• 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!

Saw this pic on MUFON's recent submissions page

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tony2007
  • Start date Start date
Forums New posts

Free episodes:

This was the report that was submitted with the photograph. I got it from the MUFON.com website:

My grandson took a picture of this object just an hour ago. He went outside with our digital camera to take a picture of the full moon, just about 5 dgrees above the hoirzon, sitting onthe tailgate of my pickup. He looed over toward the house ( about 20 feet away ) and seen thse lights just sitting there. He says it was not moving. Thiking it looked kind of neat, he took a picture, the flash went off, and he object dissapeared. He says he didn't even see it move. I wish he would have called me out of the house when he seen this, I would have tried to get a better picture. So I did not see this myself, just the picture on the camera. It appears to be a boomerang shape. In the photo you can see the peak of the garage roof.If the photo don't go through let me know. Don't have a clue what this is. It seems like I have seen similar photos on some of the UFO programs that I have watched on TV. As I said, I did not get to see this myself,my grandson is the one who seen it and took the pictue, he is 14 years old.
Thanks, Mike Brainerd

I've done some checking. Whiteman Air Force Base is about 200 miles west of where the photo was taken (if the addy I got from WhitePages.com was right), and there are B-2 bombers stationed at Whiteman, which may account for the shape. It would be nice if there was some follow up to learn if the object disappeared gradually or instantaneously. If it disappeared gradually, then there's every possibility it was a B-2 bomber that just levelled off and flew away. If it was instantaneous, that's a different story.

It would also be nice to learn if the object made any sound. Although B-2s don't really make as much noise as your normal airplane. It could also have been a prototype making a night run, who knows. Does MUFON have any kind of system for following up its more "juicy" opportunities?
 
Tony, ten points for your investigative tenacity!!! Good for YOU, sir.

On the plus side:

The blurriness can be explained away easily. He was nervous. It was a digital camera. He shot quickly and the object "took off". So, the blurry image, on it's own, does not make it any less credible, and you're right, the odd shadow around the object seems to match the blurred stationary object, like the house, so that imperfection in the UFO is explainable. It's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be. The picture simply validates the testimony, just like the police officers shaky polaroid simply validated his experience with a BT in Shiloh, Illinois. In my opinion, that shaky polaroid on the Shiloh, Ill. case is one of the best pieces of evidence in existence. Not because of the quality of the image, but because it corroborates the physical observations and testimony of it's excellent witness, who also passed a polygraph. It all adds up. The polaroid, alone, would have meant nothing.

Digression over. Back to the image on this post: It looks compelling, and these folks clearly are not, well, of the "hoaxing" caliber, and it does fit part of the BT dossier, does it not? It's got the 3 lights. It's "chevron" shaped. It's black.

On the other hand:

I definitely agree with your sensibilities on this one. Why assume it's a black triangle? Why assume there aren't other explanations? I like how you're digging deeper. It's interesting how everyone has a different approach to investigating a mystery. It's totally a personal journey, and there's no wrong answer. I think you're raising plausible explanations for this image. It could very well be a B2. I saw a Stealth in 1985 (I think that was the year) before the Discover article was published, outing the craft. This looks alot like what I saw, except mine didn't have lights. The AFB nearby could explain it enough.

B2_STEALTH_BOMBER_1L.jpg


6737_submitter_file1__UFO.jpg


I'd be more compelled if there were other witnesses, other photos or videotape, or if the sighting was closer, more intense, more compelling, traumatic, emotional, etc.


MUFON's a mixed bag. My sense of it, is that they'll be inspired to investigate deeper, if there's real meat to the punch, or, if there could be a safety concern. They seem to be motivated by "abductees". Their resources seem to be pretty thin, though. Most all of it is volunteer work, so, my two cents? Roll up your sleeves, it's going to be long night ;) You know the saying...If you want something done right...

t
 
tomlevine1 said:
MUFON's a mixed bag. My sense of it, is that they'll be inspired to investigate deeper, if there's real meat to the punch, or, if there could be a safety concern. They seem to be motivated by "abductees". Their resources seem to be pretty thin, though. Most all of it is volunteer work, so, my two cents? Roll up your sleeves, it's going to be long night ;) You know the saying...If you want something done right...
Click to expand...

No kidding... why wait around for someone else to make a complete hash of it, right?

Some other things I thought of, and you all can tell me if they're sensible; If Mr. Davenport of NUFORC received any reports that corraborate the shape, duration and disappearance it might lend more weight in the UFO column. This isn't likely since the area is very remote (we're talking a smattering of houses off old Route 66).

I was also thinking that if it was a B-2 bomber, even if it did just level off and fly away, those three red light might still be visible. I don't think a B-2 pilot is dumb enough to turn its flight-lights off, even if he wanted to conceal himself. It also doesn't make sense for a B-2 to be flying that low when the top shelf for those things is 50,000 feet, although that in itself doesn't rule out a low-flying B-2 hypothesis. Still, an interview with the photographer would be very revealing at this point to find out:

1. Again, if the object disappeared gradually or instantaneously
2. If there were any blinking lights that would indicate a man-made object
3. Sound, if any
4. The so-called tingly, or energized sensation people detect in the atmosphere
5. The believability of the witness
 
Here's what makes me skeptical of this picture:

1. The amount of blur seems inconsistent. Look at the (lighter) peak of the roof. Now notice the darker 'blur peak' found (what looks to be a few feet) up and to the right of it. This suggests to me that the camera was moved right to left to such a degree that a nearby object (like the roof) was distorted by a magnintude of a few feet. Yet the three red circular dots at the front of this craft are not blurred at all. An object at greater distance should experience even heavier blurring than the nearby one, shouldn't it? Not to mention the moulding on the right side of the house seems to have escaped the amount of blurring that the rooftop suffered, though it should have been at nearly the same distance.

2. For having three brilliant lights at the front of it (so bright they make a solid 'V' of red light) the craft's body seems awfully dark. Look hard at the lighting on and around the craft. Imagine that the thee brilliant, non-blurred dots are missing (along with the red arc of light they create only at the font of the craft). Now think to yourself . . . 'bird'.

That's what I notice . . . but I'm no photo expert.

-DBTrek
 
DBTrek said:
Here's what makes me skeptical of this picture:
Yet the three red circular dots at the front of this craft are not blurred at all. An object at greater distance should experience even heavier blurring than the nearby one, shouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Sorry to quote myself . .. didn't want to change the original text if someone was responding to it.

The more I think about the above statement the more I think I have it backwards. Objects in the foreground should blur more heavily than those in the background. Parallax effect . . . I think. So I can buy the craft being less blurred than the house, though those front lights don't seem to be blurred at all to me.

I still have a problem with parts of the house being less blurred than other parts of the house though.

;)

Just my $0.02

-DBTrek
 
it is two different digital images compositied together. blow it up in Photoshop and see for yourself.
 
pixelsmith said:
it is two different digital images compositied together. blow it up in Photoshop and see for yourself.
Click to expand...

Either I'm not nearly as adept at catching fakes as you, or I'm using the wrong program. Is there anyway you can walk me through how you determined it's a fake?
 
DBTrek said:
Sorry to quote myself . .. didn't want to change the original text if someone was responding to it.

The more I think about the above statement the more I think I have it backwards. Objects in the foreground should blur more heavily than those in the background. Parallax effect . . . I think. So I can buy the craft being less blurred than the house, though those front lights don't seem to be blurred at all to me.

I still have a problem with parts of the house being less blurred than other parts of the house though.

;)

Just my $0.02

-DBTrek
Click to expand...


I would think a camera would see objects in the distance and close-up on the same plane. It's the same principal as closing one eye and losing depth-perception, right? The camera lens has no way of judging distance unless you tell it to, or something. I'm no photographer.
 
Tony2007 said:
I would think a camera would see objects in the distance and close-up on the same plane. It's the same principal as closing one eye and losing depth-perception, right? The camera lens has no way of judging distance unless you tell it to, or something. I'm no photographer.
Click to expand...

It''s a function of parallax effect. Try this:

Close one eye and hold a finger up about two feet or so away from it. Now move your head back and forth slowly without moving your finger (simulating what a camera would 'see' during movement). You'll notice that your finger will move out of view more quickly that objects you can see much further away. By the same token a moving camera snapping a pic should blur objects in the foreground more severely than those in the background.

-DBTrek
 
Back
Top