Is that a fly or an alien

April 14, 2008 7:48 AM

I've taken a photo of a UFO. No, seriously, I have a photo of a UFO. I need some help figuring out where it came from.

I was walking the Simatai section of the Great Wall last Sunday. Fantastic weather, beautiful site. I was with family and snapping pictures from tower 2 towards tower's 3 & 4 as my Brother and Niece climbed up.

Got back to the hotel in Beijing yesterday and downloaded the images, scanning through them quickly, and noticed a couple of spots on one in particular. Opened it and wham there it was, the classic UFO shot over the clear area to the right looking up the wall. Light on top, dark below, disk shaped with a raised top section.

Predictably, it's fuzzy. Everything and everyone else in the photo is sharp as a tack. It was a part of a 3-shot sequence within 12 seconds. The 1st and 3rd shots have no artifacts. Different zoom for each shot. Never had a speck or problem with other shots. I don't for a second think I've captured an image of other-world'ers. But hey, it is an Unidentified Flying Object.

I'm curious what could create this effect / result on a photo. I imported the images directly into iPhoto and haven't done anything with it. I'm wondering whether a fly or other insect flicked past the lens at just the right moment.

Fwiw, the photo was taken using a Canon PowerShot S5IS. I'm still traveling for the next week. I travel to China very frequently for work. Happy to answer questions.

posted by michswiss to Media & Arts (40 answers total)

Response by poster: Oops. Meant to add, I'll send the photo to Mefi's that want to have a look.
posted by michswiss at 7:54 AM on April 14, 2008

While you may think it's a UFO, it's much more likely to be a defect in the camera or the lens.
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 8:13 AM on April 14, 2008

Light on top, dark below, disk shaped with a raised top section.

It's probably a lenticular cloud formation. They're pretty common in mountainous regions.
posted by three blind mice at 8:19 AM on April 14, 2008

Response by poster: Guy_Inamonkeysuit, In a literal world, it was an unidentified flying object unless the lens defect was very specific. I'm guessing there was an insect that flicked past well within the focal point of the camera thus the lack of focus.
posted by michswiss at 8:20 AM on April 14, 2008

Mod note: A few comments removed - Please don't use your AskMe question as a way to get people to send your file to. Either post it somewhere and include a link so everyone can look at it, or he question is going to have to stick to general "what should I do" topics
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:21 AM on April 14, 2008

Response by poster: Where to post the image? Give me a quick place to post and I'll get it there including the first and third. Also, full res or a quick version?
posted by michswiss at 8:23 AM on April 14, 2008

It's probably a lenticular cloud formation. They're pretty common in mountainous regions.

It seems like that would be less likely, considering that two more shots were taken within 12 seconds (presumably covering the same area of the sky) that did not show the object. A cloud or other large object in the sky would most likely be in all three shots.

Without seeing the photo itself, my guess is also that it was a bug.
posted by burnmp3s at 8:24 AM on April 14, 2008

Response by poster: A bug is what I'm thinking too. I'd love to debunk UFO photos for so many reasons. I'm just fascinated that I've been able to catch an example of a "UFO" shot somehow and want to know how it could have happened. Still looking for places to post the photos without adding to the hype.
posted by michswiss at 8:30 AM on April 14, 2008

Seconding the possibility of a lenticular cloud. Although it's also not uncommon for strange things to show up through a camera lense due to insects, dust, flares, etc...feel free to send me a copy of the image if you'd like (I'll delete it after viewing).
posted by samsara at 8:31 AM on April 14, 2008

Where to post the image? Give me a quick place to post and I'll get it there including the first and third.

Picasa or flickr are probably the most popular and easiest to get going. Both are free.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 8:32 AM on April 14, 2008

You could also upload the image to ImageShack and post the link here.
posted by popcassady at 8:52 AM on April 14, 2008

Response by poster: Busy uploading the three sequence photo's to Flickr. Slow link from hotel, but using the full resolution. Don't expect much, other than lovely shots of the GW with spots...

I'll post a link to them as soon as it's finished.
posted by michswiss at 8:57 AM on April 14, 2008

Best answer: michswiss: Predictably, it's fuzzy. Everything and everyone else in the photo is sharp as a tack.

If that's the case, then it's likely the UFO is something very small that's on, or up-close to your camera lens.
If it was at a similiar range to anything in the background of your photo, which you mention as being in sharp focus, it too would be in focus-- unless of course it's using a cheap-ass alien cloaking field technology.
posted by Static Vagabond at 9:19 AM on April 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

Response by poster: Ping me if this isn't a good link. Here's the Flickr link.

One comment, I am not asking "Who They Are", I'm asking how a random photo could catch such a result.
posted by michswiss at 9:35 AM on April 14, 2008

Response by poster: Link to photo's. Not sure why the first one didn't work.

Static Vagabond, agreed. I'd like to use this question to put into public record how a "UFO" photo can occur. This is completely a random, family photo that ended up with a UFO in it.
posted by michswiss at 9:39 AM on April 14, 2008

I vote for bug or cheap ass cloaking technology.
posted by Juicylicious at 9:43 AM on April 14, 2008 [2 favorites]

Yep - looks like a bug. Oh well. Back to watching the skies.
posted by Jofus at 9:46 AM on April 14, 2008

FWIW, it's only visible in photo 1 and not the other two.
posted by special-k at 9:53 AM on April 14, 2008

Yeah, a bug in the foreground or a bird in the background.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:53 AM on April 14, 2008

Yeah, dude, that's a bug or something.

I was expecting something that could vaguely be interpreted in some fashion as a UFO, not a fuzzy tiny blob.
posted by Justinian at 9:54 AM on April 14, 2008

Response by poster: Bug is my only rational guess as well, but I'm open to other rational guesses. I have to admit that it's a strange experience to be sitting in an hotel room, downloading photos with your sis-in-law and brother next to you and notice unexplained additions to a normal shot.

Any examples of intentionally created, yet similar photos out there with explanations how they were made?
posted by michswiss at 9:56 AM on April 14, 2008

Note also a fine speck in the sky on the medium-zoom shot—about halfway up the side of the building and about the same half-building distance to the right.

The out-of-focus blur on the key shot matches that of the rock in extreme foreground, suggesting that whatever this is (bug, debris) is very close to the camera.
posted by cortex at 9:57 AM on April 14, 2008

Someone threw something off the wall from a position behind the tower. Were there adolescent or teenage kids touring at the time?

The shot actually shows two objects, with a very small one below and slightly to the right of the "UFO". The fact that they were falling objects (and thus only airborne for a few seconds) explains why they're not in the first shot (IMG_399). They're not in the third shot (IMG_401) for two reasons: a. they've fallen out of view, and b. that area of the sky is not visible due to zoom.
posted by dinger at 10:01 AM on April 14, 2008

Response by poster: Best recollection is that there wasn't anything above and behind me. I was shooting up the slope and a balanced against a wall away from rear structures at the time. I noticed the smaller object below and to the right of the "UFO" as well. Heck, it is a UFO in so much that it's flying and unidentified... Not the FSM, as it doesn't seem to have tentacles.

What struck me was the similarity to other UFO photos once you zoomed into the object. I can understand how objectivity could fall prey. Still interested in the mechanics of such a photo.
posted by michswiss at 10:11 AM on April 14, 2008

No, I didn't mean they threw it from anywhere above or behind you…they were standing on the wall beyond the tower that's in your picture, well away from you and out of view. For what it's worth, the larger object (the UFO) could be a hat.
posted by dinger at 10:18 AM on April 14, 2008

Willful UFO fakers have gotten good mileage out of suspended miniatures:

- You can use very fine thread to dangle something in frame without the thread itself showing up.

- You can paint or paste an image on glass plate and shoot your photo through the plate, eliminating strings altogether.

- You can even just toss your ufo in the air and snap a photo at the right moment, and with a digital camera the cost of shooting three dozen of those hoping for one that is Just Right drops from a few bucks for film and prints to a few cents for battery discharage.

There's a lot of literature on UFO photography and hoaxing if you're interested. Google a bit on those terms, hit your local library. The documentation of methods for hoaxing is available both from skeptics ("it's all fake") and true believers ("this is how some have been faked; I know how it works, and that's why I can say with confidence that this one is real").
posted by cortex at 10:19 AM on April 14, 2008 [1 favorite]

I don't like the falling object theory. If the objects were further away from the camera than the people in the middle of the field, they both would have to be head-sized or larger. Also because depth of field appears to be from N-infinity (notice how well-defined the bush is up on the mountain, in spite of JPEG artifacts) a thrown object should also be in focus with a cleaner outline. And if someone threw something that big off the wall, someone would notice and call attention to it. (The same holds true for a big flying saucer in the background.)

So, I'd agree that the simplest answer is something small and fast in front of the field of focus.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:20 AM on April 14, 2008

Someone threw something off the wall from a position behind the tower.

I don't buy that. (Nor am I suggesting it's an alien spacecraft, though.) It's very much out-of-focus, but in terms of depth of field, everything else is in the focus, aside from the rock in the foreground. Thus if it were somewhere in the vicinity of the people in the picture, it would be in focus. (Motion blur could explain it, except it was a 1/800 second exposure, so unless it was a speeding bullet, that's not it, either.)

The lower spot on that photo looks suspiciously like a dust speck.

I'd almost be inclined to call the first a water droplet, especially due to the fact that the top is much lighter. But this theory doesn't explain its absence in the other two: was the "UFO" shot the first of the three?
posted by fogster at 10:25 AM on April 14, 2008

Best answer: I vote for bug, approximately at the same distance from the camera as those out-of-focus rocks in the playground.

Either that, or you discovered the tiny zipper that keeps the sky closed. If you open that zipper, stars and moonbeams will spill out, covering everything in magic.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:32 AM on April 14, 2008 [3 favorites]

Another argument against the "falling hat" theory is that the larger object is near horizontal plane as wall behind it and at least 60 feet to the right. (Eyeballing scale based on the person in front of the tower.) That's one hell of a toss. And one hell of a hat because even assuming that range, it's got twice the angular width of the head of the person standing in front of the tower.

Ok, I got no life and decided to measure. The largest object is about 7 pixels across. The head of the person in front of the tower is 2 or 3 depending on how you eyeball it. The head of the figure closest to the camera is about 6 pixels. So assuming that the camera has no funky lens distortion going on, something thrown from the wall must be at least as long as a human head is wide, or larger if it's thrown from a position behind the tower.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:39 AM on April 14, 2008

It's a bug. The fact that it's so blurry means it's close to the lens. If it was far away it would be crisp.
posted by MythMaker at 11:30 AM on April 14, 2008

Here's a close-up of the area in question.Not sure if anyone else posted it. I'm at work, so no time to read the thread.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 12:47 PM on April 14, 2008

One quick note (again, sorry if this has been addressed): The EXIF info shows the shutter speed as 1/800 sec., which is fast enough to freeze about anything. (Except a spaceship, maybe.) So, the blurriness is probably not attributable to motion. (Unless it's a spaceship.) The building and the mountain range look to be pretty much in focus. Although the "object" appears to be somewhere between the building and the mountains, it is much blurrier than than even the mountains. Which means it has to be close enough to the lens to be out of focus. Further, it looks blurrier than the rocks in the foreground. Which places it closer still.

Now, there may an argument that it is HUGE and farther than the mountain, therefore blurrier than the mountain. Setting aside the fact the the mountain is focused at infinity, therefore even if the moon was in the shot it would be at the same basic level of sharpness, the object is not obscured by haze, like the mountain is.

So, two possibilites (if it is indeed an actual object and not some deliberate manipulation or camera glitch):

1- Something very small, and very close to the lens. Dust, dirt, bug, etc. And the lower item would fall into that category as well. It makes more sense that a couple specs of dust would be present at the same time (carried by the wind) than 2 bugs. But either guess would be good.

2- It is an extrememly fast moving UFO, located further than the building, but closer than the mountain. However, the blurring would show a direction of movement. And in this case it doesn't.

Which leaves only one possibility: It is a UFO, located further than the building, but oscillating at high speed, sort of like jogging in place. That accounts for the blurriness without direction. And is a more fun explanation than dirt.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 1:07 PM on April 14, 2008

Looks like it most likely was a tiny drop of water that got on the lens at that point and evaporated. It's obviously in the foreground.
posted by JJ86 at 1:13 PM on April 14, 2008

It's a bug. It's too blurry to be anything far away, and it's too small to be anything else. Note that everything from ~20 feet away to infinitely far away in the photo is in focus (google 'hyperfocal distance'), so anything that isn't in focus has to be closer to you than the closest in-focus rock at the bottom of the picture.
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:44 PM on April 14, 2008

Definitely a bug going by or some dust being blown by close to the camera. A fairly large suspended particle in the air is entirely consistent with the air in China, even on a relatively pretty and calm day.
posted by gemmy at 4:00 PM on April 14, 2008

Looks to me like there's a shadow beneath the object. If you move your gaze around the object (in the close-up photo), you'll see that the blue sky is slightly grayer underneath. Kind of like a jellyfish trailing tentacles. Any successful explanation will have to account for this. Me, I vote for flying jellyfish. :-)
posted by exphysicist345 at 5:31 PM on April 14, 2008

Best answer: I like the tiny zipper. And while I adore jellyfish, if there is even the hint of tentacles, I think the FSM is due for more acknowledgement. The enlargement looks exactly like something you'd see on the front page while standing in the check-out line...you *know* which front page I'm talking about.

Everyone is assuming that something tiny, flying rapidly by the camera, would be a bug.

Other than Hollywood, who says UFOs are big?
posted by squasha at 5:55 PM on April 14, 2008

My guess is a fast moving stealth plane as part of a covert operation dropping some sort of object, paratrooper, bomb, or package.
posted by hungrysquirrels at 7:36 PM on April 14, 2008

Seconding the tiny spaceship theory...just for fun! Thanks for the email btw, I came back to post pretty much what's already been said about an up-close object.
posted by samsara at 10:09 AM on April 15, 2008