• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Actual UFO Photo

The Atheist

The Grammar Tyrant
The Atheist
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
36,364
This photo was taken by my 4 year old recently.

Lo and behold, once developed, the photo shows a UFO above left of the tree in the picture. The photo has not been amended at all and it isn't a flaw in the paper as we have a second copy printed from the negative. 35mm film for photos.

I can't scan the negative, but it's definitely showing on there and not a flaw in the plastic.

Now, I have no doubt that it isn't little green men from Alpha Centauri, but it is an unidentified flying object. Not a plane or helicopter - we're on the flight path of Auckland Airport and that certainly didn't land there. It's also just off to the north of the flight path, where no air traffic ever goes.

Something blown of the tree is possible, although it wouldn't have been a windy day, going by the leaves.

ufo.jpg


Come on, let's have some ideas before I go post it at UFO Forums...
 
Its a cricket ball, hit by Adam Gilchrist off a poorly flighted delivery from Vetori.

From the SCG too!!!
 
SimonJ1966 said:
Its a cricket ball, hit by Adam Gilchrist off a poorly flighted delivery from Vetori.

From the SCG too!!!
Click to expand...

Aha! That would explain the shape, too!

It is in the right direction for that, so I'll keep it out there as an option.

(why aren't you posting in the cricket thread????)
 
Beady's idea seems the most reasonable. That's what it looked like to me the moment I saw it: a smudge on the lens or defect on the film.
 
I have to second Beady's suggestions. Notice that there's no sun at all on the object. It would have to be a very strange shape indeed for that to occur were it actually up in the air. A most un-aerodynamic shape, if I may be so bold.
 
Check your kid for bionic implants ASAP (s)he might be contaminated.
 
My first thought was, "where is it? Is it behind the bee?" too. It looks like its in motion at first glance. But looking at it again, I have to agree with the glob of dirt/bit of stick hypothesis already proposed. I'm assuming that there aren't any other pictures on the roll that had this thingie, or I'm assuming you'd have mentioned it, but what the heck: are there?
 
Adding an item to my list, it could have been a speck of something that was on the film during exposure, that was rinsed off during development.

That's four possibilities on or inside the camera, itself, that have to be eliminated before it makes sense to start talking about anything else.
 
Helicopter, without doubt.
On a flight path?
To an Airport?
No, it can't be a helicopter!
(My arse it can't be!)
 
Beady said:
A piece of dirt on the lens.

A flaw on the negative, introduced during development.

A defect in the emulsion, introduced during manufacture.
Click to expand...


No, no and no.

It's visible on the negative and isn't a defect. Definitely nothing on the lens as it would be more blurred and other pics taken 10 seconds later don't have it.
 
Looks like a helicopter to me. That blur to the right looks like the tail rotor.
 
jsiv said:
Flying witch humanoids.

They're usually very busy this time of year.
Click to expand...

Sure, could easily be a distant witch on a broom.

neutrino_cannon said:
I have to second Beady's suggestions. Notice that there's no sun at all on the object. It would have to be a very strange shape indeed for that to occur were it actually up in the air. A most un-aerodynamic shape, if I may be so bold.
Click to expand...

UFOs often are, eh? That unique interstellar proulsion stuff. The lunar module didn't look all that airworthy, either.

No sun = cloudy day.

Niobe said:
Check your kid for bionic implants ASAP (s)he might be contaminated.
Click to expand...

Just so long as I don't have to check for anal probes, I'll check that out!

Jackalgirl said:
My first thought was, "where is it? Is it behind the bee?" too. It looks like its in motion at first glance. But looking at it again, I have to agree with the glob of dirt/bit of stick hypothesis already proposed. I'm assuming that there aren't any other pictures on the roll that had this thingie, or I'm assuming you'd have mentioned it, but what the heck: are there?
Click to expand...

No other pics show it, and as noted to Beady, you can see it on the negative.

Michael Gray said:
Helicopter, without doubt.
On a flight path?
To an Airport?
No, it can't be a helicopter!
(My arse it can't be!)
Click to expand...

LOL. It's NOT a helicopter. Because we're on the flight path, helicopters travel overhead frequently and they're kept to under 500 feet around this area, so it would be clearly visible - he has a photo of a chopper taken from about 10 feet from that pic and it's easy to tell it's a chopper.
 
Sheesh, it's obvious!

Look at the cloud bank just below the black speck. Obviously one of the cloud giants has kicked the footy too far, and it's gone over the edge of the cloud. Lucky it didn't crush your house, The Atheist.

Cheers,
TGHO
 
The Atheist said:
It's visible on the negative and isn't a defect. Definitely nothing on the lens as it would be more blurred and other pics taken 10 seconds later don't have it.
Click to expand...

No, it would not necessarily be blurred; it would depend on the lens, the focus, etc.

How did you rule out a defect in manufacturing or development? How did you rule out an artifact on that frame during exposure, that would have been rinsed off during development?

BTW, what is the frame number?
 
The Atheist said:
UFOs often are, eh? That unique interstellar proulsion stuff. The lunar module didn't look all that airworthy, either.

No sun = cloudy day.
Click to expand...

Look at the house and the leaves on the trees. The sun may not be uncontested in the sky, but a roughly cylindrical object somewhere in the sky ought to have some sun on it.

If the object were between the sun and the camera, sure it wouldn't have any glare, but the sun is behind the camera and to the right.

Given that, I suspect strongly that it isn't an actual object in the sky.

I suggest that it's a similar phenomenon these artifacts.​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom