-
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!
UFO photographed over London
- Thread starter rohnds
- Start date
Free episodes:
Ron Collins
Curiously Confused
Its the same orientaion in both images. Looks like a gauge of some sort reflected in the glass.
Graphimancer
Skilled Investigator
A UFO that big and that close over London would have had thousands of witnesses, not one cell phone shot.
Siani
Despiser of religious nuts
Scott Story said:
Especially if it hovered low over such popular tourist attractions as the London Eye and Tower Bridge. Not to mention the scores of high-rise buildings in the vicinity, which this 'UFO' would have been in severe danger of colliding with, at the level it appears to be hovering at.
David Biedny
Paranormal Adept
Gee, is that a merry-go-round/ferris wheel to the right?
Nothing to see here, folks. Looks bogus to me.
dB
Nothing to see here, folks. Looks bogus to me.
dB
Siani
Despiser of religious nuts
David Biedny said:
That's the London Eye.
Here's a tip for non-UK residents. If something appears in The Sun - it's invariably a lot of crap. It's a cheap, nasty tabloid.
subject x
A Paracast Listener Is Me.
Those pics do look a lot like a dashboard gauge reflected in the windshield.
That might explain why she didn't see the UFO until she looked at the pictures.
I'll bet you can see a long-ass way from the top of that London Eye.
I'd really like to ride it some day.
That might explain why she didn't see the UFO until she looked at the pictures.
I'll bet you can see a long-ass way from the top of that London Eye.
I'd really like to ride it some day.
cottonzway
I was saying boo-urns
I was in London for about 8 days this month and saw no such UFO. 
The Eye was a cool view though.
The Eye was a cool view though.Raccoon2008
Paranormal Novice
UFO Expert Chris Martin? love the "expert" comments.
wanttobelieve
Paranormal Novice
It looks interesting.
One thing I must ask..............
Virtually every photo shown on websites or in tv shows pretty much has following it a statement that its a model, its fake, it was done with CGI etc etc.
Regardless of who took the photo its seems today more and more people and may i add these people being ufo followers seem to convince themselves its not real.
I see that in the past 30 years ufology has been tossed out into the rubbish heap along with tabloid magz.
Just maybe one of these photos is really really real!
But unforutnately we seem to pull them to bits not looking for truth but looking for hoaxes.
I am good friends with a magician in Vegas,
He laughs at how many people attend magic shows not to enjoy the fantastic entertainment but to sit there with pen and paper slowly trying to learn the secret of the effect and not just sit back and enjoy the effect as its presented.
This is what I see is happenening with ufo news.
Lets be honest when you see the london image you instantly assume fake......why?
Because it looks so good to be true..............maybe it is true....maybe your mind is shredding the image already debunking it so you dont realise its actually real.
When i first seen the haiti footage my heart pounded with excitement and hair stood on edge as i replayed this footage over and over again and again. I was scared and yet relieved that just maybe somebody got it right. Well not the case. If the palm trees werent doubled up would you still think its a fake?
As ufo followers i feel that we may be slowly being directed into becoming skeptics of the very subject we have such strong passions in believeing in.
I as someone outside the circle dont really want to see the gov come ou tof the closet and spill the beans on all of it.
My honest reasons for dislosure are so that humanity can aquire new medicines and technology to hopefully allow th earth to heal itself and to allow humanity to live on.
If this 2012 thing is as real and deadly as people are making it out to be then we are all in danger. If aliens can help us then they should reveal themselves and help us.
If 2012 destroys all humanity except those underground then maybe this is a way for the powers that be to cover themselves from harm when we finally find out that they have been hiding this from us for 100's of years.
If disclosure happens then maybe humans will take it wrongly and rebell.......this alone could cause catastrophic outcomes and wars....but if it all was destroyed in 2012 then everything would be reset and the world can start again and do it right this time.
Because the powers that be have taken far too long to disclose then the world will take the decision as a sign of distrust and things will get very ugly.
My thoughts
One thing I must ask..............
Virtually every photo shown on websites or in tv shows pretty much has following it a statement that its a model, its fake, it was done with CGI etc etc.
Regardless of who took the photo its seems today more and more people and may i add these people being ufo followers seem to convince themselves its not real.
I see that in the past 30 years ufology has been tossed out into the rubbish heap along with tabloid magz.
Just maybe one of these photos is really really real!
But unforutnately we seem to pull them to bits not looking for truth but looking for hoaxes.
I am good friends with a magician in Vegas,
He laughs at how many people attend magic shows not to enjoy the fantastic entertainment but to sit there with pen and paper slowly trying to learn the secret of the effect and not just sit back and enjoy the effect as its presented.
This is what I see is happenening with ufo news.
Lets be honest when you see the london image you instantly assume fake......why?
Because it looks so good to be true..............maybe it is true....maybe your mind is shredding the image already debunking it so you dont realise its actually real.
When i first seen the haiti footage my heart pounded with excitement and hair stood on edge as i replayed this footage over and over again and again. I was scared and yet relieved that just maybe somebody got it right. Well not the case. If the palm trees werent doubled up would you still think its a fake?
As ufo followers i feel that we may be slowly being directed into becoming skeptics of the very subject we have such strong passions in believeing in.
I as someone outside the circle dont really want to see the gov come ou tof the closet and spill the beans on all of it.
My honest reasons for dislosure are so that humanity can aquire new medicines and technology to hopefully allow th earth to heal itself and to allow humanity to live on.
If this 2012 thing is as real and deadly as people are making it out to be then we are all in danger. If aliens can help us then they should reveal themselves and help us.
If 2012 destroys all humanity except those underground then maybe this is a way for the powers that be to cover themselves from harm when we finally find out that they have been hiding this from us for 100's of years.
If disclosure happens then maybe humans will take it wrongly and rebell.......this alone could cause catastrophic outcomes and wars....but if it all was destroyed in 2012 then everything would be reset and the world can start again and do it right this time.
Because the powers that be have taken far too long to disclose then the world will take the decision as a sign of distrust and things will get very ugly.
My thoughts
Definitely looks like a lighted gauge reflected inside the window glass.
Looking at the object you can see that the perspective is all wrong if it was an object at distance. The upper lighted ring would always be larger than the lower ring on the object, assuming it is symmetrical, no matter what angle the object is shown to the viewer. Instead the upper ring is smaller on the right side of the object. Draw longitudinal lines on a ball or disk and prove this to yourself.
But this all would look correct if it was a reflection of an interior object like a lighted gauge with concaved lighted edges. The perspective of a reflection would be correct and match what is shown, therefore my opinion is that the object is a reflection.
Looking at the object you can see that the perspective is all wrong if it was an object at distance. The upper lighted ring would always be larger than the lower ring on the object, assuming it is symmetrical, no matter what angle the object is shown to the viewer. Instead the upper ring is smaller on the right side of the object. Draw longitudinal lines on a ball or disk and prove this to yourself.
But this all would look correct if it was a reflection of an interior object like a lighted gauge with concaved lighted edges. The perspective of a reflection would be correct and match what is shown, therefore my opinion is that the object is a reflection.
cmbezln
Skilled Investigator
Okay, first off....in the given scenario that there actually was something in the sky that night.......it would mean that it was invisible to everybody and is somehow visible in a crappy cell phone camera for whatever reason.
For anyone that's ever used a cell phone camera, you know damn well whatever you're shooting needs to be completely still in order to be in focus. The staple of the camera phone is motion blur (im not sure of the reason why, david might be one to follow up with as far as that goes)....if the statement above is incorrect about it being visible only to cell phone cameras (....), then obviously it must have been moving so high speed that it wasn't visible to the naked eye (obviously not the case)
camera phones are also terrible in low-light areas.
so either reflection or fake.
For anyone that's ever used a cell phone camera, you know damn well whatever you're shooting needs to be completely still in order to be in focus. The staple of the camera phone is motion blur (im not sure of the reason why, david might be one to follow up with as far as that goes)....if the statement above is incorrect about it being visible only to cell phone cameras (....), then obviously it must have been moving so high speed that it wasn't visible to the naked eye (obviously not the case)
camera phones are also terrible in low-light areas.
so either reflection or fake.
wanttobelieve said:
Well it does not look to good to be true. A large UFO hovering in a highly populated area. No one else reports it. The UFO sits at exactly the same angle in both pictures. Photo is taken through a car window. Windows reflect stuff. There are small marks on the UFO, kind of like a gauge on the dash. What is the most likely? A genuine UFO that does all this stuff and remains undetected by anyone else OR possibly a reflection. This is why it looks like a fake.
wanttobelieve said:
Nothing can stop your passion for believing, even the truth. Because believing doesn't require anything, much less evidence. I, for one, follow the UFO world as much as I can. But I certainly am not swayed by belief. It would seem to me that the only constructive way to go about finding the "truth" is to be skeptical. Work from probable solutions to mysterious ones and not the other way around. Being skeptical, IMO, is a GOOD thing and is the only reasonable and logical way to approach these topics. This is different than being an irrational debunker that offers ridiculous conclusions to UFO sightings in an effort to uphold the belief that UFO's do not exist.
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
TClaeys said:
Well, I think it's important to get the terminology right - UFO's exist; they are Unidentified Flying Objects. The vast majority of UFO sightings are later identified. A small percentage remain unidentified. Both the fanatical skeptics and the Government's of this world refuse to acknowledge the possibility that this small number of unidentified objects may be craft of an unknown origin (not necessarily extra-terrestrial).
True skeptics in ufology are as keen as anyone to separate the 'wheat' from the 'chaff'. IMO, the 'wheat' that is left will almost certainly remain unidentified because science demands repeatable results and you can't recreate a transient event such as a UFO sighting.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Rick Deckard said:
Yes, I agree and good point. I guess we always need to qualify the word UFO. It's used so loosely that to most it means little green men. And to others it means exactly what it stands for. I guess I'm talking about the "wheat" so to speak. Don't we need another acronym for the "wheat"??
How about.... Seemingly Harboring Intelligent Travellers ?
Ah hell, that won't work will it? I'll guess I'll have to continue qualifying.