Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by nivek, Oct 15, 2017.
Hmm, they certainly look UFOish to my eyes but that's about it!
I like the shape of the middle one, I think the enlarged images are too pixelated to ascertain something definitive but very cool...
Got two more close ups.
Just goes to show most cameras suck for taking pictures of things like this
Ray Stanford said he always carried around various cameras of sufficient quality to get the job done. One of the few things he's said that I might - not definitely - but might believe. I think if you want to catch a UFO in a picture you'd have to make a habit of toting something capable around. Smartphone just don't cut it. What that'll prove anymore is debatable. Maybe if actual film were used it might add some weight but probably not.
Not worth the bother of posting the media but I still try to catch the helicopters and military transport that is increasing in this area. The small airport that launched some of the Hudson Valley UFO Wave isn't quite so small anymore and there are some dish-rattling choppers that are regulars. I have a short video of a C17 overhead. In person this thing is loud and appears larger than it does on the video. It was close enough that I could be picking out really small detail with the right equipment.
Stanford has built very elaborate stories around multiple Super 8 movies that he took, including at least two shot through the windows of airliners. Super 8 was once a format well suited for home movies, but I think far from ideal for getting high-res images of distant objects-- for one thing, the image frame size is only about 4 mm by 5.8 mm.
I seem to remember Chris O'Brien saying something about that - and that's all anyone has done, talk talk talk about those supposed images. Put up or shut up I say, especially in light of the UAP images the Navy has let us see recently. Now's the time and it seems RS has been bluffing. As for his equipment, the 8mm cameras I remember were unexciting but photography isn't my thing except to say a high quality 35mm camera with the right lens and film would make for an interesting UFO pic. There's one n particular I can't remember right now - 1980s vacation shot of a mountain, single frame very clear shot of a silver disc with a bubble. Can't pull the name out at the moment.
The only real comment on RS is that he said he toted a decent camera or two and was always prepared and that comment got my attention. Could be. I suspect he'd carry the flashiest looking thing he could afford .... but that's another story.
The idea came from an interview I heard with Dr. Kevin Knuth and (I think) he described having his students try to photograph planes coming in and out of the Albany, NY airport. I've been there many times and have worked throughout that region. Hell, I can do that. I live well south of Albany in the lower Hudson River valley and know that large military transports had a role to play in the UFO sightings that are/were common to this area. I am still hoping to get the 'right' pic of one of these things looking odd - because they do at times under the right conditions. But the entire 'recover from surprise and then get the pic' reflex takes more practice that you might suspect. After two years of casually trying with the smartphone I keep on my belt almost always I can say that the actual cameras in use are not intended for that type of specialized interest and that I'd have to up my game considerably to get better results. You really would have to have the right equipment at hand at all times - and that's just to catch a pic of a plane or helicopter. You could do it with practice in pretty short order, provided you don't mind mowing the lawn with the thing around your neck. But to catch the ultra rare UFO event? Well, you'll be carrying the thing a while. Maybe factor the likelihood of that into the RS BS story, right?
That sounds like the photo taken by Hannah McRoberts at Vancouver Island (Kelsey Bay), B.C., in October 1981, with an SLR camera on 35mm Kodacolor II. She took a single snapshot of a mountain; didn't notice the flying object until receiving prints from the photo lab.
In the book The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence, edited by Peter A. Sturrock (Warner Books, 1999), there is a 24-page chapter by Richard F. Haines analyzing that photo. (There is also a nice large color print of the photo filling the back side of the dust jacket.) Haines spent a couple pages on the Frisbee theory. He glued domes on Frisbees and found that this destroyed the aerodynamic properties. He found that the image lacked the blur that would have been evident if the disk had been traveling normal to the line of sight. Most importantly, perhaps, he was able to examine the frames that immediately preceded and followed the UFO frame, both of which were ordinary family scenes, so "If someone had tossed a model up into the air in order to photograph it, only one photo was taken. It would be remarkable for such a clearly focused image to be obtained on the first try . . ."
Conclusion by Haines:
"In summary, this investigation has shown that a mature adult with high credibility and little or no interest in UFO phenomena obtained a single, colored, sharp imaged photograph of an unidentified aerial disc-like object."
Here is a link to the complete Haines analysis:
I can't hit the 'thanks' and 'awesome' buttons at the same time. This is the same logic that surrounds the Trent McMinnville pics. Highly unlikely that the people who took the photos would have faked it and even if they did more improbable that they were so successful so easily. The reward for having the right camera in the right place at the right time is disbelief.
In that regard the Navy could probably release one of those 20' clear photos Fravor claims they have and there would still be debate even if it were stamped 'made in Zeta Reticuli' in mathematical symbols on the side.
I read the report - admit to skimming some of it. Analysis like that showed up in Bill Munn's work with the Patterson Gimlin film. More meat on the bone to examine with the PGF but the methods were similar. Prosthelytized me. Primary difference is the photograph uses witness credibility as part of the case, something in question regarding the PGF. In Munn's case he was able to relate the physical evidence left by the camera to a topographical map and demonstrate that Patterson wasn't calmly standing and filming, he was in motion exactly as he said he was.
Decades later we're still talking about these things. Very often witness credibility is used to help substantiate the case.
Well, it's not as if I don't trust military personnel it's just that the method by which we hear about and see some of the recent weird encounters definitely leaves something to be desired. I still suspect some ulterior motive.
USS Nimitz / Tic Tac UFO had 2 antennas on the bottom of it .
I heard that description from the specialist the the Hawkeye, not the fighter pilots (although maybe they said so too, dunno)
As I recall, the observation was of two appendages protruding from the bottom. Given ignorance of the nature of the object or its origins, branding them "antennas" would be, IMO, pure speculation on the part of an observer.
Spot on Dean.
Maybe they should have refereed to them as 'protuberances'. Someone even mentioned that they might be landing skids. But until the Pentagon tells us what they are , hang on they don't know either do they !!
Er...maybe they were legs..?
Umm maybe weapons.
Separate names with a comma.