Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Did I snap a UFO in the fog?

'I didn't notice it when I took the picture,' said Mr Rahman, 28, of London Road, North End. 'But then I looked a bit closer and zoomed in. It's a bit weird really, it's quite freaky.'

(Via The Anomalist.)

Sadly, the photo in the article is too small to be of much use. But what's visible looks suspiciously like one of Billy Meier's "beamships."


mr. intense said...

Using MS Internet Explorer 7, which has a nice feature of allowing one to enlarge the size of any website page, I blew the image up by 550%, which shows that while it vaguely looks somewhat like a Meiresque beamship, the image is more likely photoshopped, due to the border of pixelation around the "object."

The same kind of dark green and black pixelation is evident in the 5.5x blowup around the drawn-in red arrow added, pointing to the object from the inset enlargement to the underlying original photo. This pixelation is only evident in the blowup around the added arrow and the object.

So, as usual, a probable fake. Sorry...

W.M. Bear said...

Depressing story. Again, the default assumption: UFO = alien spaceship. No alien spaceship? No UFO.

It's a picture of SOMETHING and that something is unidentified (and unidentifiABLE in principle) and in the air and (evidently) an object (unless it's just a trick of light). Hoax? Who knows? And that's just the real problem with this kind of thing. It is and will forever remain pure, airy speculation. (Or so I predict, anyway, based on past UFO cases. When has one EVER been resolved?)

W.M. Bear said...

Wait, I take that last statement back. Many cases HAVE been resolved, but ALL of them which have have been resolved in favor either of a natural phenomenon or an identified flying object (which somehow is never an alien spaceship).

Paul Raven said...

Sorry to be unequivocal on this one Mac, but that "sighting" occurred in my home town ... and a good friend of mine is on the same photography course as Rahman. He 'shopped it and sold it to the papers for, as the kids say "the lulz" ... I doubt he realised how effective it would be, though. But it is absolutely a hoax.

JR said...

Mac-Here's the breakdown on this shot I posted to ATS just a bit ago in answer to the mods having me look at it:

You'll see my animated overlays about halfway down the page.

J Ritzmann

Anonymous said...

What is even more disturbing than some stupid British student faking a ufo photo, for the "lulz" and his 15 nanoseconds of infamy, and submitting it for a newspaper article (there will always be cretinous boneheads), is how this must also have been known to the two journalists bylined as authors of the article and their editors.

They _chose_ to hoax the public with this silly, false article and photo. The complete lack of standards, journalistic ethics, and integrity on their and their editors' parts just goes to show how dysfunctional and intentionally propagandistic such "journalists" and corporate publications are willing to be for the sake of titillation and sensation for the purpose of increasing sales to the public and their advertisers. They just don't give a damn.

If these reporters, Ms. Hine and Wade, or their paper, had any integrity whatsoever, this article would have never appeared.

They should print a retraction and apology, but they won't as that would confirm just how lame and uncaring about the truth they most obviously are. This is deception for pecuniary gain, and stupidly undermines whatever minimal authenticity or trust the public should or might have had in the reporting of these "journalists" or the paper they work for.

Really sad, but all too and increasingly common. Worse than the Weekly World News, which never made any pretense that their ridiculous articles were anything other than generally humorous fabrications.

Mac said...


Sorry to be unequivocal on this one Mac

Why on earth are you apologizing?

steve sawyer said...

Very nice job, jr! I've sent the link to the journalists involved in foisting this hoax on the public in the first place, and also added it to their comments section (see page 4) at their online version of the newspaper.

Rahman and the journalists concerned should be ashamed for promoting such an obvious fabrication.