Thread replies: 34
Thread images: 8
Thread images: 8
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.
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
>>19069873
Here's the full-frame.
>>
Fucking ayy's man.
>>
>>19069873
>>19069878
Clearly swamp gas.
>>
>>19069873
It's some shit on the window.
>>
>>19069885
>Clearly swamp gas.
I took that picture back in like, 2004, and I still can't explain it. I'm a professional scientist, my JOB is explaining unexplainable shit. And this one has always been a problem.
>>
>>19069873
Seen some weird video of silent antigravity craft used for surveillance. Experimental craft is way beyond the tech we have access to. Seriously.
>>
>>19069902
I only say antigravity because nobody could figure out what keeps it aloft.
>>
>>19069895
>It's some shit on the window.
can't be, 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 camera in the second pane of glass.
So it was definitely outside the plane.
Good guess tho, you have an investigator's mind.
>>
File: 1495046215864.png (108KB, 500x628px) Image search:
[Google]
108KB, 500x628px
>>19069873
Weird
>>
File: 10595513-1343655040-482847.jpg (40KB, 600x600px) Image search:
[Google]
40KB, 600x600px
Kind of looks like a banshee
>>
>>19069987
>Weird
This was the only conclusion I could come to after about, ohhh, 12 years now.
I also did some trig. Using the aperture and frame angular width I worked out that if the thing were 1 mile out, it was about 30 feet in length on the long axis, if 2.5 miles like 150 ft., and if 5 miles distant it was about 300 ft. on the long axis.
I picked those limits because a plane is supposed to keep clear of objects by minimum 1 mile, and preferably 5 miles.
Given the "feel" of the dept, I'd say the object was between a mile and two miles distant, from the picture. But my eye saw nothing like that.
>>
>>19070016
It was the only thing I could think about this, it's weird af.
>>
>>19070022
>It was the only thing I could think about this, it's weird af.
dubs checked.
and I know the feels, Anon.
>>
>>19069907
electrostatic propulsion with the unit encased within a plasma double-layer.
>>
>>19069873
That's a drone please seek help OP, you are delusional.
Sage and slide
>>
>>19070134
38,000 ft?
No drone can fly that high.
>>
>>19069873
I am currently reasearching it, but damn i haven't sleept a single minute last night, i am really drowsy now.. Aren't you drowsy OP?
>>
>>19069873
I would like one with high res quality stuff thats original mixed in with other bright exotic colors and shiny stuff.
>>
>>19070153
Yes of course they can, it's a shame that your mental disabilty is preventing from gaining common knowlegde, it's not really your faulth..
>>
>>19070170
My mistake, I meant no drone doesn't use that attitude as service ceiling.
>>
>>19070177
No drone uses*
Fml alright.
>>
>>19070177
Yes they sure do, please stop spending your time reaserching things that you are in your head, and contact a psychiatrist ASAP!
>>
File: 1491336769140.jpg (19KB, 250x376px) Image search:
[Google]
19KB, 250x376px
MD80 has a ceiling of 37,000 feet
>>
>>19069873
It looks pretty weird, you sure it ain't a weather ballon?
>>
>>19070284
>MD80 has a ceiling of 37,000 feet
same diff, we were at max altitude. i remember it as 38, it may have been 37. I wasn't the pilot.
>>
File: phoenix_weather_balloon-300x160.jpg (3KB, 300x160px) Image search:
[Google]
3KB, 300x160px
>>19070298
>It looks pretty weird, you sure it ain't a weather ballon?
yeah i'm sure. weather balloons can;t fly in civilian air traffic lanes. also they look like pic related.
>>
>>19069873
Looks like they join forces with them
>>>/sci/8941494
great thinking, OP, now most of us will be aware with this existence and making sure this thread will not be lost for evidence.
>>
>>19070222
you're fishy bro
>>
File: B47949A4-4155-4B9E-A35F-08E1A5417A59.jpg (36KB, 600x600px) Image search:
[Google]
36KB, 600x600px
>>19070941
Just throwing this out here, what about non-rubbery helium balloons, the kinda ones you buy at fairs.
Now the sources I checked tell a max altitude at around 10km but who knows.
>>
File: 6a0120a5c94e03970b015432ffa442970c.jpg (43KB, 450x430px) Image search:
[Google]
43KB, 450x430px
>>19071173
>>
>>19069873
Any specific reason for 35mm film over digital?
Without more of the crop this could be any unfocused object captured on film
>>
>>19071741
12 years ago, digital cameras weren't really all that, unless you really invested a lot.
>>
>>19070222
Nah, better you go mate.
Mine says I'm ok.
Thread posts: 34
Thread images: 8
Thread images: 8