One for the image analysis folks

[RonCollins]

3 images atually.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo416.htm

What are your thoughts.

[BrandonD]

Originally Posted by RonCollins

3 images atually.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo416.htm

What are your thoughts.

"new session failed"... this is the message when you click on that link.

[RonCollins]

I went to the site http://www.ufoevidence.org

Then click on the link at the top called "UFO PHOTOGRAPHS".

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.asp

on the left towards the middle of the page there is orange text that says, "View by decade" clik on the "2000 to present" link.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decade/post2000.htm

middle photo top row. "Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA" January 2007.

[Aaron LeClair]

This image reminds me a great deal of the set of images here. http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo9.htm

[Astroboy]

These are very interesting pictures. If it is a fake it is a very good one.

1. Blurring matches general camera blur.
2. Atmospheric distortion looks correct.
3. Subtle motion blur of lights and glare looks right.
4. Overexposure of lights bleeding over foreground element looks authentic.
5. One of few photos with foreground element superimposed on top.

Only way to tell is to get a hold of the original negatives or raw digital files and look for unmatched grain or pixelation.

This would be a tougher one to pull off as a hoax but not impossible. The real trick is to mask out the tree branches so you can lay this on top of the UFO image. Photoshop masking tools can certainly do this as well a number of other top notch dedicated matting tools. Again you really need to look at the raw film or files.

Definitely one of the more remarkable pictures out there. I can't see any defects off the bat. I would call these probable authentic photos.

[schticknz]

Ummm ... quick question ... hope someone can answer it for me:

If its daylight (and i'm assuming it is from the photos) ... why does the UFO need its landing lights on? ... or indeed any lights at all???

[This question can be extended to all similar daylight UFO images]

Just a thought ... thats been bothering me for a while.

(just seen the word "evening" but the question still holds for similar incidents ...)

[Aaron LeClair]

Originally Posted by schticknz

Ummm ... quick question ... hope someone can answer it for me:

If its daylight (and i'm assuming it is from the photos) ... why does the UFO need its landing lights on? ... or indeed any lights at all???

[This question can be extended to all similar daylight UFO images]

Just a thought ... thats been bothering me for a while.

(just seen the word "evening" but the question still holds for similar incidents ...)

Might not be landing lights. In some cases, (not necessarily this one) the lights seem to be it's means of propulsion, or related. Some theories of field propulsion indicate the air around the craft is ionized and this leads to a glow you see with some ufos at night. This may be interpreted as lights by some, but it's actually not. The photos don't appear to have been taken during a bright sunny day. Seems cloudy, or perhaps dusk or dawn. I didn't read when the pics were took as far as time. Another reason for lights is it may let the other beings know what kinds of craft, or operation is being under taken. Also, for safety reasons. Easier to see. Sometimes ufos are seen flying together. Who knows....

[Michael L.]

If its daylight (and i'm assuming it is from the photos) ... why does the UFO need its landing lights on? ... or indeed any lights at all???

I don't know... why does my mother in law always drive with her lights on? There are so many things we just don't understand...

[David Biedny]

Those images are interesting, but they'd be even more compelling if there were a shot or two of the object much further away from the camera. As it stands, that could indeed be a miniature hoisted above the trees (doing away with the need for Photoshop masking of any sort), which would also explain the motion blur match.

Here's what you have to ask yourself: if you were the one shooting those pictures, would you try to snap off as many shots as possible? Would you keep shooting it as it flew away (given that there was enough film/memory left in the camera)? I now I would, and I have to assume that anyone in that situation would react the same way. The lack of such shots makes me a little suspicious, more background info would be needed from the actual photographer to properly evaluate the potential of these being legit UFO pictures.

As to the idea of lights and their functionality, the bottom line is that we have no idea of what any kind of non-human tech is or how it works, so the assumption that lights on UFOs would be "landing lights" is, IMO, erroneous. Who knows what function they could serve?

dB

[David Biedny]

Packrat,

The images you linked are more interesting to me, given that there seems to be much more atmospheric density between the camera and object, potentially indicating a greater distance from the camera. This would be harder to fake with a miniature, IMO.

dB