Flying Saucer Photographed?
You Be The Judge

The photograph below was submitted with the following information after considerable inquiry into the details. Very little can be determined about the image due to the resolution available. We have no means of truly analyzing it and offer it only as a possible real picture of a "flying saucer" based on the word of the photographer, what he saw and captured. We make absolutely no claims regarding the authenticity of the image. - ed
Pertinent info:
"I took the attached photograph today about two miles from Lake Merwin. (Merwin is about 10 miles east of the town of Woodland, Washington.) The object made absolutely no noise.. It was visible for only a few seconds. Then it sped away."

Inquiry results:
1. Camera type --
The camera is a cheapo Argus digital, #DC1500. It takes 20 pictures before it has to be uploaded to a computer. It's supposed to be a color camera. But, the picture sure looks black and white. This camera doesn't have a lot of pixels. (It's a $50 camera.)
2. Does a higher resolution version exist? --
The image is as it was taken. My upload software allows me to choose the format. I always save as JPEGs since they're easier to e-mail. The original has been erased now since I reset the camera.
3. Were there any other witnesses? --
No other witnesses.
4. What were the circumstances surrounding this event? --
I was in the woods looking for elk sign. There are a lot of elk near Merwin.
Image as received
Blow up. Note: please do not send photo analysis, as the resolution and jpeg compression make it impossible
to extract any relevant information from these images. Natural compression scarring exists throughout the photo
and this makes any image analysis useless.
From Richard Storey
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?
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
From: "jfm"
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
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
From Mark Abram
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

Your Comments Are Always Welcome At!



This Site Served by TheHostPros