Description: I am a wedding photographer so I wasn’t paying that much attention to the sky. So I don’t recall noticing anything, but when I uploaded the pictures and started to go through them I just got really confused by this one. As you can see in image 803 (not displayed in this report), the glass bottle candle holders are the only objects close to the subjects in picture 806 (shown above), and although the bottoms are elliptical, they are nowhere near to the shape that appears in photo 806. Also the sun had already set so there is no chance that the glass bottle was being bleached out of the photo and all that is showing is the bottom. Also I noticed the direction of movement in comparison to the camera movement. The photo was taken at 1/60th seconds, at F1.4, on a 24 MM Nikon G lens.
If someone could get back to me on this, it is really beguiling me. I would love to have captured a genuine sighting by accident! Thank you.
Note: The other photo mentioned by the witness was taken in the same direction as was the later photo. There are no objects in the area that would explain the object (e.g. light poles, other hanging objects, etc.) Also “photo saturation” can’t be the cause as the sun had already set. (This was pointed out by the witness who is a professional photographer.) Saturation can sometimes isolate objects (like light fixtures on light poles), but that is not an explanation here. I don’t have an explanation for the photo. I am sure that debunkers will come up with many explanations.
Photo Analyst David Mason Writes: Hi Bill:
I ran JPEG snoop and the results indicate both images have been edited in “Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 for windows.” I’m not sure why the sample reference image was also edited.
Perhaps they were edited for contrast? If you look at the upper right hand corner there’s a second similar object entering the field of view.
Also there is significant horizontal motion blur due to camera motion. The object of interest exhibits no motion blur. The photographer claimed the object was not visible until viewing the image. This can only occur if the camera was tracking the “moving” object by random chance. The camera would have to match the same direction and velocity as the object that was photographed. This would rule out any deliberate tracking giving it a very small mathematical chance that a camera could randomly be tracking an invisible moving object. The other explanation for the object being in focus against a motion blurred image would be that it was added after the fact. The photo appears to be genuine, but there are many questions.Note to Commenters: If you are reporting a sighting, be sure to include the location (city, state, country), date and time of your sighting. Be detailed in your description. You may also use our report form to report your sighting. Comments will be published if they are in "good taste" and not inflammatory.