Strange object hits wind turbine 2009.Similar object photographed 5000 miles away July 2013.

I think you all are wasting your time. I enjoy the topics of UFOs and pictures but that is certifiably no UFO space bug alien ship. The reasons are pretty clear.

1. You really don't even need anything other than to see the scale of the picture. The object is clearly between the subject and the camera or it is between the subject and the mountain. It is clearly not beyond the far mountain ridge. At that scale the object would be large enough to not be blurred the way it is. We would have aliasing in the image not blurring on the edges.

2. The angle of attack. The object in question is performing an areo dynamic maneuver, most people agree that UFOs, do not bank and roll relying on air pressure and lifting forces to change direction, this object is. It is changing its center of gravity to alter its vector, not typical ufo behavior.

3. The object is most likely an insect traveling AWAY from the camera. Insect wings often do dither out of an image when they are at a similar angle to the sun from the camera since most insect wings are not opaque. Or its a rock

reply to post by canDarian


The object appears to be some type of inflatable balloon to me. Perhaps the wind was strong enough to carry it up and out of sight before the next picture was taken. I am not suggesting it was one of the following examples, but am including them to illustrate similar shapes and colors inflatables come in.

It appears that the shadow luminance is lighter on the object compared to the foreground. This could mean atmospheric haze because the object could be way off in the distance. It could also be a side effect of motion blur. However, i believe that the slightly lighter shadow luminance is what makes most people think it is in the background. Whatever it is my money is on a flyin creature from earth.

Oh, by the way, for those of you who have an interest in photography. Technically there is no such thing as a sharp image, its all about tolerable unsharpness. However, you can percieve an image as sharp although it is not from a technical point of view

Originally posted by canDarian
Jesus dude your a freaking idiot,if you even bothered to read the thread instead of jumping in like a total douchebag you would see the original photo was done with a iphone 5

Oh and yes please keep babbling on,you can talk to yourself.

edit on 27-7-2013 by canDarian because: (no reason given)

From the OP

. We were all taking turns doing yoga at this vantage point and taking pictures with an iPhone 4

So NOT an iphone 5 then

It's obvious to me that life exists on other planets.This firm assumption derives from the number of planets.

It's obvious to me that people are easily manipulated. This firm assumption derives from the number of believers.

reply to post by canDarian

And you just keep going on,if I told you I know her what would you want next a photo of us together then what you want the exif then what you want us to come chat with you online at the same time.

Just done it's like talking to my ex wife,it never freaking ends -_-

I'm very confused. I see nothing wrong with asking to provide information along with your photos and claims. What is it that you don't want anyone seeing? Just provide the basic info. No one is asking you to go on a date with them.

I see that the bug explanation has been put forth, and normally I would agree with something like that, as a camera can add artifacts to something for various reasons. But in this case I am leaning towards this not being a bug for the simple reason that it appears quite close to the camera. I do not believe that a camera would add so much to the image when the object was this close. Obviously it is close because consumer grade cell phone cameras of this nature generally are not designed to shoot clear images past a certain distance. At least to my knowledge, although I am not familiar with the exact specifications of the particular camera the witness was using.

So why would there appear to be streamlined, metal or similar material, edges? Like I said, I know this can be caused by camera artifacts, but at such a close range? I suppose one could argue that the movement/speed of the bug could cause it to appear this way, but I find it hard to believe as well. But I admit it is possible. I just feel that a bug would not be travelling all that fast. Plus, it appears to be far enough away that if it were a bug, it was a pretty big bug. It is still close, but it is not like right on top of the camera or anything. So I just don't know about that explanation.

It is of course the most plausible, as it is more likely than some alien spacecraft or advanced UAV technology. I am reminded of things like the nano-bots that can be used to perform surveillance, and I wonder if there could be a fleet of silent, small craft that are used by some entity to spy on us. Don't get me wrong though, I am not claiming this is what is going on. It is possible though.

Originally posted by Phage

Because he's a manly man.

LOL its no bug. People try hard to see with their eyes closed.

Originally posted by canDarian
As for it being a bug,explain to me how it's clearly behind him yet out of focus,if that's a bug then I should put this in the crypto forum as well because that's the biggest bug I ever saw.

Explain to me how it's clearly behind him. (It isn't)

Really? That's the biggest bug you've ever seen? So big it belongs in the cryptozoology forums? Then you'd got an extremely low threshold for "mythical beast" because even cicadas are bigger than that.



For the record - there's nothing in the picture that would indicate the blurred object is any larger than a fly flying close to the camera.

Originally posted by LevelEleven
LOL its no bug. People try hard to see with their eyes closed.

Right. Because if we see something that's not an alien, clearly WE'RE the ones looking with out eyes closed.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I am reminded of things like the nano-bots that can be used to perform surveillance, and I wonder if there could be a fleet of silent, small craft that are used by some entity to spy on us. Don't get me wrong though, I am not claiming this is what is going on. It is possible though.

Well it's good that you're not claiming it's nanobots spying on us. Because you'd be wrong.

Originally posted by Glassbender777
Looks like a flying bug of some sort, in the foreground of the guy. totally out of focus, and since its in the foreground, its an illusion to the actual size.

correct. /thread.

it looks blurry and behind him because it's close to the camera and moving /tubling quickly.

I can't believe people really thing that if this was a large octopus shape UFO in the distance, the camera man looking directly at it wouldn't have noticed it. I know doing an arm-stand on a rock is VERY captivating, but I think a large Octopus shaped UFO would be just a little more interesting.

Also when you take a picture, your looking at evything that's in the frame, well you should be at least. I cannot and will not believe, a large octopus shaped UFO in the center of the image would go unnoticed.

a bug on the other hand....


TLDR: imho, It's a bug. Could be an alien bug :p, but a bug none-the-less.

reply to post by canDarian


You still haven't explained how chain link looks so big from 3 ft

reply to post by canDarian




What relevance does this video have towards this thread?

Unless your saying this could be the object in the OP..

reply to post by wmd_2008

You still haven't explained how chain link looks so big from 3 ft

If he/she tells you, their going to have to kill you....

It looks organic, not some mechanical "alien space probe". You begin with a grounded, Earthly, prosaic explanation FIRST. The default explanation isn't: "It looks strange, good possibility it's a UFO!!"..... "So let's prove now it's NOT a UFO".

Like already mentioned in the second post, probably a wasp/hornet caught in mid-flight. Their long rear legs hang and dangle in flight just as in this photo.

I think someone is in denial.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by canDarian

 

You still haven't explained how chain link looks so big from 3 ft

What are you some kind of freaking douchebag idiot?