UFO debunking help needed ...
- Thread starter LSatyl
- Start date
The fact that you say you need help to debunk these photographs proves only that your interested in finding any unremarkable explanation which will fit even if you have to take a hammer and push the square peg into the round hole. Narrow mindedness does not impress me. However, I am very interested in the photographs so I'll toss you my 2 cents worth.
The quality of the photograph is just too high to say it was some kind of far-off light, airplane, helicopter, or decaying artificial sattilite. These images, while still rather blurry, have a lot more clarity than most UFO photos I've seen. This means to me it's either a very real object, or it was completely faked.
Natural Objects
The most naturalistic object which fits it's reported shape is some kind of wether, scientific research, or military balloon. The problem is that weather balloons and the like are typically flown at high altitudes, where their insturments tend to be most effective. The object shown here is either a very huge object high up, or it's a smaller object at a lower altitude. I wouldn't think it to be a particularly high object because if it was as big as that would make it to be, then air traffic in that area would be disrupted. So, we are left with an object flying low, so I think.
Hoax?
The possibility of a hoax is of course, very real with any UFO case. In fact, based on the description of the objects movements, the quality of the photographs, exct... their is no way to say that the witness mistook something normal for extrordinary. So, to me the hoax idea is a stronger idea than mistaking a balloon. Their are a few reasons to suspect a hoax besides the quality of the photographs. First is that the witness states that he was alone. Second, he describes it as having it's own method of propultion from the way it moved. And of course, it flies off at high speed just like at the end of hundreds of other "extrordinary" sightings. These photographs could well be fake, or it could be some kind of advertisment balloon in the parking lot which he is adding a big story to. Of course as well, the man's name has been witheld.
Real?
Wether or not you think it's real depends on if you trust the website you got the photographs from. Even I, a person who thinks that their are a number of downright bizzar UFO sightings, am not going to believe every set of prints someone hands me and every story someone gives me. The first thing that makes me wonder about rense.com is the fact that they have a whole article on how "DANGEROUS" milk is. Then, they have a very anti-semetic feeling article about how we are going to take out Iraq and what it means to Israel (written by 2 time Presidential looser Pat Buchanan). Some of the things they write about on the other hand are bonafied.
My Conclusion
Considering who is publishing these photographs, the fact that no one can corroborate them, I think they are most likely a hoax.
The quality of the photograph is just too high to say it was some kind of far-off light, airplane, helicopter, or decaying artificial sattilite. These images, while still rather blurry, have a lot more clarity than most UFO photos I've seen. This means to me it's either a very real object, or it was completely faked.
Natural Objects
The most naturalistic object which fits it's reported shape is some kind of wether, scientific research, or military balloon. The problem is that weather balloons and the like are typically flown at high altitudes, where their insturments tend to be most effective. The object shown here is either a very huge object high up, or it's a smaller object at a lower altitude. I wouldn't think it to be a particularly high object because if it was as big as that would make it to be, then air traffic in that area would be disrupted. So, we are left with an object flying low, so I think.
Hoax?
The possibility of a hoax is of course, very real with any UFO case. In fact, based on the description of the objects movements, the quality of the photographs, exct... their is no way to say that the witness mistook something normal for extrordinary. So, to me the hoax idea is a stronger idea than mistaking a balloon. Their are a few reasons to suspect a hoax besides the quality of the photographs. First is that the witness states that he was alone. Second, he describes it as having it's own method of propultion from the way it moved. And of course, it flies off at high speed just like at the end of hundreds of other "extrordinary" sightings. These photographs could well be fake, or it could be some kind of advertisment balloon in the parking lot which he is adding a big story to. Of course as well, the man's name has been witheld.
Real?
Wether or not you think it's real depends on if you trust the website you got the photographs from. Even I, a person who thinks that their are a number of downright bizzar UFO sightings, am not going to believe every set of prints someone hands me and every story someone gives me. The first thing that makes me wonder about rense.com is the fact that they have a whole article on how "DANGEROUS" milk is. Then, they have a very anti-semetic feeling article about how we are going to take out Iraq and what it means to Israel (written by 2 time Presidential looser Pat Buchanan). Some of the things they write about on the other hand are bonafied.
My Conclusion
Considering who is publishing these photographs, the fact that no one can corroborate them, I think they are most likely a hoax.
I think it was fake. Why?
This sentence here. From the looks of it this thing is not shiny, the first picture wasn't even taken facing the sunlight (the building is shadowed), so if that thing was really there the sun wouldn't be in the way. I can't believe that he just happened to be taking pictures when this thing happened, he's just way too lucky.
If he had other witnesses with him (ten+) then I would believe him (I want to believe), as I do believe in the UFO's that are witnessed by many dozens or hundreds of people (take the various incidents in Mexico city, for example) and also happen to be filmed, simply because many, many people are watching. But the image looks digital to me, like they just took the 'speculative rendering' turned down the resolution.
Welcome to sciforums, Lsatyl, and invite your pro or anti ufo friends over here, we could always use more.
This sentence here. From the looks of it this thing is not shiny, the first picture wasn't even taken facing the sunlight (the building is shadowed), so if that thing was really there the sun wouldn't be in the way. I can't believe that he just happened to be taking pictures when this thing happened, he's just way too lucky.
If he had other witnesses with him (ten+) then I would believe him (I want to believe), as I do believe in the UFO's that are witnessed by many dozens or hundreds of people (take the various incidents in Mexico city, for example) and also happen to be filmed, simply because many, many people are watching. But the image looks digital to me, like they just took the 'speculative rendering' turned down the resolution.
Welcome to sciforums, Lsatyl, and invite your pro or anti ufo friends over here, we could always use more.
Mmm, lightning looks a little strange to me. On image six it seems that there is a high sun, but the object seems lighted from the side. In the other pictures, the direction of the sun is difficult to determine, actually it looks as if its behind a cloud. But the lightning of the object is the same.
Another thing looks suspicious: The object is viewed from the same angle, no matter where in the sky it is, even in the picture where it seems to be banking. This is suggestive of a single picture being pasted in. Also it is shown in many different angles above the horizon, but its apparant size doesnt change accordingly. This suggests a fairly nearby object. For a distant object to change its angle much, it has to travel a greater distance, and its apparant size would change more.
Hans
Another thing looks suspicious: The object is viewed from the same angle, no matter where in the sky it is, even in the picture where it seems to be banking. This is suggestive of a single picture being pasted in. Also it is shown in many different angles above the horizon, but its apparant size doesnt change accordingly. This suggests a fairly nearby object. For a distant object to change its angle much, it has to travel a greater distance, and its apparant size would change more.
Hans
yeh there was but the balloon looked nothing lile that and was a lot higher, a hellofa lot higher.
the balloon in the picture was released about three months ago
but there is the problem... it is not readily identifiable so guess what??? it's a UFO!?! :bugeye:
but i have found another one of chris beecham's ufo's... on the weather site that is