Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
File: UFO-35mm_Blowup.jpg (56KB, 1200x960px) Image search:
[Google]
56KB, 1200x960px
I took this picture out of the window of an MD-80 cruising at 38,000 feet. I could not resolve any detail with my eye, it seemed to resemble a black flapping bird at a very far distance.
The 35mm film, when developed, showed some kind of discoid or delta shape with what appears to be two tail fins. There is also clutter underneath, like a stack of discs, or some kind of balloon payload. Furthermore, it looks as if it's either perfectly reflective of the blue sky, or possibly even translucent.
It's not lens flare because it's absorbing, and it's not a film emulsion defect because it's been examined under a loupe by camera snobs who confirm it's a two-sided image and the frame is smooth.
It can't be shit on the window, because when I took the picture I pressed the camera lens against the airplane window glass.
Why do this? because airplane glass is double-paned with air between, to help maintain cabin pressure, so you get a nasty reflection from the flash which I wanted to minimize.
The focal length of a 35mm camera is about 4 feet, so anything sharp an din focus had to be outside the airplane. Anything closer than 4 feet would appear as a blurry "zone", and in fact you can see several of those in the full frame.
If you look in the full frame photo, that is not the sun in the upper left, it's a reflection of the flash in the second pane of window material. The yellow band is actually the blurred image of the yellow label of the Kodak 35mm Avantix camera in the second pane of window glass.
So it was definitely outside the plane.
Nothing looking like that should ever be operating in civilian air traffic lanes, ever. So what was it?
t.sciencefag.
>>
File: UFO-Full_Frame.jpg (1MB, 4095x3242px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 4095x3242px
>>8941494
Here's the full frame.
>>
>>
>>8941499
>Well, if you're 100% sure it was outside and not some dirt on the lens/window, then it really is a genuine UFO, now just to figure out what it actually is
i'm 100% sure it is physically impossible to have been something on the window. The blurred image of the label of the camera reflecting in the second pane of glass proves that nothing inside the plane could have been in focus.
And it wasn't the lens, because the frames before and after are clear.
>>
>>8941511
you say it looked like a bird, like, it moved the way the birds do?
Because there totally are birds which can climb to passenger jet cruise altitude.
>>
File: 2101630.jpg (69KB, 1020x574px) Image search:
[Google]
69KB, 1020x574px
Alien skydiver
>>
>>
File: balloons_of_nylon.jpg (31KB, 700x394px) Image search:
[Google]
31KB, 700x394px
>>8941494
>watch out for the attack of the flying squiggles.
It honestly looks like a bunch of silver nylon balloons that were tied together and got released all at once, and all their tails are trying to flop around everywhere while all their heads are being swept by the same wind.
>>
>>8941539
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_by_flight_heights
none of those birds fly at 38,000
only Rüppell's vulture gets close, with a max of 37,000
i don't think that's what's pictured
>>
>>8941563
It seems like pretty large ballons for OP to catch it. It would have to be large and far away for him/her to have even 30s of photo opportunity.
That said, I doubt it was alien. Probably a damaged weather balloon, if I had to posit.
>>
>>8941563
>It honestly looks like a bunch of silver nylon balloons that were tied together and got released all at once, and all their tails are trying to flop around everywhere while all their heads are being swept by the same wind.
kinda does
>>
>>8941601
how did you measure you alt at that specific moment?
>>
>>8941611
>how did you measure you alt at that specific moment?
plane was at 38,000 feet
it was level with the plane.
>>
>>8941701
>it was level with the plane.
How do you know that?
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4