• 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!

UFO's over London ?

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

I dont know what to make of that photo.

UFO_s_1367994c.jpg


I get suspicious when something is invisible to the naked eye, but shows up on a digital photo.

Maybe David will see this thread and give us his opinion. Maybe theyre light reflections. Ok the article claim the photo was taken from a roof top. I call bullshit on that. It looks to me like they are reflections in a big glass window of interior ceiling lights.
 
Gareth said:
I dont know what to make of that photo.

UFO_s_1367994c.jpg


I get suspicious when something is invisible to the naked eye, but shows up on a digital photo.

Maybe David will see this thread and give us his opinion. Maybe theyre light reflections. Ok the article claim the photo was taken from a roof top. I call bullshit on that. It looks to me like they are reflections in a big glass window of interior ceiling lights.
Click to expand...

Now this is interesting to me.

I was looking on line on how to make an Infrared Camera, and oddly enough, if I take my TV remote, and point it at my Digital Camera, I see a bright light, even though I can't see it with my own naked eye.

Imagine an Infra Red Cloaking device, that hides in plain sight.
 
Tommy Allison said:
Now this is interesting to me.

I was looking on line on how to make an Infrared Camera, and oddly enough, if I take my TV remote, and point it at my Digital Camera, I see a bright light, even though I can't see it with my own naked eye.

Imagine an Infra Red Cloaking device, that hides in plain sight.
Click to expand...

Ok I find that interesting too. So youre saying that in the digital screen on the camera you can see the red light from the remote's infrared beam?

This proves at least that digital cameras pick up light that humans cant see.
 
heres another shot, with the railing more visable, it could still be taken inside behind glass, as per the reflection scenario

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Builder-rooftop-snaps-UFOs-flying-London.html

but he reckons they are not reflections

Mr Burden, 40, said: 'I was waiting for some materials to arrive so I thought I would step out onto the balcony to have a cup of tea. I was 16 floors up and I thought I would take some pictures of the view for my wife who doesn't get to come to London much.
'I didn't notice anything at the time because I was focusing on getting in all the sights but when I showed Sarah that weekend she said "What are those lights in the corner?"'
Mr Burden, from Luton, said the lights are not any kind of reflection, claiming he took the picture outside with no office lights behind him.
Click to expand...

fascinating case
 
Sort of rules out the photo through glass explanation. Looks like his outside to me.

I wonder if sunlight reflected in the lens can do that?

article-1162711-03F35AD8000005DC-710_634x470.jpg
 
Gareth said:
Ok I find that interesting too. So youre saying that in the digital screen on the camera you can see the red light from the remote's infrared beam?

This proves at least that digital cameras pick up light that humans cant see.
Click to expand...

Yep. If I press the buttons on my remote, I don't see the light. If I look at the same remote, through the viewfinder of my digital camera, I see the light plain as day. Why this is, I have no fucking clue, but it's definitely interesting because if a camera can see infra-red light, then who's to say that UFO's couldn't have the capability to bend light to the IR spectrum, rendering them Invisible?

Also, the light from the infra-red beam, shows up as white, not red.
 
just checked the camera/tv remote and i get the same, the lcd screen on the back of the camera shows the IR beam, so if they were cloaked, but still giving off radiation in the IR band the camera might record them as per the picture.

looking at the angles, they may not be individual craft , they could fit into a large triange or wedge shaped type as well, the lights being the IR emissions of a propulsion system
 
Of course it could also be a projection from the ground (no one has mentioned this yet because its too obvious I assume). You would think that the photographer would a large projection like this with his naked eye though.

It now comes down to trusting the photographer.
 
Gareth said:
Of course it could also be a projection from the ground (no one has mentioned this yet because its too obvious I assume). You would think that the photographer would a large projection like this with his naked eye though.

It now comes down to trusting the photographer.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty interesting hypothesis.

What I'm trying to figure out, is whether or not he used the view finder, or the regular eyeport when he was taking these pictures. The eyeport viewfinder on my camera shows me Infra-Red as well.
 
Taken on a mobile phone early one morning it captures the London landscape as well as four curious lights hovering over the Houses of Parliament. Could they be UFOs?
Click to expand...

as an aside my camera only shows IR on the LCD screen, the eyepeice doesnt show IR
 
I just tried out the digital / IR experiment and had positive results, it shows up as a white light in the screen. Is there a way we can examine the image in some manner to determine if the artifacts were an IR origin?
 
Mexicola said:
I just tried out the digital / IR experiment and had positive results, it shows up as a white light in the screen. Is there a way we can examine the image in some manner to determine if the artifacts were an IR origin?
Click to expand...
Couldn't this be just reflections from lights behind the camera looking through glass out over London?
 
I think it's relections from in-ceiling lights—just because there is a railing doesn't mean he's no behind class. There could be a walkway right outside the glass vantage point. In any case, it could easily be checked with a trip to the top of the building.

Interesting.
 
Is there a post somewhere on the forums that highlight a few things people should look for in a photo?

***Warning - VERY Amateur disclaimer***

I looked at the images in Photoshop - zoomed in to look closer at the objects. They appear to blur, with light spilling from the objects into surrounding pixels - but it only looks like the top of these objects. I remembered a Paracast episode where David mentions "halation" and did a quick Google search for some quick schooling.

No idea if what is shown below is halation, any ideas?

Like I said AMATEUR!!;)

 
icculus said:
I think it's relections from in-ceiling lights—just because there is a railing doesn't mean he's no behind class. There could be a walkway right outside the glass vantage point. In any case, it could easily be checked with a trip to the top of the building.

Interesting.
Click to expand...

The least you can do if you are going to comment is to read the thread.
 
If the picture was taken outside then this is a very interesting image, still a shame it is digital.

If this image was taken inside ( though glass ) then I would have to say that it is more than it may well be a reflection of the interior lights from inside the building, room from where the picture was taken.

just my 2 cents
 
Back
Top