Unexplained "thing" in photo. Guesses?

[jimaparks]

My daughter finished off a roll of 120 film by taking some random shots outside our apartment door -- we live on the second floor. We had had these photos scanned right after development and I was looking at the images when I saw this odd disc-shaped thing in the photograph. Blaown up, you can see that the underside of this object is straight but zig-zaggy, and the top part is slightly rounded and smooth.

At first I thought my daughter had inadvertently captured a flying saucer on film. But upon further inspection I realized that the leaves and branches in the foreground are in focus while the background is out of focus. It's an old viewfinder camera with scale-focus and I think she had it set ten feet away. Since the UPO (unidentified photographed object) is also pretty much in focus, I would say that it is probably about the same distance from the camera. So the object is small, like maybe the size of a leaf, or some fluff.

Still, I hold out a small amount of hope that ET or ID craft could be this small. Who know, maybe a micro-probe?

 

[jimaparks]

Attached is a section of the full scan, and below is a link to a larger image on flickr.

JPcd521-R1-E011 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[pixelsmith]

there are several spots and a few other lines and stuff all over the image. it could be anything.

 

[Siani]

It looks like a little bit of airborne debris to me, possibly vegetation. I've often had such things in my images.

 

[KEROUAC]

I'm always a bit doubtful of images which contain an object which wasn't noticed at the time the picture was taken. The reason being that there is no way to determine the size or distance. it could be a speck of something on the scanner or a small particle of something. That doesn't rule out that it could be something interesting but I think unlikely.

I don't mean that in a disrespectful way as you have posted this in good faith so thanks for sharing.

 

[jimaparks]

No disrespect taken from any of you! I don't think, either, that it's anything other than a leaf or other bit of vegetation that happened to be blowing into the frame just as the shutter was snapped. It caught my attention because it is vaguely disc shaped and the angle of the object reminds me of a lot of photos of the old "pie-plate" UFOs -- which always looked to me like someone had thrown them into air like frisbees.

 

[pixelsmith]

No disrespect taken from any of you! I don't think, either, that it's anything other than a leaf or other bit of vegetation that happened to be blowing into the frame just as the shutter was snapped. It caught my attention because it is vaguely disc shaped and the angle of the object reminds me of a lot of photos of the old "pie-plate" UFOs -- which always looked to me like someone had thrown them into air like frisbees.

maybe it is a frisbee.

 

[Cailean]

Could be anything or nothing.

As usual...

 

[EQ42]

I'm more interested in the fact she's still shooting film.

 

[jimaparks]

I'm getting back into film and I love old cameras. I've heard that film is making a comeback among younger people who have never used film in their life. Look at the Flickr groups for analog, film, Lomo, Holga, etc.

I bought a 50s-era Agfa 120 folding camera, and my daughter's eyes lit up when she saw it. So I basically gave it to her -- though I am currently trying to trade for it with a 70s-era Praktica SLR that she might have an easier time with.

 

[Gareth]

Is this Jim Sparks of Jim Sparks fame?

Your user name obviously has a typo.

(not sure whats in the pic. Maybe a rod)

 

[jimaparks]

No, I'm not Jim Sparks. Jim A. Parks is my name, with the the "A" thrown in for disambiguation. I actually met a guy named Jim Sparks once. But I doubt it was the contactee/abductee/messenger guy.

Interestingly, though, the first interview in the Paracast archives I listened to was the Sparks interview. I had heard him interviewed on CtoC a few years ago by Ian Punnet, and I wanted to see how Gene and Dave handled him. Punnet was actually pretty blunt, saying at one point something like, "see, this is where my BS detector goes off."

By rod, you mean the rods of light that video cameras have picked up that some speculate are an unknown life form? They are pretty cool looking, but I also saw how they can be an artifact of videography.

-- Jim

 

[Gareth]

Yeah I wasnt serious about the rods comment. I dont buy into the whole rods crap.

Thats kinda funny that your name is Jim A. Parks. I was convinced it was Jim Sparks with a typo

 

[KEROUAC]

Actually I realised I made a silly comment in saying you can't determine size in this particular situation. It's hard to detirmine the size of an arial object in any situation.

 

[Ron Collins]

A quick question. What were you taking a picture of? I dont discount the possibility of accidentally capturing something in an image. So when I see these type of things it is usually in a setting where the photographer is trying for something unrelated. The photographer typically centers the subject of the image in center frame. Now this becomes less important with digital camera's because space for photos is cheap. So you can snap off a 5 to one ratio (good to bad) without a second thought. But this was taken with a film camera. So the shot selection becomes more important. di

 

[Ron Collins]

Actually I realised I made a silly comment in saying you can't determine size in this particular situation. It's hard to detirmine the size of an arial object in any situation.

A quick question. What were you taking a picture of? I dont discount the possibility of accidentally capturing something in an image. So when I see these type of things it is usually in a setting where the photographer is trying for something unrelated. The photographer typically centers the subject of the image in center frame. Now this becomes less important with digital camera's because space for photos is cheap. So you can snap off a 5 to one ratio (good to bad) without a second thought. But this was taken with a film camera. So the shot selection becomes more important.

 

[jimaparks]

120 film. Ilford XP2. Agfa Isolette camera from the 50s. Manual everything. Focus is set on a dial. 12 exposures. I think the camera's focus was set at about 10 feet as it had been previously used for a group people shot. My daughter had been using the camera. The last three exposures were just her wanting to finish up the film so we could get it developed -- so I don't think she had anything in mind when she took the pictures. She just stepped outside the front door and shot a few things visible from our apartment balcony.