UFO following a BA 747???

[DaSonyGuy]

The sun finally came out today so I went for a walk with my SD14 and Canon FL 55mm f1.2. I walked across Hounslow Heath to get under the fight path to Heathrow. Took a dozen of so pics of different aircraft on the landing glide path and this 747 was one of the biggest ones:



It was'nt until I got the X3F in SPP that I noticed what appears to be a small flying saucer following the 747. Its that flattened spec under the front undercarriage. Here is crop of the UFO magnified 5x:



Obviously, you immedietly think it must be a bird but it does'nt look like a bird to me as its symetrical and no wings can be seen even though it is almost overhead. It also appears to be moving at the same speed as the 747, which even on slow approach is faster than any bird. In any case, if it were a bird, it would almost certainly be sucked into one of the 747's engines at this close proximity.
Just thought I'd share it with you guys to see what you think.

 

[Chunsum J Choi]

looks like a bird going towards the plane.

birds aren't that smart.

--
http://www.chunsum.com (Website/Blog)
http://www.pbase.com/chunsum (Gallery)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chunsum (Gallery)
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr (Sigma Users Gallery)

 

[Mostly Lurking]

Since the 747 is not blurred but your 'UFO' is, I surmise that you were panning to get the shot. Due to the same, it's apparent that the motion blur of your 'UFO' is due to the fact that relatively speaking, it was 'flying' at a considerably slower speed than the 747. Regardless, it sure looks like a 'blurred' bird to me. (I've taken plenty of blurred shots of birds---although the blur was unintentional---and I feel somewhat qualified to judge it as such.) Of course, I've no doubt that you'll come up with some type of proof that I'm wrong.

Regardless, regards!
--
William Wilgus

 

[DaSonyGuy]

Since the 747 is not blurred but your 'UFO' is, I surmise that you were panning to get the shot. Due to the same, it's apparent that the motion blur of your 'UFO' is due to the fact that relatively speaking, it was 'flying' at a considerably slower speed than the 747. Regardless, it sure looks like a 'blurred' bird to me. (I've taken plenty of blurred shots of birds---although the blur was unintentional---and I feel somewhat qualified to judge it as such.) Of course, I've no doubt that you'll come up with some type of proof that I'm wrong.

It could well be a bird but if it is, where are its wings?

 

[Mostly Lurking]

What I believe I saw in your enlargement of the 'object' is a bit hard for me to describe, but I'll try. I hope you'll bear with me.

First, I see a white portion of the object near, but somewhat below, the vertical middle and left-hand side. Second, it appears that the object is essentially flat, and that we're looking up at it and from it's side. Again referencing the the white portion of the object and with the just mentioned apparent perspective (or view), the black portion of it to the upper right side appears to be larger---and especially longer---than its similarly colored portion on the (lower) left side. From this point of view, that fits with the expected perspective view of a bird or similar object. Finally, it seems the lower left-hand portion of the object can be nothing other than motion blur because of its 'transparency' and lighter color.

Sorry, but that's the best I can do.

--
William Wilgus

 

[FritsThomsen]

Since the 747 is not blurred but your 'UFO' is, I surmise that you were panning to get the shot. Due to the same, it's apparent that the motion blur of your 'UFO' is due to the fact that relatively speaking, it was 'flying' at a considerably slower speed than the 747. Regardless, it sure looks like a 'blurred' bird to me. (I've taken plenty of blurred shots of birds---although the blur was unintentional---and I feel somewhat qualified to judge it as such.) Of course, I've no doubt that you'll come up with some type of proof that I'm wrong.

It could well be a bird but if it is, where are its wings?

Birds doesnt allways have wings

http://www.flickr.com/photos/yoicz/2425509399/ " title="SDIM3094PS by yoicz, on Flickr">
--
Please visit my galleries at :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yoicz/
or
http://www.naturephotos.dk/NaturePhotos_ejergalleri.php?menu=3&_Ejer=57

 

[Midnighter]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/finetra/3527368444/

 

[Mostly Lurking]

I suspect that all of those ones that fly do have them---or something similar.
--
William Wilgus

 

[jrdigitalart]

It appears the undercarriage has only just been lowered, Alf. When I zoomed in in PS, I was able to identify that the captain had wound down his window and while resting his elbow on the sill, made a call on his mobile.

And then it happened. He sneezed. Guess what, mobiles got no wings.
--
Sincere regards, Jim Roelofs

May you too discover the light on your journey.

Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/jrdigitalart/

 

[SigmaChrome]

LOL! Mr Digital Sherlock Holmes... you totally outsmartarsed us all.

It appears the undercarriage has only just been lowered, Alf. When I zoomed in in PS, I was able to identify that the captain had wound down his window and while resting his elbow on the sill, made a call on his mobile.

And then it happened. He sneezed. Guess what, mobiles got no wings.

--
Regards,

Vitée

Capture all the light and colour!



http://www.pbase.com/vitee/galleries

 

[jrdigitalart]

Thanks, Vitee. I'ts my Dutch heritage, by the way. We learn at a very early stage in our lives that our tall stories have to be VERY tall, in order to reach above sea level.
--
Sincere regards, Jim Roelofs

May you too discover the light on your journey.

Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/jrdigitalart/

 

[miles green]

It appears the undercarriage has only just been lowered, Alf. When I zoomed in in PS, I was able to identify that the captain had wound down his window and while resting his elbow on the sill, made a call on his mobile.

And then it happened. He sneezed. Guess what, mobiles got no wings.
--
Sincere regards, Jim Roelofs

LOL!

Wow, stunning resolution you found there in PS! Was the shot taken with Carl's SD1?!

 

[rick decker]

I think it is a probe from K-PAX..unmanned due to its size so clearly a surveillance vehicle.

Beam me up Rolbin!!

R
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker

 

[Zone8]

Only kidding!

or as a true Cockney would retort

"You FO too mate"

Zone8

The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process. -Edward Weston
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS
LINK: For B+W with Epson 1400 using black ink only:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1003&message=33148491&q=zone8+1400+b+w+plain&qf=m

 

[Aaro]

Some even seem to use a gas engine without wings



Best
Aaro
--
'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication'.



http://www.lumisoft.fi/gallery

 

[DaSonyGuy]

Only kidding!

or as a true Cockney would retort

"You FO too mate"

Yeah, it was probably a bird, so there is nothing unusual about this pic after all:

 

[Pete Stavrakoglou]

It's far too small to be a UFO.
--
My humble photo gallery: http://www.pete-the-greek.com

 

[DaSonyGuy]

It's far too small to be a UFO.
--
My humble photo gallery: http://www.pete-the-greek.com

Did'nt you see anything else wrong with the picture?

 

[ELSELS]

Plane's name has been changed....?

Thanks!

Have a nice evening,

God Bless,
Ed

 

[DaSonyGuy]

Plane's name has been changed....?

Yes, but what else?