i thought it was lost forever, but i found it, so here it is. zoom in on the top right corner of the pic, use any tool or visuals enhancer you want. the image has not been manipulated in anyway except for being resized by photobucket.

no way in HELL is that a plane.



http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f2/jrt123/DSCN0884.jpg

ummmm

ok.

in fact, if you focus on just the ufo and look very closely, you can see a faint horizontal line around the rim with two "teeth marks" around the edge of the saucer.

frisbee?

not at 10,000 ft surely?

this was taken from a 3rd floor window btw so its pretty high up

i can even see the biped waving hello though the window

the odds of the aliens being bipeds is remarkably surprising!
have you contacted NASA?

at a shutter speed of 1/30 nearly everything in a distance of 10m could've made this streak...a bird, a snowball, practically anything that can get airborne....

Lame.

well that may be true, but there are a few things that are really weird about this image; first of all, the ufo's trajectory seems kind of irregular, like its dipping forward slightly, which i think really contrasts with the apparent height of the object in relation to the amount of detail shown on its side. secondly, the size of the object is totally uncertain and the shape seems oddly well-defined for something at that height. what i'm saying is that unless this really was a Flying Saucer that just happened to be an unusal size and flying at kindof a weird angle, i suppose there is a chance i was hallucinating and something normal really did fly in front of the camera.

but what could that be? a white bug that shines in the evening light? not a golf ball or baseball? it doesn't have any features to suggest that its a bird either.

i am certain that this is the real deal, if admittedly a typically vague photo. the thing must have been going really fast though, whatever it was.

Lame.

yeah we don't have any godfather in this thread yet, sorry

Huh. Well there certainly does seem to be something odd going on when I enhance...

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5834/enhance1lp7.jpg

Hrm. Enhance.

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/2070/enhance2oc5.jpg

^what did you do there? is the black line drawn on?

Enhance?

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/8169/enhance3qh4.jpg

oh very funny asswipe.

although that would be great. if aliens came to earth just to say that.

TOTALLY REAL.

Enhance?

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/8169/enhance3qh4.jpg

:rofl:

ENHANCE!!!


:rockon:

Brilliant

so, we're agreed then. this IS definitive proof of extraterrestrial activity.

¯\(º_o)/¯

Enhance?

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/8169/enhance3qh4.jpg

:rofl:

laughed pretty hard at topleybird's reveal

i'm more concerned about the freaky argentinian gnome in the lower left

the reflection of a striplight on the window or something

well that may be true, but there are a few things that are really weird about this image; first of all, the ufo's trajectory seems kind of irregular, like its dipping forward slightly, which i think really contrasts with the apparent height of the object in relation to the amount of detail shown on its side. secondly, the size of the object is totally uncertain and the shape seems oddly well-defined for something at that height. what i'm saying is that unless this really was a Flying Saucer that just happened to be an unusal size and flying at kindof a weird angle, i suppose there is a chance i was hallucinating and something normal really did fly in front of the camera.

but what could that be? a white bug that shines in the evening light? not a golf ball or baseball? it doesn't have any features to suggest that its a bird either.

i am certain that this is the real deal, if admittedly a typically vague photo. the thing must have been going really fast though, whatever it was.
I'M ABOUT TO BREAK

laughed pretty hard at isle's total lack of reasoning skills

laughed pretty hard at mxzombie's miserable face

at a shutter speed of 1/30 nearly everything in a distance of 10m could've made this streak...a bird, a snowball, practically anything that can get airborne....

.

By the way these are called rods, I recently watched an hour long tv show about them. They are caused exactly how severin described something anything flying in front of the camera. Your UFO is a moth.

is there some reason isle hasn't reasoned himself off a cliff yet

i nominate isle for the position of netphorian most likely to develope paranoid schizophrenia in the near future.

future?

i nominate isle for the position of netphorian most likely to develope paranoid schizophrenia in the near future.

Come on. You can do better than that. You weren't even trying. Jeez.

that wasn't an insult.

that wasn't an insult.

Well then... my mistake.

i am certain that this is the real deal, if admittedly a typically vague photo. the thing must have been going really fast though, whatever it was.

Yeah, it was probably in a hurry to pick up Sasquach and his Argentinian gnome friends and get back to the Gum Drop Forest before the wormhole that Elvis generated at Tupac's crib vanished.

(I'm sorry :blush: )

isle, i rather enjoyed your alien tales on that other thread
but this pic (and your impressions of it) spoil something for me, i must say

It looks like a swan to me. I'll forward this image to a friend of mine; he works at a swannery.

From: "Name Removed" <email removed>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 4:47 PM
To: "Name Removed" <email removed>
Subject: Re:

>
> The fuck is this? http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f2/jrt123/DSCN0884.jpg
>



It's a swan.


<akdkj>

??? = Cherubdaydream?

Not the Cherubdaydream I know surely???

Woa!

??? = Cherubdaydream?

negative.

??? = Cherubdaydream?

Not the Cherubdaydream I know surely???

Woa!

how do you know cherubdaydream? did he touch your boobs and butt?

*butts

and lips!!! goddamnit, and lips!!!!

no sex yet tho

ich lachte

well that may be true, but there are a few things that are really weird about this image; first of all, the ufo's trajectory seems kind of irregular, like its dipping forward slightly, which i think really contrasts with the apparent height of the object in relation to the amount of detail shown on its side. secondly, the size of the object is totally uncertain and the shape seems oddly well-defined for something at that height. what i'm saying is that unless this really was a Flying Saucer that just happened to be an unusal size and flying at kindof a weird angle, i suppose there is a chance i was hallucinating and something normal really did fly in front of the camera.

but what could that be? a white bug that shines in the evening light? not a golf ball or baseball? it doesn't have any features to suggest that its a bird either.

i am certain that this is the real deal, if admittedly a typically vague photo. the thing must have been going really fast though, whatever it was.

:rofl: you sound like someone from the discovery channel

sorry not meaning to poke fun! :smoke:

isle, i rather enjoyed your alien tales on that other thread
but this pic (and your impressions of it) spoil something for me, i must say


just to clarify, the incident i described in the other thread was a totally separate event. this photo had nothing to do with it, its just something i accidentally caught on camera one day.

also, reading back through my "analysis" i think i have to concur that i am probably the greatest troll of all time

thanks netphoria

just to clarify, the incident i described in the other thread was a totally separate event. this photo had nothing to do with it, its just something i accidentally caught on camera one day.

also, reading back through my "analysis" i think i have to concur that i am probably the greatest troll of all time

thanks netphoria

im sorry if i am a "noob" or whatever you kiddelums call it

*never understood it

but what is a troll...? :think:

is it a man with scurvy?

an artist, first and foremost.

only idiots believed you anyways

just wikipediafied what troll is

I want to be a "concern troll"

sneeky bastards...!

is that right

or maybe you just haven't got a clue what you're talking about

¯\(º_o)/¯

no no go look for yourself

a concern troll is someone who spreads mischief by claiming to be an ally with "concerns" thus making other people unsure about the topic of debate

so thar windbag!!

japanalex is a good example why there should be an age limit to netphoria

i propose the following equation:

netphorian age limit = nimrod son's age - 1 year

ok..?

well i am 39!

where does that put me?

puts you almost kicking the arse of 40







oh yeah


you old fucker ;)

woah. almost dead.


bummer!

yeah nearly 40 now...

arrrthriiitis . s .sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

first of all, the ufo's trajectory seems kind of irregular, like its dipping forward slightly

. . .

the thing must have been going really fast though, whatever it was.

Isle I admit I didn't read your posts terrifically thoroughly the first time through, but am I correct in assuming you did not actually see this UFO when you were taking the picture?

^correct.

What led you to, you know, not dismiss this as a random smudge, then? Like, how do you explain to yourself that you did not see this large spacecraft performing bizarre maneuvers at high speeds above your head and right in your line of sight?

elementory my dear watson

What led you to, you know, not dismiss this as a random smudge, then? Like, how do you explain to yourself that you did not see this large spacecraft performing bizarre maneuvers at high speeds above your head and right in your line of sight?

well first off, i'm sure it wasn't performing any "bizarre maneuvers"- judging by the picture it was, if anything, just going in one direction, and pretty damn quickly at that. so there's a perfectly good chance that it just zipped by at such a speed that i didn't notice it. and like i said before, i dismiss the idea that it is anything but a flying saucer because it doesn't look much like any other flying object that i know of and the size and distance of it suggest that it is clearly far away and not a smaller object in the foreground.

now why couldn't you have just read my other damn post.

this was taken from a 3rd floor window btw so its pretty high up

that explains hwo you were able to see it... usually they are too high up to be observed with the naked eye

"Usually"?

WILL PEOPLE START READING MY DAMN POSTS PROPERLY

there are probably people who can judge this more professionally than us. ever thought of showing this any agencies or something like that, james?

yeah i've thought of emailing it to someone who works in photography or something, but i haven't seen this picture in years- i thought it existed solely on the hard drive of my old computer which was wiped, so i was really relieved to stumble across it again.

anyway, i thought a few netphorians would be photo-savvy enough to examine the pic themselves. i'm sure consulting a specialist wouldn't prove much more conclusive.

um none of us are specialists in the field of ufophotography

looks like a cloud or some sorta weather phenomena going on to me. i'ma look into this

how could you possibly tell anything about the size, scale, or distance of this streak against a cloudy sky, the size of which you also have no point of reference for?

if you paint a small house on a piece of paper it will look like it's far away to you even if you haven't got a point of reference. we have the same sort of distance judgment for ufo's

it will just look like a tiny house

it's still possible to find out things like size etc

astronomers do this all the time with celestial bodies

it's still possible to find out things like size etc

astronomers do this all the time with celestial bodieseither way, this streak could be caused by something small like an insect flying very close or a very large object flying at high speed at a great distance. it's impossible to tell because there are no other known objects in the photograph that can be used as a reference

it's still possible to find out things like size etc

astronomers do this all the time with celestial bodies

how do they do that exactly and why would that be translated to this situation? i can't think of anything they could do on the top of my head that they do in astronomy to judge distance

i cant believe this have reached 3 pages

we had this in school but i forgot how it worked. i think it may apply to this situation. as i said, ask a specialist.

that was directed at isle, keep track of who you're talking to. also you're not making much of an argument for your point here "it works the way i say it does but i forgot exactly how"

my point is simply that if he's so convinced he's right he should show this to people who actually care and have knowledge about this kind of thing, instead of us, who will just ridicule him for his standpoint anyway.

and i apologise for getting you two confused

photographic forensics experts will first check the pixels to see if the image has been shopped or manipulated- stuff like the exactness of the colours/lighting in relation to the surroundings or the amount of visible detail compared to other objects can give clues as to whether the object is faraway or close up. its not much different from gauging how far away something is with your own eyes.

if he's so convinced he's right he should show this to people who actually care and have knowledge about this kind of thing, instead of us, who will just ridicule him for his standpoint anyway.


this says so much; you'll ridicule me for my standpoint anyway. you of all people must know how important the possibility of ufo visitations is to science, yet you'd rather dismiss it altogether and be so juvenile as to mock me for caring. really great messageboard, this

it's important to "science" sure, but it would also be important to science if a fire breathing dragon was found in the jungles of amazonas. doesn't mean that it's going to happen or that it's not a waste of time for any serious science-guy to deal with.

jesus, anything's a possible "waste of time" if you can't prove it exists, yet that's the whole fucking point of mysteries, cause people want to find out if they're true

and there might not be any known cases of dragons in the amazon but the loch ness monster has been pretty fucking popular for the last few hundred years right?

look ???

i think that you would try to stress any arguement regardless of the level of obsurdity

i mean.. hm.. if this thread wasn't about ufo's but about something completely different - the thread would be exactly the same.. no no that's not it.

hmmm

basically there is no way to argue the point

you either believe or you don't (and I think most people don't)

and even if you argue convincingly people will still say "send it to a science guy" or whatever



I just don't want to see you get hurt tis all *blubbering*

trying to find something that isn't proven to exist might always be a waste of time (if you define your time as being wasted if you don't find what you're looking for) but there are some things that are almost certainly a waste of time (trying to find dragons, ufo's, loch ness monster) and some things that are less likely to not be found, like the proton gradient mechanism in the electron transport chain which they proved to exist during the 70's or whenever. the difference lies in the amount of decent evidence available and you have to not be a crackpot in order to understand what constitutes decent evidence.

you said that alot better than I did

..bastard cough cough

im a joking!! a joking!!

fuck off japanalex.

check the pixels

fuck off japanalex.

and waste the opertunity to annoy you?

how could I do such a thing

photographic forensics experts will first check the pixels to see if the image has been shopped or manipulated- stuff like the exactness of the colours/lighting in relation to the surroundings or the amount of visible detail compared to other objects can give clues as to whether the object is faraway or close up. its not much different from gauging how far away something is with your own eyes.are you a photographic forensic expert? do you know even remotely what "checking the pixels" entails? it is entirely different than gauging distance of a real object with your eyes. a photograph has no depth; it's taken through one lens, completely eliminating any stereo vision effects (e.g. depth perception). the image is flat and there are no clues from which to glean any kind of usable information regarding the physical characteristics of what ultimately amounts to a nondescript blur.