UFO photographed from plane over London

[Calibeliever]

Simple explanation. It's the top of a building above a dense fog, but a strong gust of wind came along and blew it away. Nobody will probably notice it for years.

And again I'm left to figure out everything for everybody!

Your explanation is perfect! ... Right up to the point where the building flies away...

[sinewave]

The guns, so I remember so forcefully being told here, were radar controlled. They would not have fired unless there was a radar return to fire at. If there was nothing on radar, they guns wouldn't have fired no matter what they illuminated with searchlights.

http://www.unexplain...ic=261314&st=60

Look for Lost_Shaman schooling me on flippancy, wing nuttery and 1940s AA batteries on page 5.

There were SCR-268 RADAR systems used in LA on the night of the "battle" but they were mainly used to direct the fire and searchlights. They were not accurate enough to actually aim the guns. They were considered to be outdated even by the standards of 1942.

Edited June 1, 2014 by sinewave

[sinewave]

Point taken. I may be wrong, but it looks as though the distortions are present in the blowup. There is a lot of information that could make this process easier. However, the third, fourth and fifth photos do show that the object is in a different relationship with the clouds than it was in the first or second photo. As the fifth photo there is a wide expanse of blue sky between object and the top of the clouds. That is why I don't think that it was the building protruding from the clouds, but like I said, that was a good idea.

I dunno, I am hesitant to draw any conclusions from those images. The quality is so low.

[MyOtherAccount]

I wouldn't mind owning the camera that took the images! Pretty good zoom, as I see it.

Some things that might need to be considered:

1. In general, digital photos may contain the results of focus enhancements like unsharp masking*, Anti-alias processes**, multiple compression artifacts (as JC said), and resizing calculation inaccuracies or roundoffs.

When a photo's image focus is sharpened electronically, then resized or saved the artifacts really multiply. When it is reviewed again a whole lot of anti-alias will be noted. This is because of the additional alternating color bands near contrasting edges.that the focus process creates.

So, when I can I save my photos as uncompressed TIFF files. When the time comes to use one I will make a JPG or PNG copy. Then I do whatever manipulation is required to satisfy the best use of the photo.

Anyway, going that deep into a pix can bring on interesting variations of the pixels.

2. The window material of the plane encounters lots of stress. I don't know this for sure, but I simply assume that deformations in the window from stress might be the cause of the slight horizontal movement I see in the image.

____________

* unsharp masking: edge detection--from detecting changes in color, luminous-ity, and/or contrast--followed by an exchange of pixel the depth of which is set by the radius selected, e.g. like interpolation of juxtaposition, repetitive numbers:

999999999999111111111111--focus enhancement for a radius of one-->9999999999919111111111

999999999999111111111111--focus enhancement for a radius of two-->9999999999119911111111

Some cameras do this and other things on the fly. That is why Pro's like RAW images and process them into the encoding best for the purpose they have in mind.

** The pixels that aren't the color of either of the edges but various hues of them and very close to the edges.

* **

[MyOtherAccount]

I decided to go looking for a tall building that might look the same! Tower 42 looks a lot like it! Here it is in the background of this picture--a little darker than how it appeared on wiki...

What do you think?

[sinewave]

I wouldn't mind owning the camera that took the images! Pretty good zoom, as I see it.

Some things that might need to be considered:

1. In general, digital photos may contain the results of focus enhancements like unsharp masking*, Anti-alias processes**, multiple compression artifacts (as JC said), and resizing calculation inaccuracies or roundoffs.

When a photo's image focus is sharpened electronically, then resized or saved the artifacts really multiply. When it is reviewed again a whole lot of anti-alias will be noted. This is because of the additional alternating color bands near contrasting edges.that the focus process creates.

So, when I can I save my photos as uncompressed TIFF files. When the time comes to use one I will make a JPG or PNG copy. Then I do whatever manipulation is required to satisfy the best use of the photo.

Anyway, going that deep into a pix can bring on interesting variations of the pixels.

2. The window material of the plane encounters lots of stress. I don't know this for sure, but I simply assume that deformations in the window from stress might be the cause of the slight horizontal movement I see in the image.

____________

* unsharp masking: edge detection--from detecting changes in color, luminous-ity, and/or contrast--followed by an exchange of pixel the depth of which is set by the radius selected, e.g. like interpolation of juxtaposition, repetitive numbers:

999999999999111111111111--focus enhancement for a radius of one-->9999999999919111111111

999999999999111111111111--focus enhancement for a radius of two-->9999999999119911111111

Some cameras do this and other things on the fly. That is why Pro's like RAW images and process them into the encoding best for the purpose they have in mind.

** The pixels that aren't the color of either of the edges but various hues of them and very close to the edges.

* **

Regardless, those images are crap and not terribly useful for our purposes.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

There were SCR-268 RADAR systems used in LA on the night of the "battle" but they were mainly used to direct the fire and searchlights. They were not accurate enough to actually aim the guns. They were considered to be outdated even by the standards of 1942.

The way I understood it, radar wouldn't "direct" the guns, it'd "unlock" the guns to fire only if there was a radar return to prevent misfires and the sort of stupidity we saw during the Battle of LA.

[psyche101]

The way I understood it, radar wouldn't "direct" the guns, it'd "unlock" the guns to fire only if there was a radar return to prevent misfires and the sort of stupidity we saw during the Battle of LA.

These beasties - LINK

[+DieChecker]

I think the 122 Leadenhall Street building (The Cheese Grater) is a good possibility...

The UFO...

The Cheese Grater... (It's the one in the center that is angled)

It appears to be the tallest building in the area, and would be clearly visible from any plane landing approaching Heathrow from the south, when passing around London to the east or west.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_London

Another angle on the same building... (Back and to the left) (Notice the cranes.)

There looks like what could be cranes on each end to help with construction. And lights on the top (again for construction purposes). A crane hanging out over the end with a light on it would explain the light on the right side of the UFO. And as the plane flew on and around toward Heathrow, the building would have appeared to go up and have gotten smaller, even though it was stationary.

[quillius]

Yes, it was a bungled Halloween joke. The 'social experiment' was basically, how the final results were viewed. A large enough sample to basically determine the alien/panic connection and the lesson was taken from it.

Kecksberg has a huge number of witnesses, but no wreckage.

Battle of LA, there was no radar involved as the object was spotted then illuminated with searchlights.

https://en.wikipedia..._of_Los_Angeles

RADAR was involved.

http://www.cufon.org...fLosAngeles.pdf

''object 120 miles west of LA, well tracked'

1 x SCR 268 and also 2 x SCR 270's registered an object.

Balloons cannot travel at such speed (tracked for 120 miles)

The official balloon launch was after initial RADAR return.

edit to add: apologies for derailment of thread. Any responses to the above post of mine regarding the battle of LA can be continued here I suppose http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=223065&hl

Edited June 2, 2014 by quillius

[kwin]

These beasties - LINK

. An interesting link. You might enjoy this one also as it includes the battle.

http://the-wanderlin...ar-dilemma.html

FYI , when I said no radar involved, I was referring to the battle itself, to my knowledge.

At the start of the London object video, there is a map that seems to show that the incident took place over Inverness, according to the locator pin. Radar returns might be helpful, as per the Stephenville, Texas incident. (I guess a person needs to be quick) At any rate, this was an interesting article and photos. I enjoyed your information. Cheers all

Edited June 2, 2014 by kwin

[Mr. ET]

I disagree. A good photoshop job can leave very little visible evidence. Sometimes with a bit of playing around with the gamma you can see the tell tale marks of the use of the clone and repair tools, but at first glance a good photoshop job leaves no visible traces. Obvious traces of photoshopping is evidence of a poor job.

Not at that resolution. When its zoomed in that far its nearly impossible to use repair tools without anything being noticed there doesn't seem to be enough pixels for even a pro to do a perfect job on, which is why photographers love very high res material to work with. But then again who's to say it wasn't a high res photo in the beginning and they did the work and resized the image.

[Jyre Cayce]

Crappy quality is the hallmark of all ufo pictures.

[JesseCuster]

But then again who's to say it wasn't a high res photo in the beginning and they did the work and resized the image.

That's one of the easiest ways to hide Photoshopping of an image. Photoshop in your ghost or UFO, resize the image downward and then save it at a really low quality JPEG level. The resulting lower resolution and JPEG artefacting can hide all sorts of crud in a photo.

But that's only one way of doing it. It's possible to Photoshop in stuff at the resolution the photo will be displayed or printed without it being obvious, depending on what you're Photoshopping in and how you do it.

Though I don't think it's relevant to this case, I don't think the photos have been altered.

[Smedley Butler Jr.]

Let me get this straight: you people debate about whether flying saucers are real, but I mention the Illuminati (aka, the New World order, aka, the international mafia that runs much of the world) and some twit insults me? Homo sapiens never cease to amaze me.

[Smedley Butler Jr.]

Yes. It is absolutely a hoax UFO from the Illuminati. Or a building sticking up out of fog.

As I stated to the other person who insulted me, you people debate about whether ET is flying around in space craft, but I mention the Illuminati for which there is historical precedent (aka, the .01% ruling class) and people give me an attitude? Yes, I'm sure all of you are rational, objective men and women of science.

[S2F]

As I stated to the other person who insulted me, you people debate about whether ET is flying around in space craft, but I mention the Illuminati for which there is historical precedent (aka, the .01% ruling class) and people give me an attitude? Yes, I'm sure all of you are rational, objective men and women of science.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss the illuminati/UFO connection as without significant evidence to suggest it's veracity pertaining to this case it is off topic in this thread.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

As I stated to the other person who insulted me, you people debate about whether ET is flying around in space craft, but I mention the Illuminati for which there is historical precedent (aka, the .01% ruling class) and people give me an attitude? Yes, I'm sure all of you are rational, objective men and women of science.

Because we discuss the possibility of one unproven concept, we have to accept and discuss all unproven concepts?

The Illuminati aren't aliens - unless you want to say they are and in which case wibble - so they're not discussed in this section.

[scowl]

Crappy quality is the hallmark of all ufo pictures.

Hang on. I'm still working on turning my super sharp UFO pictures into a ridiculous YouTube video.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Crappy quality is the hallmark of all ufo pictures.

That's because of the anti-gravity field being generated by the UFO.

[Junior Chubb]

Let me get this straight: you people debate about whether flying saucers are real, but I mention the Illuminati (aka, the New World order, aka, the international mafia that runs much of the world) and some twit insults me? Homo sapiens never cease to amaze me.

Whether the object is a UFO, building etc is being discussed as it is the subject at hand, not because we are wacky. People are offering plausible explanations for what may have been seen from the window of a plane, and there are some very sane responses.

The Illuminati are often discussed on the pages of this forum when it is relevant, at this point they are not.

If you go back and re-read your original post in relation to the rest of the thread you might see why it was treated with contempt.

Either way hopefully the responses will not put you off visiting UM and your posts will follow the topic more closely and attract more positive responses in the future.

Welcome to UM SB Jr

BTW this section might be more up your street http://www.unexplain...hp?showforum=11 or just search Illuminati in the forums to confirm there is not a plot to stop it being discussed.

[MyOtherAccount]

If you go back and re-read your original post in relation to the rest of the thread you might see why it was treated with contempt.

...

Either way hopefully the responses will not put you off visiting UM and your posts will follow the topic more closely and attract more positive responses in the future.

...

Welcome to UM SB Jr

Welcome to UM Smedley

Chubb, I like the way you addressed the situation...

At the risk of putting someone off because of disagreeing, or even worse being off topic, it seems to me there is little intolerable difference between mentioning the Illuminati in a UFO response than responding in the following way in a UFO discussion:

UFO --> Public Panic --> Battle of LA --> Spotlights --> Radar

The primary difference as I see it is a new member verses some really old-timers.

I agree with the spirit of keeping on topic, however.

[Sakari]

As I stated to the other person who insulted me, you people debate about whether ET is flying around in space craft, but I mention the Illuminati for which there is historical precedent (aka, the .01% ruling class) and people give me an attitude? Yes, I'm sure all of you are rational, objective men and women of science.

Who are " you people "....

And whom does that make you?

[TheGreatBeliever]

Been seeing so many ufo pics. Wat about the aliens themselves? Any plane manufacturer can build an Unidentified Flying Object

[sinewave]

Been seeing so many ufo pics. Wat about the aliens themselves? Any plane manufacturer can build an Unidentified Flying Object

They all can. I think what you are really asking is whether or not they can build alien spacecraft capable of traversing vast expanses of interstellar space. Probably not.