Sighting Reports 2010Couple See Bright "Computer Slash" Object Hovering in Sky. Photos Taken.
Date of Sighting: March 16, 2010
Description: I took these photos of this object hovering by a new building that was recently built in the downtown core of Toronto, Canada. I have been debating weather or not to send them to someone. After seeing the report from the woman from Florida I believe it is the same thing she saw. I almost fell over when I saw the sketches on your site today. I was on my balcony 22 floors up when I saw the object at about 6:30 PM. As it got darker out I could tell this was really something. So my friend and I took pictures of it. The pictures were taken at about 7 PM and were taken with a Nikon D-40 with a zoom lens 55-200. The object stayed for about an hour and a half. We did not see it move or leave. As we had things to get done and were too busy to watch this thing forever. Please post these pictures s wherever you can. I don't know what else to do with them. I hope they give the lady in Florida some assurance of what she saw. However, it might not even be the same things, but the sketches were too familiar for me not to say anything. I have seven pictures in total. ...u can only upload two through your web form so if anybody wants more, I will be happy to send them.
Note: The witness is comparing the sighting and photo to the report received from Port Charlotte, Florida on March 20, 2010. The photograph does resemble the description provided by the Florida witness. It is important to note that this photo is likely not due to a camera anomaly because the witnesses saw the object that they photographed. However, it is possible that the witnesses saw something that could be due to a reflection. The witness has sent additional photos of the object. Updates will be posted as time permits.
Comment Received March 28, 2010: Whoever writes the notes on sightings reported on UFOS NW almost always comments from a skeptical point of view. He always offers a debunking interpretation no matter how far-fetched it may be (on point about skepticism in ufology: skeptics can always find at least one mundane explanation for any phenomenon observed like the infamous "swamp gas," for example. Consider his comment on the object in this case. He proposes that the brilliant image here "could be due to a reflection." High in the sky perhaps 2,000 feet or more, the image is a reflection of what? Oh, could it possibly be the reflection of the sun on a large three-dimensional metallic object? That's ridiculous, isn't it?
UFOS Northwest Response to Above Comment: I think the commentor above doesn't understand the message in the above note. It is clearly stated that the object is likely not due to a camera anomaly. It is said that it is "possible" that the light could be a reflection (e.g. reflection from light in building or ground lighting.)
Comment Received March 28, 2010: The Picture SEEMS to be a rare Shot of the Rectangular UFO! These Type of UFO'S Are a part of UFO HISTORY!.Thank's!..Walt!
Comment Received March 29, 2010: You didn't have a comment section, so I thought I'd email you directly. The object in question appears to be a time exposure of Venus taken over some length of time, probably 45 minutes to 1 hour. The camera shutter is opened & Venus is allowed to track through, via the Earth's rotation, the field of view, producing a nice solid line. The angle that the planet takes (& the angle of the solid line) corresponds to the Plane of the Ecliptic, the apparent path of the Sun, Moon & planets across our sky.
UFOS Northwest Comment to Above Comment:
I appreciate your comments, but I disagree with your assessment:
1. The photo was taken at 7 PM EDT.
2. At that time Venus was only 7 degrees above the horizon to the WNW (268 degrees). The object in the photo is at a "much" higher elevation. Venus set not too long after the photo was taken.
3. The time exposure of the camera was only 30 seconds. There is no way that a 30 second time exposure would produce an object of that length due to rotation of the Earth.
4. The witnesses saw the object that they photographed. It hovered for at least one hour after the photograph. (Many photo analysts forget to include what the witness saw in their analysis.)