the camara optics or they are fake

reply to post by darkest4


My point exactly but nobody will listen, Believer's gonna believe despite all logic

reply to post by Sweevo


The lack of trails from the stars is explained by the fact that the image in the OP is just a small section of the original photo, in which we can see the trails from the stars, as you can see here.

Since nobody has done it yet, I ran the pics through error level analysis.

Pic with trails: (original, fullsize)

Pic with trails: (cropped)

Pic of anomaly: (original, fullsize)

Pic of 3 anomalies: (cropped and zoomed)

Pic of anomaly: (cropped and zoomed)

Decide for yourself the level of image manipulation that we are looking at. The ELA confirms a certain degree of image manipulation, and since Jason admits he's cropped the photos, (and from what I can perceive, zoomed in on them as well) we must consider that he does have at least basic image editing software, and the ability to manipulate images as well. It hasn't been confirmed which image editor he used, simply that he has manipulated the images. I'll go with that for now.

These are only 2 photographs and they're not stunning by any meaning of the word. The quality is absolute garbage. And what in the world was he doing using a 20 minute exposure? I don't know why you people even bother filling this site with such obvious trash. We're to deny ignorance and aim for the truth and it alone. Anyone with any sense at all can tell this is a fake.

reply to post by Druid42


I haven't understand yet how are we supposed to interpret the result from that error level analysis, but I know that it isn't a sure way of knowing if an image was altered or not.

And no, the images were not resized, the cropped version is just that, cropped, the size is the same as in the original, as you can see if you download the full size version of all the images.

reply to post by splittheatom


To me they look like another perfect example of what i talk about in this old thread

So where are the stunning pictures at?

The paper's story is a little confusing. In it any quotes from the photographer himself, doesn't seem to mention exposure time, just that he took a series of pictures over 20 minutes. The mention of video belongs to someone else. Talking about lens flare seems to be difficult as there is little in the way of light in the single object picture to create a lens flare, there does seem to be a 'ghost' matching image to the right and above, and also it seems to be at zoom, (that goes with what the photographer says when he mentions other objects not being visible to the naked eye) The ghost image could be something to do with filming through glass like double glazing, the same anomaly appears in the other picture only more obviously double images.

Scratch the double glazing idea, the photographer has posted in replies that the window was open. The other thing is that Hatfield has had its share of chinese lanterns in the past.

Well I don't know... could be bloody anything...

Add it to the archive with the rest of the blurry crap we see on here day-in day-out...

Or...

contact the person who originally captured these two images of a 20 minute sighting and ask him if he had any OTHER photos or if he managed to contact a neighbour who could clear video-tape the "blurs" ..

Looks like a damn dodgy camera or lends flare.. or swap gas.. I don't know..

I don't believe the photos were altered at all. The images are simple lens flares from a compound lens (multiple intenal lens elements common in all cameras.). Notice in the one shot that the multiple objects seems to form a circular shape because of the lens shape (round), which supports the lens flare theory. The shapes of the objects even bend along the circular lens shape, further reinforcing this theory.

This flare can easily come from a reflection into the lens off the edge of the front barrel end of the lens where a lighter area of the room or streetlamp creates a brighter area. Many photographers use a lens hood to keep these little flares out of their pictures.

reply to post by Shuzitzu


The person that took the photos joined ATS to answer member's questions, just look for Jasonlreeve's posts.

Originally posted by pazcat

Originally posted by ommadawn


He keeps calling his camera a Canon EOS 60D.
Should be D60, strange error to make.

Nope, he is spot on with that.

Hmm.. I stand corrected, if not a little confused now :-)

Seeing the photographer's Flickr pages, he's clearly a talent. When it comes to this kind of stuff though, he is totally off the mark and either uneducated or having a laugh.

In short, seeing that he is now on this forum, and his comments, I'll assume he's just taking the piss.

Why? Because these are very clearly lens artifacts, and even a basic photographer would know about this. Our poster here appears to be very accomplished in the photography department. Yet after 50+ pages for Flickr photos (really pretty good ones too) he suddenly cries UFO?

Doesn't compute for me.

reply to post by ommadawn

The photographer, Jason mentioned he'd seen lens artifacts before when he framed a shot, and these three didn't show up like that so that's why he thought they weren't lens artifacts.

I pointed out they could just be dimmer lens artifacts than he's used to seeing, which only showed up in the time exposure, at least for the three objects in the time exposure.

Anyway he insists he saw one object without the lens so I suspect there are two events here.

He saw something in the sky, which wasn't a lens artifact.

Then he took a time exposure and captured some objects that are almost certainly lens artifacts. I didn't get the sense he was trying to be deceptive about it, maybe just a little confused. The fact that 3 objects showed up in the photo and that's not what he saw should be a clue.

if not a lens artefact it could be a nebula. but for me it 100% lens artefact some people really showed some good exemple few page before.