• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Things That Are NOT UFOs

Trevp666 said:
They do whatever 'sells copy'.
If it's a picture of a London Bus on the moon, or Elvis landing a UFO at Area 51, or the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, Sasquatch and the Yeti, having a Tea Party, it's all fair game.
Click to expand...
Yeah - but what if it's all true?
 
Sid said:
After viewing the video evidence - a number of times, I notice that the video shows that the so-called 'UFO' only appears just as the car appears in the foreground starts to cross in front of the camera.
Then as the 'UFO' disappears from view, the car has coincidentally passed out of the view of the camera, (*note that the headlight of the car appears to been on). I believe this is really only a capture of refracted light, which the camera catches on the front of the lens.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I noticed that too. But it doesn't happen with the other vehicles. Were their lights not on?
 
Trevp666 said:
IIRC it depends what you're referring to. A 'UAP' would be any 'Unknown Aerial Phenomena' so that would be all sorts of things above us, including strange lights, clouds etc, whereas the term 'UFO' would more likely be ascribed to something with a defined solid shape indicating an actual craft of some sort. Similarly a 'USO' would be a solid thing underwater.
Click to expand...
USO = Unidentified Swimming Object?
Unidentified Sinking Object?
Unidentified Soggy Object?
 
Sharon Hill said:
Yeah, I noticed that too. But it doesn't happen with the other vehicles. Were their lights not on?
Click to expand...
one of the weird quirks with reflections and refractions in lenses is that they might need a specific angle or specific color to work. No lens actually refracts every color of light at the same index. the ones people commonly use are close, but.... it's not 100%.
AnonyJ said:
USO = Unidentified Swimming Object?
Unidentified Sinking Object?
Unidentified Soggy Object?
Click to expand...
usual term is "submerged" since the term is not exclusive to MOVING objects, and often gets applied to sonar shadows.
 
went lookign around and couldn't find many good examples, but did find this:
It has a few clips where you can see some weird artifacting.

the thumbnail shot has a dot to the left... that's a lens flare artifact.
 
AnonyJ said:
USO = Unidentified Swimming Object?
Unidentified Sinking Object?
Unidentified Soggy Object?
Click to expand...
As Marhawkman said, 'submerged', but also 'submersible' is acceptable.

And definitely not 'Unusual Sausage-like Object'.
 
Sharon Hill said:
Yeah, I noticed that too. But it doesn't happen with the other vehicles. Were their lights not on?
Click to expand...
It seems that all the previous cars that passed by did indeed have their headlights on.
The car that passes with the anomaly in the sky also had it's light on, but the light from that particular car was much more scattered towards the camera lens, I think simply because of the design of the headlights frontall shape - as in this capture. . .
1690799053385.png

*Notice the light deflection moves exactly at pace with this passing vehicle.
 
Last edited:
I was sitting in my garden as sunset approached and saw a small bright moving spot about 5 or 10° above the horizon at most. The light appeared brighter than in the photo.

light1.jpg


I looked at FlightRadar 24 and there were a few aircraft in the direction of London, about 55 miles away, either heading for Heathrow or departing so I expect it was the sun reflecting off one of them. The small spot to the left could be one of the winglets catching the sun.
I'm disappointed there's a likely explanation.
 
Erinaceus said:
I was sitting in my garden as sunset approached and saw a small bright moving spot about 5 or 10° above the horizon at most. The light appeared brighter than in the photo.

View attachment 68905

I looked at FlightRadar 24 and there were a few aircraft in the direction of London, about 55 miles away, either heading for Heathrow or departing so I expect it was the sun reflecting off one of them. The small spot to the left could be one of the winglets catching the sun.
I'm disappointed there's a likely explanation.
Click to expand...
I know exactly what you mean, Erinaceus. I felt the same when I spotted some lights acting weirdly in the night sky when I was watching a fireworks display. I kept watching them manoeuvring around, and I was getting more and more intrigued, but in the end I had to admit they were almost certainly just drones. 'Likely explanations' are just so boring.
 
Erinaceus said:
I was sitting in my garden as sunset approached and saw a small bright moving spot about 5 or 10° above the horizon at most. The light appeared brighter than in the photo.

View attachment 68905

I looked at FlightRadar 24 and there were a few aircraft in the direction of London, about 55 miles away, either heading for Heathrow or departing so I expect it was the sun reflecting off one of them. The small spot to the left could be one of the winglets catching the sun.
I'm disappointed there's a likely explanation.
Click to expand...
I wonder if a satellite would reflect enough light to give this kind of glare? Maybe from their solar panels etc? Could this possibly be an explanation for the brightness from the slowly moving object, as it could have been much further away than you might have assumed?
 
Some evenings there's a brilliant light at the front of a contrail for a moment as the sun is reflected off the aircraft so I'm pretty confident this was just an aircraft without a visible contrail.
 
Looks 'shopped' to me.
Especially the 'bowls' in the background that appear to be some distance off the ground.
I'm not buying it.
 
It's not birds thats for sure and that viaduct is near 500 yards long so they
are quite big, my best guess is a reflection/lense flare though I have never seen
it befor in that camara.
 
I also think this is also a strange picture.

I doesn’t seem computer generated.
 
No I can assure you of that I was watching live and took screen shots,
 
Looks like internal reflections in the camera, something that happens a lot with electronic cams.

2-jpg.6773

IMG_3499.JPG_20140407_120807_20140407_120809.jpg

I note that each of the reflections in your captures are doubled up, which may indicate that there was an extra sheet of glass between the cam and the view which could create a double image.
 
There seem to be (at least) two sets of double flares in those pictures, all arranged along a line connected to the Sun (as one might expect)
flares.png
 
eburacum said:
There seem to be (at least) two sets of double flares in those pictures, all arranged along a line connected to the Sun (as one might expect)
Click to expand...
Only complication within that 'erubacum,' is that if it is caused by internal reflections then it's a bit more difficult to understand how the twin internal reflection manages to travel between the first capture and the last capture, especially as the camera appears not to be moving between shots?
1693132101183.png
 
The cam does appear to rotate, however, so the lens of the cam will subtend a different angle to the Sun over time. You can see that the camera is rotating because the text appears in a different location in different shots.

rotate1.png
 
eburacum said:
The cam does appear to rotate, however, so the lens of the cam will subtend a different angle to the Sun over time. You can see that the camera is rotating because the text appears in a different location in different shots.

View attachment 69084
Click to expand...
But if that's right, doesn't it suggest that the camera is being moved to the right - not to the left?
As the car that is passing in shot is not the guide (also keeping in mind that the car is travelling by at speed), but the position of the metal fence posts are.
"It's confusing to work out!"
I'm suspecting that the two objects over the water are in fact two birds which have been blurred as well as shifting place?
 
Last edited:
The car is parked. The camera is moving, from right to left (in my image the first capture is the lowest one, which may be confusing).

Any flares caused by the Sun will tend to appear along a line that directly intersects the Sun, so the angle and location of the flares will change as the camera rotates towards the Sun. If the camera rotated so that it was pointed directly towards the Sun, the flares would appear directly underneath the source of light.
 
Last edited:
eburacum said:
The car is parked. The camera is moving.

Any flares caused by the Sun will tend to appear along a line that directly intersects the Sun, so the angle and location of the flares will change as the camera rotates towards the Sun. If the camera rotated so that it was pointed directly towards the Sun, the flares would appear directly underneath the source of light.
Click to expand...
I failed to recognise that because of the lamppost in shot - what-a-mistaka-to-maka! :botp:
 
eburacum said:
The car is parked. The camera is moving, from right to left (in my image the first capture is the lowest one, which may be confusing).

Any flares caused by the Sun will tend to appear along a line that directly intersects the Sun, so the angle and location of the flares will change as the camera rotates towards the Sun. If the camera rotated so that it was pointed directly towards the Sun, the flares would appear directly underneath the source of light.
Click to expand...
In this closer shot it does seem to depict (suggest) that it might well be partially showing two 'birds' flying but also with coloured light refractions, or something within - or upon the lens of the camera itself which is causing the apparent images? Obviously it does seem to be showing the same double image twice.
1693134268352.png
 
There is a bird directly over the 3rd person the child to the left of the pier, I
don't believe they are birds.
 
Sid said:
...also with coloured light refractions, or something within - or upon the lens of the camera itself which is causing the apparent images? Obviously it does seem to be showing the same double image twice.
Click to expand...
Good observation; the coloured refractions do seem to indicate that these are optical phenomena. I expect there is at least one pane of glass outside the lens of the webcam, which is responsible for the reflections and the refracted colours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top