Daylight boomerang UFO pics

[crunchy5]

An interesting article with pics from a good site if any one's interested and doesn't know this one already, worth going to their home link and checking it out.

http://www.hbccufo.org/modules.php?name ... e&sid=2317

Full Description of event/sighting: Took a picture a very bright looking star to the west of me which was floating several hundred meters and approximately 1 kilometer from my location.

Went into home, downloaded picture onto computer and bright star turned out to be a boomerang shaped craft with discernable structural elements. No contrail behind object, no sound from object. Object proceeded in a south to north direction slowly for 23 minutes before direct line of sight of object cut off by intervening homes.

The approximate location of object was latitude: 51 degrees, 4 seconds, 19.08 North; 114 degrees, 8 minutes, 34.21 seconds West.

link to pic..
http://www.hbccufo.org/videos/Calgary_Alberta_Boom.jpg

 

[Peripart]

The approximate location of object was latitude: 51 degrees, 4 seconds, 19.08 North; 114 degrees, 8 minutes, 34.21 seconds West.

Approximate? Giving coordinates to the nearest 0.01 seconds locates an object to the nearest foot or thereabouts. A bit OTT for something "several hundred meters and approximately 1 kilometer from my location"!

Still, it's an intriguing photo. My first guess would be that it's a B52 or similar bomber at a much higher altitude than originally thought - the altitude could explain the lack of sound, atmospheric conditions could prevent a contrail from being visible, and the sun reflecting off the wings might make the fuselage difficult to make out. It's notoriously difficult to guess range and altitude when there are no points of reference. Nice distinct boomerang shape, all the same.

 

[GNC]

It might just be a seagull.

 

[henry]

Image looks enlarged, be nice to see it in original context, maybe with the rooftops the guy mentions for distance/size. Doubt we will get that though.

Also, it looks less boomerang-shaped than almost a right-angle... Would a flying wing or similar be able to obtain that degree of angle safely? I mean, applying known laws of aerodynamics and the whole science of not coming screaming out of the sky...

 

[wembley8]

Look very closely and you can see it's a triangle rather than a boomerang - the base is black rather than the blue of the sky.

Odd!

 

[henry]

Look very closely and you can see it's a triangle rather than a boomerang - the base is black rather than the blue of the sky.

A cut an paste?

 

[rynner2]

...turned out to be a boomerang shaped craft with discernable structural elements.

Could be the result of camera shake as far as I can see. There's no info on camera type or settings either. As peripart points out, there are no points of reference, while the co-ordinates are laughably precise.

discernable structural elements?

No! Portholes and legs are what I call 'discernable structural elements'!

I can't see any evidential value in this at all.

 

[eburacum]

Oh dear. I'm going to have to say Venus again.

Here is the sky for Calgary at 0930pm on 8 April 2007

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/3361/venusen4.jpg
As you can see Venus is prominent in the west.

The description of the object states 'a very bright looking star to the west of me' and 'Object proceeded in a south to north direction slowly for 23 minutes before direct line of sight of object cut off by intervening homes.'

Venus moves towards the north when in the west, until it sets. 23 minutes is a long...............................................long time to observe any kind of aircraft, even an alien one; but it is entirely consistent with a celestial object.

The distance estimated by the observer is almost certainly irrelevant, as the distance to an object of unknown size cannot be estimated at night with no other visual cues if the distance is greater than a couple of hundred yards. Also the shape of the image on the film is probably irrelevant, as this shape was not seen by the observer directly, and is likely to be due to camera shake, as Rimmer suggests.

 

[Jerry_B]

IMHO the photo seems to have quite alot of image sharpening applied to it, which could suggest more of an edge to the shape than was actually the case. It would be more useful to see the original image.