• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

New Year's Photograph from Borneo

Free episodes:

Forums New posts
Noanswers

Noanswers

Skilled Investigator
While I can't speak to the veractiy of the publication that ran this, what they claim their photographer got, looks like a classic cigar shape. Who knows, it may be nothing. . .but I think it is important to keep an eye on contemporary events instead of dragging our knuckles through the desert sand of Roswell ad nauseum.

Looks like UFO on New Year's Day
 
Nope, its an airplane

You can tell that it was a long exposure due to the brightness of the fireworks, and complete trail from the ground to the tips of the explosions..... even the intensity of ambient light is a giveaway. The "UFO" is simply an airplane moving from right to left with the strobes appearing as white dots.

The fact that the camera was on a tripod and the shutter released with a cable shows that the photographer was going for a long exposure. My guess is that if you were able to look at the exif, you would find that the exposure is of several seconds...... very grainy too so is probably at a high ISO ;) ROFL - my main question is that why someone who is serious enough about photography to own a canon 5D and Manfroto tripod would not know this overexposed shot is nothing more than an airplane?
 
Siani I agree, although the way it has a defined 'start' and 'stop' point seems to rule out a vapour trail. Not saying I think it is anything, but yeah who knows.

Annoyingly, there isnt enough info. It seems from what is written that the dude just noticed it in one of his digital photos. I.E. He didnt see it, so cant comment on its movement or if there was actually anything there at all. Probably just a light artifact or something to do with fireworks.

edit, cheers fruitloop. makes sense.
 
There were some photos that were similar taken in Washington DC by a traffic camera about 4 years ago.
 
Look directly below the artifact - the image is very low res, but the top of the building directly below it looks awfully familiar.

dB
 
David Biedny said:
It looks like the "ufo" is a reflection from directly below. Again, image is VERY low res, so I can't be sure, but I think that's the answer.

dB
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I see what you mean, like an in-lens reflection perhaps?. Ive emailed the Borneo Bulletin to ask if its possible to see a full resolution image with its EXIF data intact (not holding breath though). The reason that I suggest the aircraft explanation is that I have taken similar long exposure night time shots where an airplane has appeared in the frame. If you look at the close up, there are white lights at equal spaces along the top which I believe are possibly tail strobes, then just below those again at equal spacing at red lights, again possibly strobes. The main body of the aircraft appears as a streak of light possibly due to the constant light of reflection off the white aircraft hull or the passenger window blinds being open. All imo and just thinking out loud really :)
 
Noanswers said:
While I can't speak to the veractiy of the publication that ran this, what they claim their photographer got, looks like a classic cigar shape. Who knows, it may be nothing. . .but I think it is important to keep an eye on contemporary events instead of dragging our knuckles through the desert sand of Roswell ad nauseum.

Looks like UFO on New Year's Day
Click to expand...

yeah to what you said about keeping an eye on the here and now while we constantly rehash Roswell, etal.
 
People really need to know when not to bother. Seriously, is anyone else as sick of these pointless, blurry, smudgy, pixelated pictures of NOTHING as I am?
 
The problem is, if you filter out all the blury pixelated images, you lose 90% of UFO pictures. I personally think that its a good thing than when somebody sees something that they cannot explain, they take the time to share their experience in an effort to question
it...... in this case to identify the object.

The camera used is a high megapixel Pro level DSLR, that is why ive asked the news site if we can see an original image, and not just their compressed, resized, pixelated JPEG. chances are they will say no or not even reply, but I have to try.
 
CapnG said:
Thus retaining the 10% of UFO pictures that actually show you something of substance. And the problem with that would be....?
Click to expand...

No problem at all if youre happy to miss something that may be relevant. While pictures like that Borneo image may be pixelated and of low resolution on the web, the original is likely of far higher resolution. Hell, it may have even be shot in RAW giving a slightly better chance of enhancement. Still worth a look imo (and it is just my opinion). on the flip side, a picture that looks like it may hold substance at low resolution may show obvious signs of hoax/manipulation at a reasonable resolution. Again, worth looking at.
 
Frootloop said:
No problem at all if youre happy to miss something that may be relevant.
Click to expand...

That would be my entire point: if you can't see it, then it's NOT relevant (or at least not helpful). Blurry pictures of pixelated light blobs, taken from hundreds of miles away with shitty cameras do NOTHING to aid the study of the UFO phenomenon. In fact, they detract from our efforts to understand by adding ammunition to the camps of debunkers who want to dismiss all UFO sightings as satellites, airplanes, meteors, etc.

In short: If it isn't exceptional, it's of no value.
 
CapnG said:
That would be my entire point: if you can't see it, then it's NOT relevant (or at least not helpful). Blurry pictures of pixelated light blobs, taken from hundreds of miles away with shitty cameras do NOTHING to aid the study of the UFO phenomenon. In fact, they detract from our efforts to understand by adding ammunition to the camps of debunkers who want to dismiss all UFO sightings as satellites, airplanes, meteors, etc.

In short: If it isn't exceptional, it's of no value.
Click to expand...

It's basically clutter. The only example where a crap pic or vid might be of value that I can think of off the top of my head, is if it's along with a good sighting report and/or radar case.

Generally it does more harm than good. Mainstream scientists, media, average Joes and Maries look at the crap pics and vids and come to the conclusion that there's nothing to the ufo phenomenon.
 
My point is that the news outlet that ran this piece labelled it as a UFO..... fair enough, its a sequence of lights in the sky with a constant light/object behind them. I personally have taken night time exposures of the sky where a passenger airplane has come into frame, in my opinion (and that is all it is) the photo in the article is of such a shot. Ive contacted the newspaper/website and pointed out my suspicions and at the same time asked if it would be possible to see the full resolution picture which could help verify what I believe. At the least, if it can be confirmed as something recognisable (i.e a long exposure of an airplane or a reflection within the lens) it no longer becomes a UFO and we (and the newspaper) know what it is for the future.

Where is the cut off point for the quality of an image as to whether its worth pursuing or not? if it is of a recognised object, I believe the producer of the article should be told so..... thus removing some mud from the water?!

As I said, this is just my opinion.
 
CapnG said:
Thus retaining the 10% of UFO pictures that actually show you something of substance. And the problem with that would be....?
Click to expand...

10% seems a bit to high.
I am thinking less than 1% of photos show you something of substance...

To be honest there is a lot of shit out there. All I need is 1 picture and I still haven't seen that.
 
Frootloop said:
My point is that the news outlet that ran this piece labelled it as a UFO..... fair enough, its a sequence of lights in the sky with a constant light/object behind them. I personally have taken night time exposures of the sky where a passenger airplane has come into frame, in my opinion (and that is all it is) the photo in the article is of such a shot. Ive contacted the newspaper/website and pointed out my suspicions and at the same time asked if it would be possible to see the full resolution picture which could help verify what I believe. At the least, if it can be confirmed as something recognisable (i.e a long exposure of an airplane or a reflection within the lens) it no longer becomes a UFO and we (and the newspaper) know what it is for the future.

Where is the cut off point for the quality of an image as to whether its worth pursuing or not? if it is of a recognised object, I believe the producer of the article should be told so..... thus removing some mud from the water?!

As I said, this is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I similarly used to do quite a bit of astrophotography and to me it looks like airplane in the distance, especially with the equal spacing of the lights. Its never a waste of time to stretch your grey matter and consider various solutions even if it is a 'mundane' explanation.
 
Back
Top