UFO photographed from plane over London

[sinewave]

I'm thinking fog and the top of a building. Is there any reason why that would be an unreasonable explanation?

[AZDZ]

For me, the last three frames remain reason for the 'top of a building' explanation to be unreasonable.

I ain't saying that's not the explanation, but I do not understand how, if that were true, in the second to last frame, the object appears to have moved upwards to become parallel with the horizon, then in the final frame, be above the horizon (blue sky behind) and further away, as if it had suddenly accelerated some distance between the second to the last and final frame.

Replay the final three frames in quick succession to see what I mean. You may notice the camera seems to zoom out during those three frames and think that is causing the motion effect, (I did) but that doesn't explain the clearly changing position of the object in relation to the background. Thoughts?

Edited May 31, 2014 by AZDZ

[sinewave]

For me, the last three frames remain reason for the 'top of a building' explanation to be unreasonable.

I ain't saying that's not the explanation, but I do not understand how, if that were true, in the second to last frame, the object appears to have moved upwards to become parallel with the horizon, then in the final frame, be above the horizon (blue sky behind) and further away, as if it had suddenly accelerated some distance between the second to the last and final frame.

Replay the final three frames in quick succession to see what I mean. You may notice the camera seems to zoom out during those three frames and think that is causing the motion effect, (I did) but that doesn't explain the clearly changing position of the object in relation to the background. Thoughts?

I've watched it a few times now and I don't see it as a video but a video made from a still photo (or perhaps a few photos). The image is shown in various levels of zoom and "enhanced" with color shifts at least once. The quality is pretty low so it is hard to tell what is real and what is a digital artifact.

[AZDZ]

I never said it was a "video". Whether it was or not would hold zero relevance to me anyway, and imo, to even say that must be an attempt to veer the topic in a different direction than matters. What matters, and what I am talking about, is the apparent movement seen in the last three frames/stills, whatever.

Do you see that movement/change in the background or not and if so, how, if this is the top of a building, is that movement explained, in your opinion? I cannot be any more clear than that.

[seeder]

I've watched it a few times now and I don't see it as a video but a video made from a still photo (or perhaps a few photos). The image is shown in various levels of zoom and "enhanced" with color shifts at least once. The quality is pretty low so it is hard to tell what is real and what is a digital artifact.

Me too, which is why I dont agree it 'flew up'

From the OP:

The images were captured on camera by a passenger flying over London just four days ago on the morning of May 25th.

The top row is just the enlargement of the bottom row

http://areazone51ufo...ole-par-la.html

.

Edited May 31, 2014 by seeder

[sinewave]

I never said it was a "video". Whether it was or not would hold zero relevance to me anyway, and imo, to even say that must be an attempt to veer the topic in a different direction than matters. What matters, and what I am talking about, is the apparent movement seen in the last three frames/stills, whatever.

Do you see that movement/change in the background or not and if so, how, if this is the top of a building, is that movement explained, in your opinion? I cannot be any more clear than that.

When you said "last 3 frames" I took that to mean there was a video and not just stills. I initially saw the still shot, then I watched the video made of the stills. Then I looked through the rest of the thread again thinking someone posted a video I missed.

To answer your question, no, I don't see any movement in those pics. They are so different in zoom and the quality so poor, I cannot say there was any movement of the object.

[AZDZ]

Thank you, sinewave. Sorry for any confusion I did/may have caused.

Do the series of stills posted by seeder, (post #80) cause you to reconsider your position, as they perfectly illustrate what I see happening.

Thank you seeder.

Edited May 31, 2014 by AZDZ

[seeder]

Do you see that movement/change in the background or not and if so, how, if this is the top of a building, is that movement explained,

Do the series of stills posted by seeder, (post #80) cause you to reconsider your position, as they perfectly illustrate what I see happening.

Thank you seeder.

Hey I dont see the movement you mention. But you do need to remember the guy is in a moving plane, that could have been climbing, descending or banking...and we dont know the intervals between the stills, do we? Maybe he took a load more but didnt put them out there as they didnt turn out good

.

Edited May 31, 2014 by seeder

[JesseCuster]

I suppose I should qualify my statement in that I've never owned a camera good enough that the digital zoom didn't suck.

ALL digital zoom sucks. Digital zoom isn't zoom at all. The camera is merely cropping the image and then resizing it to be the same resolution as the other images from the camera. The result is generally a mess. Whereas an optical zoom will properly magnify (like a telescope or binoculars) the image so that you see more detail when zoomed in, a digital zoom just resizes the centre of the image the same way your computer does when you get it to resize a photo. No new detail can be resolved with digital zoom, unlike with optical zoom.

Digital zoom is pretty much a con to make a camera's specs sound far more impressive than it is. It allows camera manufacturers to put things like "Optical zoom 1x - 3x Digital zoom 3x - 12x" and fool the unwary into thinking they're buying a camera with a 12x zoom lens.

Edited May 31, 2014 by JesseCuster

[sinewave]

Thank you, sinewave. Sorry for any confusion I did/may have caused.

Do the series of stills posted by seeder, (post #80) cause you to reconsider your position, as they perfectly illustrate what I see happening.

Thank you seeder.

It's so difficult to tell. There is apparently sunlight reflecting off of the corners of the object but that seems to move with the angle of the shot. Finding fixed points of reference from shot to shot is difficult so it is hard to tell if the thing actually moves.

[JesseCuster]

I know nothing of photoshopping techniques, so is the "box" indicative of photoshop? It seems to me that with the box being as clear to see as it is, then why accentuate it with the reversing of chrome? If it's not photoshop, then perhaps it related to the propulsion system?

When you see objects highly contrasted against a background in JPEG photos, there is commonly a funny looking dirty "box" or "boxes" surrounding the object. It's merely the result of how JPEG compresses the images and it's common in Internet photographs where the image has been further compressed by web servers to save on storage space and bandwidth.

It's commonly mistaken for evidence of a UFO picture being photoshopped, but it isn't.

[sinewave]

Hey I dont see the movement you mention. But you do need to remember the guy is in a moving plane, that could have been climbing, descending or banking...and we dont know the intervals between the stills, do we? Maybe he took a load more but didnt put them out there as they didnt turn out good

.

Exactly, the vantage point is moving and shifting slightly about 3 axes from shot to shot.

[Redoubt]

One of the more unique... compelling, even, of UFO photos to come around in quite a while.

Of course, in this day and age, most anything can be faked but... just one person's opinion, I think its genuine. No matter what it is.

[sinewave]

One of the more unique... compelling, even, of UFO photos to come around in quite a while.

Of course, in this day and age, most anything can be faked but... just one person's opinion, I think its genuine. No matter what it is.

I'd say this is more of a misinterpretation than a fake. We don't know where the plane was, nor do we know the heading or altitude so very few conclusions can be drawn.

[AZDZ]

It's so difficult to tell. There is apparently sunlight reflecting off of the corners of the object but that seems to move with the angle of the shot. Finding fixed points of reference from shot to shot is difficult so it is hard to tell if the thing actually moves.

Okay, thanks again for your response, sinewave. Honestly though, and absolutely no offense intended, I feel you might be a little too conditioned to always call mundane even if it is a bit more than that.

Hey I dont see the movement you mention. But you do need to remember the guy is in a moving plane, that could have been climbing, descending or banking...and we dont know the intervals between the stills, do we? Maybe he took a load more but didnt put them out there as they didnt turn out good

.

I didn't say you saw the movement, seeder, I was just thanking you for posting the stills. Afraid I might somehow implicate you if I claim believing it authentic? lol

Look at the last four stills in the bottom row, note the position the 'building' sticks up 'through' the clouds. Now find the dark area just above and spreading to the right> of the object. Note how in the subsequent frames the object is next sighted above that dark area. In the remaining frames the distance between the object and the dark area grow larger, just as expected if it were moving.

I might agree plane movement could have something to do with it, but I disagree it does here based on the object clearly changing positions relative to the clouds seen around/behind it. Movements of the plane would not change where the building is planted, it would continue to poke through the clouds in the same location, and here, it clearly doesn't.

I don't believe enough time has passed for the clouds to have drifted past and if that is the case, why isn't more of the building bottom then visible in the clearing below the 'top' in the last frames on either row?

Edited May 31, 2014 by AZDZ

[seeder]

I don't believe enough time has passed for the clouds to have drifted past and if that is the case, why isn't more of the building bottom then visible in the clearing below the 'top' in the last frames on either row?

Who says it was definitely a building? And not a ship at sea? And like I said, we do not know the time difference between shots, no-one has stated they were taken one after the other... thats just an assumption,

[kwin]

I really have to laugh when a UFO story makes the front page on unexplained mysteries. It's buildings sticking through the fog, which direction is it going, it's not clear enough,,,,,,,,, LOL, the cynics come out in full force. (I wish I could get one of those paychecks)

Apparently, some haven't heard of the overwhelming evidence in the last several decades. That dog has died and been buried for years and years. Besides, who would want to put up with that type of condescending accusatory rhetoric by making a public report. and yes, human's are prone to make mistakes, but I don't care about the 10 to 90% hoaxes and mi-identifications that are out there. I'm only interested in the percentage that are unexplained and real. I think that it is totally irrelevant as to whether any specific sighting is legitimate or not. It is time to quit living in the past and find out what these objects are, where they are from, who is suppressing the evidence, and why. To say that we cannot handle this situation because of a 1936 radio program that ambushed an unsuspecting, trusting, resource limited audience, is ludicrous.

The argument is not whether or not it is real, it is; Why has the investigation been shelved? Who is responsible? What are their intentions?

Be careful about watching the sky, it may change your life forever.

Edited May 31, 2014 by kwin

[seeder]

"To say that we cannot handle this situation because of a 1936 radio program that ambushed an unsuspecting, trusting, resource limited audience, is ludicrous".

Who exactly is saying that? President Clinton was on worldwide TV announcing they thought they found life in a meteorite. Anyone panic? Did society collapse? Any religions fall?

Nope..

.

.

Edited May 31, 2014 by seeder

[sinewave]

I really have to laugh when a UFO story makes the front page on unexplained mysteries. It's buildings sticking through the fog, which direction is it going, it's not clear enough,,,,,,,,, LOL, the cynics come out in full force. (I wish I could get one of those paychecks)

Apparently, some haven't heard of the overwhelming evidence in the last several decades. That dog has died and been buried for years and years. Besides, who would want to put up with that type of condescending accusatory rhetoric by making a public report. and yes, human's are prone to make mistakes, but I don't care about the 10 to 90% hoaxes and mi-identifications that are out there. I'm only interested in the percentage that are unexplained and real. I think that it is totally irrelevant as to whether any specific sighting is legitimate or not. It is time to quit living in the past and find out what these objects are, where they are from, who is suppressing the evidence, and why. To say that we cannot handle this situation because of a 1936 radio program that ambushed an unsuspecting, trusting, resource limited audience, is ludicrous.

The argument is not whether or not it is real, it is; Why has the investigation been shelved? Who is responsible? What are their intentions?

Unexplained does not mean inexplicable nor is everything worthy of an explanation. If the evidence truly was as overwhelming as you say, we would not be having this conversation. A boatload of stories don't make a case for anything without some kind of hard evidence to back them up.

Who is being condescending? The discussion was actually quite polite and civil prior to your arrival.

Edited May 31, 2014 by sinewave

[bmk1245]

[...]

Apparently, some haven't heard of the overwhelming evidence in the last several decades. [...]

If you mean circus named "Disclosure project", then you have nothing - zero zilch nada.

[AZDZ]

Who says it was definitely a building? And not a ship at sea?

You must have missed or forgotten Sinewaves earlier post:

I'm thinking fog and the top of a building. Is there any reason why that would be an unreasonable explanation?

All of my responses these last two pages have been in regards to that question.

Edited May 31, 2014 by AZDZ

[seeder]

Be careful about watching the sky, it may change your life forever.

If you think that makes you sound smart... it doesn't. Many skywatchers are here, me too. Life remains the same for me/us I expect

[seeder]

You must have missed or forgotten Sinewaves earlier post:

All of my responses these last two pages have been in regards to that question.

OK, so if you read all the thread - ships at sea were also a contender, which I posted early on

[sinewave]

You must have missed or forgotten Sinewaves earlier post:

All of my responses these last two pages have been in regards to that question.

I said that is what it looks like to me. No one stated anything for certain.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

The argument is not whether or not it is real, it is; Why has the investigation been shelved? Who is responsible? What are their intentions?

Of course, the obvious answer "they didn't find any evidence that they're alien spacecraft" is a lie.

Also, that's not an argument. That's a series of questions.

An argument would be "the investigation was shelved because the US government was contacted by the spacepeople and asked nicely to stop", because that's a statement of belief from which evidence can be offered, discussed and a counter-statement of belief can be offered.