Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
RocketSwitch625UK

Same UFO photographed 5 years apart?

63 posts in this topic

The following UFO was photographed over a large city in Siberia in February 2009. When the image is rotated and mirrored, it looks strikingly similar to a UFO that I photographed over London in July 2004. I think it is the same object photographed at a slightly different angle.

Siberian UFO Sighted:

http://www.paranorma...an-ufo-sighted/

LondonampSiberiaUFO.jpg

Edited by RocketSwitch625UK
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reminding me to clean the sensor in my DSLR.

Normally I shoot wide apertures so dust particles aren't very visible but when I take shots out in the sunshine at f16, I see a lot junk on it especially against blue skies.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reminding me to clean the sensor in my DSLR.

Normally I shoot wide apertures so dust particles aren't very visible but when I take shots out in the sunshine at f16, I see a lot junk on it especially against blue skies.

The photo was taken a week or so after I bought my first digital camera so the camera was brand new and had only been used a couple of times before. My photo went on to appear in a well-known UFO magazine at the time. It's unlikely the editor of the magazine (a serving police officer) would have printed a picture of a dust particle. He seemed impressed with the picture.

Note: The Siberian UFO was witnessed by hundreds of people in a large city. I did not see the UFO that appeared in my photo.

Edited by RocketSwitch625UK
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photo was taken a week or so after I bought my first digital camera so the camera was brand new and had only been used a couple of times before. My photo went on to appear in a well-known UFO magazine at the time. It's unlikely the editor of the magazine (a serving police officer) would have printed a picture of a dust particle. He seemed impressed with the picture.

Note: The Siberian UFO was witnessed by hundreds of people in a large city. I did not see the UFO that appeared in my photo.

so being publish in the same magazine where a lady claimed aliens took her cat is considered legitimate. then sure why not. lol
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a 8 black blotches and the word UFO used 7 times along with an article of the Siberian UFO that originates from some chick with the pen name of M Dee Dubroff (Marjorie Dorfman) who is a freelance writer (read amateur) Primarily a writer of ghostly and horror fiction, (read: hint, hint) she has branched out into the world of humorous non fiction writing. The particular source that she used from the original article points to a dead page and says only "according to news sources" (like that means a lot). http://inventorspot....tos_taken_24110

I never found the Russian media versions that was so "widely" used?

Seriously guys? Never, ever trust sources like this and always....always look up evidence of the orginal source that gave validity for it's original existence. If you can't find it, then obviously it doesn't really exist or could not be truthful.

Edited by NightScreams
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is the good subject for ufo study. the shape may indicated the flying speed of the ufo as most ufos has gas type of body.

So these two ufos may move in the similar speed. but there are million of these kind of ufos in our space, it is very hard to confirm they are the same object. I captured many these shape of ufo, .

Edited by Star Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is the good subject for ufo study. the shape may indicated the flying speed of the ufo as most ufos has gas type of body.

So these two ufos may move in the similar speed. but there are million of these kind of ufos in our space, it is very hard to confirm they are the same object. I captured many these shape of ufo, .

I see a 8 black blotches and the word UFO used 7 times along with an article of the Siberian UFO that originates from some chick with the pen name of M Dee Dubroff (Marjorie Dorfman) who is a freelance writer (read amateur) Primarily a writer of ghostly and horror fiction, (read: hint, hint) she has branched out into the world of humorous non fiction writing. The particular source that she used from the original article points to a dead page and says only "according to news sources" (like that means a lot). http://inventorspot....tos_taken_24110

I never found the Russian media versions that was so "widely" used?

Seriously guys? Never, ever trust sources like this and always....always look up evidence of the orginal source that gave validity for it's original existence. If you can't find it, then obviously it doesn't really exist or could not be truthful.

Maybe some of you guys have trouble reading I don't know.

Here is what the source in the OP says:

According to news sources, the Siberian sighting of an unidentified flying object the size of a Boeing 747 on February 15 about 6pm was marked by many witnesses and photos snapped from mobile phones.

Observers noted that whatever it was, the entity in the sky had an odd blurriness about it and was gray-black in color

Dirt on the camera sensor? Nah.

For heavens sake please stop being so obtuse and read the material.

If that is the best image that can be produced from a hand held camera without hugely expensive zoom lenses then so be it. It's the best that can be done. Taking into account the other information should however give you more on the bigger picture.

Edited by zoser
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following UFO was photographed over a large city in Siberia in February 2009. When the image is rotated and mirrored, it looks strikingly similar to a UFO that I photographed over London in July 2004. I think it is the same object photographed at a slightly different angle.

Siberian UFO Sighted:

http://www.paranorma...an-ufo-sighted/

:lol: yes, when the image is ROTATED,then MIRRORED, and the size is increased/decreased, along with whatever other adjustments you made, one blob would seem similar to another.

But the Siberian blob is out of context, how do we even know its in the sky? There is no land to see, no horizon, no clouds, man - it could be bird poop on a window pane for all we know.

Anyway its nice to know Siberians can afford cameras

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe some of you guys have trouble reading I don't know.

Here is what the source in the OP says:

According to news sources, the Siberian sighting of an unidentified flying object the size of a Boeing 747 on February 15 about 6pm was marked by many witnesses and photos snapped from mobile phones.

Observers noted that whatever it was, the entity in the sky had an odd blurriness about it and was gray-black in color

If that is the best image that can be produced from a hand held camera without hugely expensive zoom lenses then so be it. It's the best that can be done. Taking into account the other information should however give you more on the bigger picture.

as per above, according to WHAT SOURCES? None are given and one link is dead. No witness statements are included, no other witness photos are offered, nothing. The story is hosted on a woo woo site, NOT A CREDIBLE NEWS SITE I might add.

So then zoser, what is the bigger picture exactly - that you can see but no-one else can? :w00t:

Edited by seeder
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a 8 black blotches and the word UFO used 7 times along with an article of the Siberian UFO that originates from some chick with the pen name of M Dee Dubroff (Marjorie Dorfman) who is a freelance writer (read amateur) Primarily a writer of ghostly and horror fiction, (read: hint, hint) she has branched out into the world of humorous non fiction writing. The particular source that she used from the original article points to a dead page and says only "according to news sources" (like that means a lot). http://inventorspot....tos_taken_24110

I never found the Russian media versions that was so "widely" used?

Seriously guys? Never, ever trust sources like this and always....always look up evidence of the orginal source that gave validity for it's original existence. If you can't find it, then obviously it doesn't really exist or could not be truthful.

welcome to UM, you'll get on great with us rational skeptics. Dont mind zoser though...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as per above, according to WHAT SOURCES? None are given and one link is dead. No witness statements are included, no other witness photos are offered, nothing. The story is hosted on a woo woo site, NOT A CREDIBLE NEWS SITE I might add.

So then zoser, what is the bigger picture exactly - that you can see but no-one else can? :w00t:

Whether the Siberia UFO story is a hoax or not, there's no denying that the shapes of the two objects are remarkably similar and there's no way a hoaxer could've based a UFO on the one in my photograph. When my photo appeared in the magazine in 2004, the photo that the editor used for the article was too small for anyone to make out the shape of the object. I was disappointed in a way that the editor didn't print an enlarged version of my photo to show people what the object really looked like. All people could see was a tiny blob next to a tall building.

Here is the Siberian UFO superimposed into a cropped version of my original photo. The full photo shows the object next to a tall building in South East London.

Notice how the inner parts of the objects are also similar.

SiberiaUFOSuperimposed.jpg

Edited by RocketSwitch625UK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a screen capture of a UFO photograph that is shown during an interview with UFO expert, Robert Dean in the documentary "Area 51 - The Alien Interview". I don't know when the photo was taken but I'm guessing some time in the 1960s.

Could it be a much earlier photo of the same object?

UFO.jpg

Edited by RocketSwitch625UK
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice how the inner parts of the objects are also similar.

flying saucers, by definition, are all similar too. ie: saucer shaped. So are triangles, theyre similar. So are jumbo jets. But so what? If I see one plane in the sky, should I automatically assume when I see a similar one years later, that its the same plane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a screen capture of a UFO photograph that is shown during an interview with UFO expert, Robert Dean in the documentary "Area 51 - The Alien Interview". I don't know when the photo was taken but I'm guessing some time in the 1960s.

Could it be a much earlier photo of the same object?

UFO.jpg

Ive asked before, pls always offer the source links to images and stories

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obvious. Stunt Kite. No, wait... Pelican. Yup, definitely a pelican.

And I gotta say, the quality of 'sightings' is increasing exactly as you would expect with the dramatic increase in the number of affordable, good quality digital cameras out there... oh, wait..

Sigh....

PS - a direct question to Rocketswitch (and also Zoser):

Given you have been told many times, why do you persist in showing ridiculously over-enlarged and over processed images that are clearly suffering from hideous compression/enlargement and over-sharpening artefacts all resulting in probably better than 50% false detail? To be specific - the 'inner parts' are easily recognisable - by anyone with a CLUE about imaging - as the inevitable haloes that you get from this sort of ill-advised processing and enlargement.

PPS - But wait - I know where I've seen that shape.... HERE!!! I think we can now say with absolute certainty that.... blobs on a window/screen all have similar shapes because they are of alien origin!!!

Or pelicans, I guess..

Edited by Chrlzs
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obvious. Stunt Kite. No, wait... Pelican. Yup, definitely a pelican.

And I gotta say, the quality of 'sightings' is increasing exactly as you would expect with the dramatic increase in the number of affordable, good quality digital cameras out there... oh, wait..

Sigh....

PS - a direct question to Rocketswitch (and also Zoser):

Given you have been told many times, why do you persist in showing ridiculously over-enlarged and over processed images that are clearly suffering from hideous compression/enlargement and over-sharpening artefacts all resulting in probably better than 50% false detail?

PPS - I know where I've seen that shape.... HERE!!! I think we can now say with absolute certainty that.... blobs on a window/screen all have similar shapes because they are of alien origin!!!

Or pelicans, I guess..

It's not just photo evidence; simple really. People saw it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive asked before, pls always offer the source links to images and stories

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[media=]

[/media]

Go on then I will be the first to ask; why is this relevant?

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that advanced then are they i guess?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go on then I will be the first to ask; why is this relevant?

The black & white UFO picture I posted earlier is in the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The black & white UFO picture I posted earlier is in the video.

OK. I'll take another look.

Edit:

It's at 1:29 if others want to take a look.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that Zoser completely ignored the FACT about the 'internal parts' being FALSE detail.

No clue, and - more importantly - absolutely no desire to get one.

Let's see if rocketswitch takes the same approach...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the accompanying letter I sent to the magazine with my photo in the summer of 2004:

I live in South East London and from my bedroom window I have a marvellous panoramic view of the town and surrounding areas. At around 5:15 p.m. on Friday, July 2nd, 2004 I was taking photographs from this window of a large rainbow which suddenly appeared with my new Canon Powershot A80 digital camera. The rainbow was very low in the sky and I have never seen one of this magnitude before. It lasted for approximately 1 hour.

I have often taken photographs with other types of ordinary cameras of the same area in different weather conditions. On this particular occasion using my new digital camera I seemed to have captured something of interest in one of the frames that I cannot explain. I spotted the item of interest when downloading the images onto my computer. The item is dark, bulky and rather peculiar looking the likes of which I have not seen before. I wondered if it could be a UFO?

The frame on which it was spotted is one of nine taken seconds apart from each other, and is frame number 4 on the disc. There is also another smaller object also on frame number 4 that I am unable to recognise, and smaller objects of the same appearance can be seen in frame numbers 2, 3 and 9. The sequence appears to show a small object approaching the office block from the right. The building is central to the rainbow, as you will see from the frames.

I would be really grateful if you could offer your expert analysis and investigation into what the objects could be. I do believe that local newspapers or even the national press would be interested to learn of what I have captured on my digital camera. To prove their authenticity the frames are currently stored on the camera’s digital memory card.

From my own personal point of view (along with my family and friends) it seems that I have captured something extraordinary with my new camera.

Hoping to hear your views in the near future regarding this matter.

Edited by RocketSwitch625UK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that Zoser completely ignored the FACT about the 'internal parts' being FALSE detail.

No clue, and - more importantly - absolutely no desire to get one.

Let's see if rocketswitch takes the same approach...

Even if the fact that the internal parts of the objects are similar is meaningless to you, the outlines of the objects are almost an exact match.

Edited by RocketSwitch625UK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that Zoser completely ignored the FACT about the 'internal parts' being FALSE detail.

No clue, and - more importantly - absolutely no desire to get one.

Let's see if rocketswitch takes the same approach...

Just another irrelevant rant from Chris. Never relevant to the thread, and always misses the point.

Same old Chris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.