- Comment
-
- From Richard Storey
- carbonbased@alltel.net
- 12-29-2
-
- 1. The light on the surface of the object does not scatter
sufficiently to be a VERY smooth object.
-
- 2. The light coming off the object gives it the appearance
of being quite close, so more likely an object that has been thrown into
the air by someone.
-
- 3. To me, the object does no look perfectly symmetrical.
-
- 4. If they could take the one photo, why not others?
-
- 5. Is the cheap camera excuse the best reason they have
for the lack of realism in the photo?
-
-
- Richard,
I think 1-3 you have excellent points. As for 4 -- he said it only appeared
for a few seconds and then zipped away. It's rather hard to catch photos
of moving objects you don't expect to see. And 5 -- a lot of people can't
afford a decent digital camera and carry those pockey snappy-cams because
all they do is send grainy images through email for fun. - Webmaster
-
-
-
- Comment
- From: "jfm"
- 12-29-02
-
- No...Hell No!
-
- First - There is a clear shadow on the thing - impossible
in the cloudy sky shown.
Well Jim, shadows ARE cast on cloudy dark days, there's a lot more ambient
light present than you're reconizing -- Webmaster
-
- Second - Looking closely around the edges of the thing,
there is a lighter area where the thing was pasted into the picture.
-
- Jim, this is also present around the trees in the
picture. As we pointed out, the resolution of the image and natural jpeg
compression-scarring makes it impossible to suggest a cut and paste job,
or any substantial analysis based on pixelation which might be employed
in a higher resolution image. -- Webmaster
-
- Third - The only spacecraft that are allowed into the
Solar System currently that resembles this craft are Aurellian, and this
is NOT an Aurellian ship. I've been on one before, and this is not even
close. Aurellian ships have windows, since they are somewhat claustrophobic.
They also are relatively inexperienced with gravity systems, so you would
expect a distortion of the surrounding sky, due to lack of control of their
gravity emission pile.
-
- Uhhhh... yeah. Ok. Roger, over and out! -- Webmaster
-
- With All Due Sincerety,
-
- John Morrow
- Texas
- Earth
-
-
- Comment
- From: D. Daniels Hilversum
-
- I would like to comment on the article/photo recently
submitted to you. I was intrigued, eagerly looking forward to seeing the
photograph, but I restrained myself, and read the article before looking
at the photograph. The intro alone given by the individual told me that
I would NOT be seeing a photograph of a UFO. The tone is apologetic, even
blaming the camera for the quality (or lack of it) of the photograph, going
to great lengths to tell us why the photograph appears as it does. Obviously,
the individual is making the story up and is hoping people will 'fall'
for this obvious hoax. My suspicions were confirmed when I saw the photo.
My neighbour has a hat just like the one in the photo, and if we threw
it into the air and photographed it, the results would be much the same
as this photograph. People are perhaps not as gullible as the individual
would like to believe.
- D. Daniels Hilversum,
- The Netherlands
-
-
- Comment
From Mark Abram
- 12-29-02
-
- Before you slam the door on any "useful" speculation
about authenticity, here's some relevant information for you and viewers
of this photo. Take your mind away from pixels for a moment.
-
- Look at the trees in the foreground. They are at least
100 feet away, but are not in sharp focus. The "ufo" is supposedly
behind them, and yet it is clearly in sharp focus. Optically speaking,
this effect could only occur with a telephoto or zoom lens... which low-end
digital cameras don't have. A wide aperture would also cause a shallow
depth of field, but it would still render both the trees and the "ufo"
in sharp focus at those distances.
-
- The photographer states that the photo was taken with
a $50 digital camera. This is a very significant statement; a camera of
this type that is focused upon infinity (the only way the "ufo"
could be in such sharp focus) would definitely render both the trees and
the "ufo" in sharp focus. This is a fundamental law of optics,
not an opinion.
-
- Also of note is the obvious chromatic aberration that
is clearly observed in the trees. Notice the blue/red distortion on the
right and yellow/orange on the left; exactly what one might expect from
a cheap digital camera. But the "ufo" shows no sign of this chromatic
aberration whatsoever. Why? This isn't consistent. The contrast and sharpness
of the "ufo" would definitely have made this effect match the
one seen on the trees on the right.
-
- I'm convinced that there are ufos out there, but this
isn't one of them.
-
- Mark Abram
-
- Mark -- all very good points, indeed. Note however
that the "object" does have a color shift associated with it,
along the bottom rim, similar to the color shift you point out on the trees.
It could be that the shift is not going to show as intensely against dark
grey as it does bright white (?). - Webmaster
|
