1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    20161231113408-yamv1.

    http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co....photographer/story-30020380-detail/story.html
    New Pictureufo.
    This does look curiously saucer shaped, but then compare it to the second photo from the story, in particular look first at the width of the trail near the tip
    15747853_10211450083226277_5238877113584815395_n.

    First of course this photo looks exactly like hundreds of photos of a jet contrail lit by the sun, however the fact that the trail comes to a point here but not in the first photo indicates that the camera moved during the exposure, spreading the trail sideways. This is not particularly apparent with a contrail as they tend to be blurry-looking objects anyway. But with the plane, the reflection of the sun off bright parts of it creates highlights, and the motion of those highlights has created the shape of the "saucer".

    20161231104229-ar090.

    Here's a good example of a contrail and a plane with a sunlight reflection, by @A380
    [​IMG]

    And here's a very simple simulation of motion blur showing how the highlights can make a shape. This is just me taking a photo of the above photo on my laptop from across the room with a slight jostle of the camera as I press the shutter button
    20161231110918-pv1xs.

    Here's another shot, much more obviously motion blur, just to demonstrate how different camera motions can create different shapes.
    20161231111259-tq799.

    Motion blur is a common source of odd shapes in photos - most commonly from a small light in a dark scene. The thing to look for is the same shape repeated in the scene. Here's another shot where a small light behind the laptop is also motion blurred.
    20161231112239-9rfde.

    You can also see the shape repeated here in the streaks of the contrail. This also shows up in the UFO photo. Look at the shape of the "UFO" streak (like a long comma on its side) and then compare that to the streaks in the trail.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    Here is a likely candidate: Monarch Airlines flight 741
    Screen Shot 2016-12-31 at 20.54.43.

    FlightAware track attached
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 2
  3. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 31, 2016
  4. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    That doesn't sound very plausible for an aircraft. But then it also doesn't tie in with the photographs, which clearly show illumination consistent with being close to sunset or sunrise (actually probably when the sun is just below the horizon).

    Sunset in Exeter on Dec 28 was at 4.16pm, so the photos would probably have been taken just before 4.30. Once the plane was no longer lit up by the sun it would seem to "disappear".

    I think the reports of it being seen at 1pm must be incorrect.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    I suspect 1pm being a typo. It probably meant to be 4pm. Otherwise it begs the question: why seeing "UFO" for 3.5 hours the photographer ended up with just three lousy photos?

    MON741 sunlit trail could have been seen near the setting Sun from about 4:10 PM. By 4:30 it would fly into the Earth shadow, moving toward the incoming plane. Moreover, the plane have started descent by then and could have stopped contrailing altogether.
    Screen Shot 2017-01-01 at 14.24.00.
    Also, MON741, coming from the sunset, would be able to reflect Sun toward the observer for a long time. Its track angled in the same direction and its trail would be sunlit in the same way as in the OP photos.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Pics or it didn't happen.

    Clearly what we see in these two photos is a short contrail in low sunlight. Maybe they saw something else hours earlier, then came back and saw this. Being a short contrail it would seem to vanish after it left the contrail-friendly air mass. It could also seem to be relatively slow moving when >100 miles away.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Raccoon

    Raccoon Member

    Another thing, how did he put up the tripod so fast while that plane was flying overhead. Did he paused time itself while setting up, because I have a tripod myself and it takes around 40 seconds to put it up!
     
  9. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    I am one of the admins on the Fortean Times Appreciation Group on Facebook. I have spoken with the photographer directly and asked him and the other witness to join the group to put their side of the story (which they have done). Feel free to join the discussion. It’s a closed group, however, I can easily approve your membership after you click ‘join the group’. I hopefully will see some of you there.
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/7269177244/
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/7269177244/permalink/10153972960317245/
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 2, 2017
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    The plane is nowhere near overhead. It is many miles away, so it won't appear to move all that much in the sky over the course of, say, a minute.

    (See my avatar pic for a similar "UFO"!)
     
  11. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    We don’t need to fish for new members as we already have almost 3,500! It was a genuine inquiry to help solve a mystery.
     
  12. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

  13. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    I have spoken directly to the photographer who took the images. He has supplied me with two original jpegs from the camera for me to have a look at. I do not have permission to upload them on to here, however, I did screen grab the Metadata from one of the main files he sent me. I am a professional photographer and offered to verify to our group that the images have not been tampered with. I can confirm that is the case. Attached is the screen grab from the file Metadata. Note the date created is wrong, as the photographers camera has been set to the wrong date. However, the time is correct.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  14. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    It was the Metadata from this image...
    [​IMG]
     
  15. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    the OP (Opening Post) doesnt say the photos have been tampered with.
     
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Sorry, I'd approved Willie Kay's first post but was on the road all day. Should have explained. While it's a bit unusual, it seems reasonable to work together on this, as there's already some investigation going on in the Fortean Times Appreciation group on FB, particularly with tracking down the photographer.

    Ideally though, posts should be self-contained without needing to click on a link. Links are for references.

    From comment on the FB thread, Tyron noticed a bright light (like a star) at 2.30PM, then did not see anything again until 4:15 when it seems like they first saw the object in the photos (which I'm 99.999% sure is a plane leaving a contrail) shortly after 4:30 he took 13 pics in three minutes, of which the above are the last two.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2017
  17. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    On the Fortean Times group I'm sure the photographer's friend stated that the time was about 4.25pm? That would also fit with the lighting in the photo, being about nine minutes after sunset. The time in the metadata appears to be off by one hour.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. jonnyH

    jonnyH Active Member

    Daylight savings?

    The clock in my car currently reads an hour fast because I was too lazy to change it.
     
  19. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Yes, that is clearly the most likely explanation (the camera being set to British Summer Time rather than GMT). But it contradicts the above claim by @Willie Kay that "the time is correct".

    I think it's clear that the photos were taken close to sunset, which was 4.16pm on the day in question.
     
  20. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    Sorry my mistake the time is out by about an hour, however, not as bad as the date!
     
  21. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    Sorry there were some doubts over the images on our Fortean Times Forum, not on here.
     
  22. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    Basically the guy who took the pictures knows very little about cameras and the technical side of taking pictures. The images are currently being analysed by a ‘pro photo analyst’, his words not mine. He couldn’t give me the guys name and I respected that.
     
  23. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    I have looked into the camera manual.
    Screen Shot 2017-01-03 at 12.06.46.
    The photo was taken at the maximum optical zoom with the focal length corresponding 576 mm in the 35 mm equivalent. The image size (3072x1728, or 5 MP) is smaller than the maximum size (14 MP) for this camera and corresponds to the M 16:9 option.
    However, the aspect of the OP photo is different (approximately 3:2), suggesting that this image was cropped. Is there a full-size original image available (to your group)?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  24. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    They were all shot on the M 16:9 option. And yes the images he sent to me direct from the camera correspond to this setting.
     
  25. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    I must admit that did point out that these two photos, from the original link. were in fact the same (from the geometry of the trail).
     

    Attached Files:

    • 1.
      1.jpg
      File size:
      19.6 KB
      Views:
      0
    • 2.
      2.jpg
      File size:
      13.4 KB
      Views:
      0
  26. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    They are the same images. The photographer attempted to reveal some detail in the object by importing the photo into a basic editing program. However, we need to bare in mind that he has no real knowledge on how these things work. His attempt to darken the sky to black made no real difference to the object.
     
  27. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    In this case, could you tell us how much the OP image was cropped (horizontally) compared to the original?
     
  28. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    I couldn’t say as I think those images have been lifted from an online news site and they have probably cropped them. You would need to ask the OP. All I know is that the images that I was sent came directly from the camera and were all shot on the M 16:9 option.
     
  29. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    For what it’s worth, here is a cropped in section of the object from the original file I was sent (I’ve enlarged it). The image shows signs of blurring/movement as a result of the slowish shutter speed of 1/105sec and signs of camera shake. Basically it’s not a great picture, however, the guy is not a photographer. In the hands of a pro using high end equipment the images would have been much sharper and better exposed. They are what they are.

    [​IMG]
     
  30. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    Above, in #14, you said:
    Can you compare this image with the one you got from the photographer and tell us how much it cropped horizontally? An approximate value will suffice.
     
  31. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    I would not waste your time on a guy who sees Venus at midday, and a contrail after sunset on the same day. Clear days may be rare, but not that rare..
     
  32. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    I suppose I could, as I have the original camera file. Why do you want to know?
     
  33. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    To see if the width of the trail is consistent with the width of the A320 trail. I am working out my hypothesis of this object being Monarch Airlines flight 741, an approximate location of which at the time of the photo is known.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  34. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    I don’t have permission to upload the original file, however, I can overlay the two images and let you know roughly how much has been cropped off the online file.
     
  35. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    The original file size is 108.37cm Wide (3072) x 60.96cm High (1728) @ 72ppi. The OP’s image has had about 18.45cm of sky cropped from the left side of the image. Does that help you?
     
  36. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    Not entirely harmless as it supports the story that it persisted from midday until after dark..
     
  37. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    Here is a quick screen grab of the OP’s image overlayed onto the original file. The lighter section to the left is the section that has been cropped from the original file. The black frame is just my laptop screen.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    Thanks, this will be of help.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  39. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    @Willie Kay, on the Fortean group, you stated at first that the images had been rotated, and the object was actually flying horizontally, not diagonally. But Mark Emmins says "The images are exactly how they were taken.. I am just saying it gives the impression that it's taking off not flying horizontally". Can you confirm that the orientation shown above is the original?
     
  40. Willie Kay

    Willie Kay Member

    The images have NOT been rotated. There was some confusion between myself and Mark. What he meant was that the object was flying horizontally. He reckoned the way the images had been presented might lead people to believe that the object was flying upwards, which it wasn’t.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1