11-year-old captures a UFO in picture

I have been asked to assist with uploading a larger quality image, to the one published in the newspaper earlier of this sighting in Essex. I can vouch that it was taken on a bright, sunny morning without any clouds in the sky. I can also confirm that I know the garden from where it was taken and there are no street lights nearby to hamper the photo and misconstrue the impression of what was seen in the sky.

Also, it is worth noting that this sighting was at such a high altitude, about that of conventional aviation, that the camera was mostly likely relying on digital zoom and not just optical zoom, to capture any image at all, hence the size of it. This wasn't taken with a professional digital SLR with a zoom lens attached.

And finally, I know the young man who took the photo, and this is exactly what I would have done if I was 11 years old again and in possession of a half-decent camera, there was no other motive beyond showing his family what he had observed in the garden.


files.abovetopsecret.com...

So it IS a street lamp!

Kinda looks like a helium balloon. Though, like to say what the image experts on here say.
But, kudos on having a high quality photo.

reply to post by mark77

Thanks for the photo!

May I ask you why the use of Photoshop?



Could it be possible to have the original untouched photo, please?

PS: I also noticed that the size is 723x721, which is not in any way an original size; so the photo have been cropped (with Photoshop). Is there a reason why?

reply to post by mark77


You can vouch? With your one post credibility?

Your pic looks like one of those things you throw in the ocean when someone is drowning after falling off a ship.

We can not even get any kind of perspective to compare against. Its just on a blue background. there is nothing at all to suggest it is even flying?


As in how clear is that sky? In essex? hmmmmmmm

Sorry mate but you vouch had added zero weight to the debate....(that rhymes)

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty,i.e. for now lets assume it is genuine until it can be proven to be otherwise?

Ive got to say, Im sometimes the one argueing that the de-bunkers here never give people a chance to present their evidence before shooting it down, but what with the obvious use of Photoshop, the very strange aspect ratio, the extremely un-natural hue of the sky, plus the fact that most 11 year olds would have centred the object of interest in their shot, rather than having it way off to one side, all this is making me suspicious.

One could argue that the use of photoshop would be to diminish the file size for upload, but if it is a small domestic digital camera that was used, it wont be capturing huge images anyway, and there is no doubt at all that the image has been cropped for some reason.

Unless we get the original, unadulterated image, I have my doubts about the authenticity of this image.

reply to post by Thunda


Here here! well said. The Exif data doesn't mean it's been touched up but the uncropped original would be nice to look at. It's terrible when somebody comes in and get's a good flaming but your reply was the one that struck a chord with me.

October

reply to post by October


So a photoshopped picture, the mum quick to jump on the thread, and the mystery friend. I seriously doubt we have a genuine anomaly, just a cropped streetlight maybe?

Looks like the Brody family is not a stranger to reporting UFOs to the local media.

From 2009:

The Guardian newspaper article, Aug 18, 2009

Simon Brody, of Manor Road, Loughton, said: "I'm not surprised that there have been so many sightings."It was broad daylight, a sunny day and I was standing in my back garden and saw this cigar-shaped object high up in the sky. "It was about the size of a bus. I was ribbed about this at the time, but I am sure of what I saw."

Another sighting by Simon June 18 2008, in Guardian

...the Guardian was contacted by businessman Simon Brody, 36, who says he saw a mysterious grey object in the sky while he was in his garden playing with his young son.

Simon Brody is Jack Brodys father...

Originally posted by elevenaugust
Could it be possible to have the original untouched photo, please?
PS: I also noticed that the size is 723x721, which is not in any way an original size; so the photo have been cropped (with Photoshop). Is there a reason why?

It would also be nice if it was in some other format than .jpg. There's already a lot of haloing and pixelation in it. Another format such as .png might help reduce some of that.

Otherwise, it looks interesting, but it could be anything. Just another image to be added to the "Curiosity" file. Nothing more.

P.S. -- And why only one photo? If the kid had the camera, had the thing in focus, and was taking a photo, why aren't there more than one?

Originally posted by Imagewerx
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty,i.e. for now lets assume it is genuine until it can be proven to be otherwise?

That would certainly be the case in a court of law, but this isn't one. It's an Internet site. Around here, because of the constant barrage of hoaxers and liars and kooks, our stance here is that it's absolute bullcrap until proven otherwise, and the person making the claim has the burden of proof. That seems entirely fair to me.

reply to post by mark77


I have examined this photo by saving then enlarging. IMO this appears to be a copy paste hoax job.
There seems to be an appearance of a rectangle around this ''supposed'' ufo.

Do this - and see for yourselves. Sorry, but I feel this was a hoaxed photo.

Originally posted by SeekerLou
reply to post by mark77

 

I have examined this photo by saving then enlarging. IMO this appears to be a copy paste hoax job.
There seems to be an appearance of a rectangle around this ''supposed'' ufo.

Do this - and see for yourselves. Sorry, but I feel this was a hoaxed photo.

edit on 1-6-2012 by SeekerLou because: (no reason given)

I caught that too. It was easier to see on my iphone. You don't need any enhancement to see it.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by SeekerLou
reply to post by mark77

 

I have examined this photo by saving then enlarging. IMO this appears to be a copy paste hoax job.
There seems to be an appearance of a rectangle around this ''supposed'' ufo.

Do this - and see for yourselves. Sorry, but I feel this was a hoaxed photo.

edit on 1-6-2012 by SeekerLou because: (no reason given)

I caught that too. It was easier to see on my iphone. You don't need any enhancement to see it.

Cool. Am sure others will prove this hoaxed and close thread soon.
Sometimes, too, it might take a little adjustment of the lighting and/or a little tilting of the screen for one to be able to see this imo perfect rectangle. .

And lol -you must have very good eyes! I have to use cheaters now.

Originally posted by Imagewerx
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty,i.e. for now lets assume it is genuine until it can be proven to be otherwise?

"Innocent until proven guilty" simply means that to believe something out-of-the-ordinary occured (e.g., a specific person committed a crime), then more-than-ordinary circumstances need to be present before that occurrence is believed to have happened.

That applies to whether someone did something out-of-the-ordinary (commit a crime), and it applies to whether a picture of a UFO is really something out-of-the ordinary. So the claims of "guilty of a crime" and "That's a picture of something extraordinary" both need good evidence to support those claims.

Originally posted by SeekerLou
reply to post by mark77

 

I have examined this photo by saving then enlarging. IMO this appears to be a copy paste hoax job.
There seems to be an appearance of a rectangle around this ''supposed'' ufo.

Do this - and see for yourselves. Sorry, but I feel this was a hoaxed photo.

edit on 1-6-2012 by SeekerLou because: (no reason given)

I'm not saying it's a photo of something unexplainable, BUT...

...that rectangle around the object could be just a normal "Blocking Artifact". Blocking artifacts are caused by jpg compression, and can appear in unaltered photos.


EDIT TO ADD:
Blocking artifacts are very common when an object is seen over a homogeneously colored background, such as a blue sky. What happens is that to save memory space, a jpg image will combine pixels -- so, for example, an area of 4 pixels (2 pixels wide by 2 pixels tall) becomes combined into 1 pixel. When the jpg algorithm combines two side-by-side pixels that are different in color, it must guess as to which color it should be, and that guess id usually a color somewhere in between the two pixels' native color. This is done in 8 pixel-by-8 pixel blocks.

If you carefully count the pixels in that rectangle around the object, you will see that the width and heihght of that rectangle is a multiple of 8 pixels.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


okidoki ... I'm no expert by all means.
Imo, it appears like any other cut and paste job. So, my appologies if I am incorrect.

Appreciate the tip though.
So lol, Where are our forensic experts ?

Originally posted by SeekerLou
So lol, Where are our forensic experts ?

They could be waiting for the unaltered original. Until then, its like a doctor looking at a picture of the patient and diagnosing them.

I miss the old ATS nothing to do with anyones replies who are working hard to find an answer, but when you take the time out of your life to photoshop a kids picture and take the pee thats a bridge too far and pretty damn sad, R.I.P ATS