12/12/12 UFO Picture taken on Hong Kong flight

Originally posted by pillock
reply to post by upgrader

 

you have to turn your phones off when you fly.
Turning your phone on to get a picture takes a while

That might be true in USA, but in some parts of the world including here in europe we can now use cell phones as long as they are in airplane mode. We can also surf internet with them using onboard wifi internet.

The only time they have to be switched off is during ascent and descent when seatbelt light is turned on. Even then people often fool around with their electronic devices or cell phone as most people dont give a #.

Originally posted by RubberDuckGB
reply to post by pillock

 

Nonsense. Turn your mobile to Airplane Mode when using a mobile on airplane.

But don't think many people know this so when the get a chance to take a picture their mobile is off.

edit on 18-12-2012 by RubberDuckGB because: (no reason given)

Here they do as they have built in wifi internet meant for smartphones and laptops. They tell us before ascent that you can turn these devices on after seatbelt lights switch off and that we have to switch it to airplane mode before taking off.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
This is CGI.

Its done well, but still CGI

If you notice there is a slight haze just around the edge of the object, this exactly what happens with certain Photoshop tools.

The lighting on the underneath of the object is also too consistent to be real.

The contrast of the insert compared to the rest of the image has been well done though.

Just my opinion though.

Anyone feel free to prove me wrong.

This might very well be CGI, but doubt that the "haze" confirms anything as that could very well be the results of image compression/jpg artifacts.

Originally posted by faceofcydonia
Cool pic.

It would be fantastic if more photos from the other passengers were put forward. I guess we will see.

How about its something stuck to the glass that resembles the common human stereotype of what an alien space ship looks like?

What looks like lights or windows on the "craft" are just white dots that are seen right across the planes window, so that leaves a tiny black something that is probably on the window itself. Could be anything.

To say there is no possible mundane explanation is just silly.

Snewpers has it spot on, IMO.

The funny detail about ufo photos:

1. WHY CANT PEOPLE TAKE CLEAR PHOTOS They're always blurry and out of focus!!!! SNIP

2. FAKE! ITS TOO CLEAR FOR A UFO PHOTO! SNIP

Oh well... so are going to make up our minds or...?


Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
This is CGI.

Its done well, but still CGI

If you notice there is a slight haze just around the edge of the object, this exactly what happens with certain Photoshop tools.

The lighting on the underneath of the object is also too consistent to be real.

The contrast of the insert compared to the rest of the image has been well done though.

Just my opinion though.

Anyone feel free to prove me wrong.

Since you're so sure, its easier for you to prove it's CGI than for anyone of us to prove its real...

I tend to agree that it's fake.. there's no sort of motion blur to the image at all.. it's like this thing was just cruising out the side of the plane at the same speed of the plane and yet this passenger is the only one who spotted it and it never made the news? I'm just not buying it I'm afraid

It also looks too much like a classical UFO .. very well could have been added in with an smartphone app .. there are quite a few that let you do that and most of them have the classic UFO styles

The group here has done a great job vetting this photo. A few points: The 'pits' and artifacts in both the glass and the plastic liner of the window do make sense. The plane is beginning its approach to land. The plane is at or near 25,000 ft. altitude (+/-5000 ft) . Object appears higher in altitude, possibly where the plane was originally, at near 30,000 ft altitude. Finding out what the typical flight pattern and protocols for this flight path, on this equipment might help solidify the details. Lower thinner cumulus would be near 2000 ft altitude. A weather report from the proper date is required to confirm some of this....just my flight experience at play here.

Interesting photo.

reply to post by maryhinge

Iv'e seen one and this one is faked.

You do realize that the sun is above the object and somehow the reflection of light from the object is on the bottom?

And the spots on the window aren't on the object "through the window"? How can that be?

At least get the shading right. In the photo the bottom of the "object" is lit up instead of in shadow. Especially with the sun visible. From this angle the objects "bottom" should be a dark shadow.

Like at the end of this bit. You can see the sun in view and the "bottom" is black.

Put it in an editor and look. Image doesn't look consistent.

I am going with hoax.

Originally posted by RubberDuckGB
reply to post by pillock

 

Nonsense. Turn your mobile to Airplane Mode when using a mobile on airplane.
But don't think many people know this so when the get a chance to take a picture their mobile is off.

edit on 18-12-2012 by RubberDuckGB because: (no reason given)

They have been announcing turn your phones off INCLUDING air plane mode for some time now. You must not get out much. Now if you want to argue there should be plenty of iPad picture taking going on...

Wow, thanks for the great discussion guys. I wish as much as you do that these other photos that were taken would be released. I do not think it is a water droplet or a "chip" in the window As far as the shadow from the sun not being on the bottom of the object, it appears as if there is a light on the underside that is glowing. I still think the photograph is genuine, but do agree we need some more evidence. Awesome job fiftyfifty in figuring out the plane. I'll continue to search for more information on this photo as that's about all I can do for now. It may be possible to at least get the photographers eyewitness report. I'll get back with you all. Deny ignorance, pursue truth.

Just to play devil's advocate, a lot of the concern about this photo possibly being fake is the inconsistent lighting between the light source and the specular highlights on the airplane and the craft. I'd like to propose the notion that perhaps the craft is made from a non-reflective metal (matte) and isn't reflecting any/much light, and the glimmer at the bottom of the craft isn't a reflection but a light source from the craft itself.

Just food for thought.

Also, I did laugh at the fact that when you have blurry photos, people complain about the quality being too low to tell what it is, but when you have a clear picture they claim it's a hoax because it's too clear to be real..

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

I am not denying that you've looked into the subject deeper than I have. However, I will stand by my view that even 'credible' witnesses can be mistaken and make things up. Our eyes can deceive us and when we can't make sense of something, we try to come up with a logical explanation. Unfortunately, everyones logic differs and we end up with wild claims.

So you say in one post that you will only believe when you see it with "your own eyes" but in this post you state "our eyes can deceive us". So if other people see a UFO they're making it up. But if YOU see a UFO it's totally real man. Really?

Disclaimer: I have no opinion on whether this particular photo is authentic or not. I am not a photo expert and have no authority to validate or debunk it.

Is it possible to have the original picture (presumably without a UFO in it) added into Photoshop and then paste a picture of the UFO into the window while creating it under a new window LAYER to make it appear as if it were captured outside the window?

I have been studying a little bit more on the layering process. My goal is that I can replicate these photos in hopes to debunk claims like these.

reply to post by parkourer


Maybe a little too classic no? This looks CG to me.

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
... However, I will stand by my view that even 'credible' witnesses can be mistaken and make things up. Our eyes can deceive us and when we can't make sense of something, we try to come up with a logical explanation. Unfortunately, everyones logic differs and we end up with wild claims....

I don't understand. A few posts prior to the above, you stated: "Only when I see something with my own eyes that without a shadow of a doubt is extra-terrestrial, will I believe that they have visited Earth."

With no sarcasm at all (though a little consternation), I ask ... why would you trust your own eyes any more than those of the thousands of obviously credible people who claim to have seen just what you describe?

Even the first 50 or so Blue Book unknowns have as their witnesses astronomers, physicists, many pilots, Colonels, tower and radar operators, and so on .... Are these people ALL either insane, remarkably unreliable, or despicable hoaxers? What if they'd said to you, prior to their sighting, that they would never have believed it unless they'd seen it with their "own eyes" ... but then actually DID see it with those very eyes? (Often simultaneously with others.)

To me, the 'I won't believe it 'til I see it myself' rationale for UFO-denial simply doesn't make logical sense. Unless that person honestly feels he's among the most objectively reliable witnesses on Earth. Which, of course, 95% of the time also wouldn't make logical sense.

It's an even more baffling position when the person holding it is obviously very intelligent (you'll even hear prestigious scientists say it), or has been exposed to the official, documented and undeniable 'phenomenon is real and not visionary or fictitious' history of the topic. (See Swords' and colleagues' excellent book "UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry".) At that point, when simple ignorance can no longer be the person's excuse, "own eyes" is probably only a pretext, and he likely either lacks the capacity to accept the baffling nature of the reality, or has 'chosen' (purposely or not) to discard data which is challenging or even dangerous to his world-view.

All of the above is just my opinion, of course, but is based on a few years of observation and discussion. And I do hope that those who delay 'True'FO acceptance based only on the "my own eyes" argument would consider the specific point above, because, surprisingly, it doesn't seem to be made often enough.

reply to post by parkourer


Considering how much the american car has changed in the past 50 years you would think that these space vehicles would change too but it seems that the "47 model was the classic and they never improved or changed that model. The 'Saucer" model is the classic.