PDA

View Full Version : Dr Richard O'Connor UFO Picture



Longeyes
12-29-2015, 11:33 AM
This guy has certainly put in the ground work has he come up with the goods?

http://www.freep.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/12/23/ufo-captured-man-says-he-has-proof/77857852/

CLANCY, Mont.— For nearly two years Dr. Richard O’Connor has kept two cameras pointed at the sky with the deep hope and belief that something might be out there.

And then, after nearly 280,000 photos captured by motion detection, it happened.

Or maybe not.

But O’Connor’s findings of what he believes are two unidentified flying objects has set off a barrage of email exchanges, some of them angry, in the community of UFO fans and experts.

About noon on Nov. 4, his cameras captured five photos of something flying through the skies of Montana that is hard for some to explain.

“It appears to be a light source,” O’Connor said. “In my opinion, even a hardened skeptic would say ‘Wow, that is what I expect a UFO would look like.’”

But his discovery has sparked some debate, leaving the doctor to find his own photo experts to determine what his cameras may have captured....

This is his website
http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation.org/
His email: richard@cropcirclesresearchfoundation

A99
12-29-2015, 02:49 PM
O'Connor appears to be an anesthesiologist and he's offered to take a polygraph test wrt to his ufo photographs. You don't offer to take a test like that if you're lying about whatever it is that you're taking the test for.

Longeyes
12-29-2015, 03:38 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_Ptv2T4Mn4

Longeyes
12-29-2015, 03:47 PM
The sequence of photos are on his site here

http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation.org/update-another-invitation-to-the-star-visitors/

The most interesting one is here
http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-04-12-00-21-M-5_20.jpg

Copy uploaded here:

1427

Garuda
12-29-2015, 05:51 PM
This is the photo that you call the most interesting one:

http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-04-12-00-21-M-5_20.jpg

majicbar
12-30-2015, 11:45 AM
The sequence of photos are on his site here

http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation.org/update-another-invitation-to-the-star-visitors/

The most interesting one is here
http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-04-12-00-21-M-5_20.jpg

Copy uploaded here:

1427

5. "If these were water drops then the area of maximum sunlight reflection should be on the right side of the object and in the direction of the sun, not on the left side as we clearly see on the object’s surface in photo M 5/20." This would be true for any solid object being photographed. An explanation that makes sense eludes me.

Longeyes
12-30-2015, 01:02 PM
I would be amazed if the lens could get both the clouds and a water drop at that distance in focus. Either the drop would be in focus and the clouds blurred, or the other way round, the clouds sharp and the drop probably won't even show up, the depth of field would have to be colossal.
It would be easy to disprove the raindrop theory, Dr O'Connor could photograph an object the size of a rain drop in front of the lens and trigger it. It should be massively blurred.

Read his page about this morning, m 1/20 shows two distant objects, m 2/20 nothing, m 3/20 he claims he can see something in one of the clouds , m4/20 in the sequence again nothing, then m 5/20 shows the two discs. He also claims his motion sensors only work up to 100ft so he has no idea how something so distant could have triggered them. He says he has tried to call them done as in Dr Greer's CE-5 protocols. Otherwise it's something closer but what?

A99
12-30-2015, 03:37 PM
After looking at thousands of UFO pictures over the years, I think this photo captured by the good doctor is the best ufo picture we've seen this year. Others are saying that too.

What I like about this case too is that here we have a medical doctor who's showing his UFO photos to the public. The general public is more apt to pay more attention to an MD's UFO report and UFO photograph's and that's a good thing because it's just one small step in the right direction towards the mainstreams greater acceptance of the existence of UFOs.

majicbar
12-30-2015, 07:39 PM
I would be amazed if the lens could get both the clouds and a water drop at that distance in focus. Either the drop would be in focus and the clouds blurred, or the other way round, the clouds sharp and the drop probably won't even show up, the depth of field would have to be colossal.
It would be easy to disprove the raindrop theory, Dr O'Connor could photograph an object the size of a rain drop in front of the lens and trigger it. It should be massively blurred.

Read his page about this morning, m 1/20 shows two distant objects, m 2/20 nothing, m 3/20 he claims he can see something in one of the clouds , m4/20 in the sequence again nothing, then m 5/20 shows the two discs. He also claims his motion sensors only work up to 100ft so he has no idea how something so distant could have triggered them. He says he has tried to call them done as in Dr Greer's CE-5 protocols. Otherwise it's something closer but what?

If his motion detectors only work up to 100 feet, why is this his detector. The only UFOs that would trigger 100 foot sensor would be a very, very close encounter. The photos of blank sky are interesting in that what did his system think it was capturing? Great intent but lousy execution. I think a trigger needs to be rethought.

A99
12-30-2015, 08:59 PM
"He also claims his motion sensors only work up to 100ft so he has no idea how something so distant could have triggered them."

And how many ufo photographs are there where the photographer did not see the ufo when he/she captured the photo but were seen after the photo was developed. Same goes for video's of ufos too where nothing was seen when the video was recorded only for the same recording to show a ufo in it on playback.

But that phenomenon is just one example that falls in the anomalous dept. that's often reported when people capture ufo's by cam. So in this case, ufos are showing via motion detector despite the limitations of that technology. I say, so what....because everyone knows that when it comes to ufo photography, the normal rules of physics are sometimes absent or different in some way that's outside of "normal". That's just the nature of the beast.

Longeyes
12-31-2015, 08:47 AM
If his motion detectors only work up to 100 feet, why is this his detector. The only UFOs that would trigger 100 foot sensor would be a very, very close encounter. The photos of blank sky are interesting in that what did his system think it was capturing? Great intent but lousy execution. I think a trigger needs to be rethought.

Yes he agrees with you, I think they were best he could afford.
In his words

These cameras were chosen for this project not because they are the best possible equipment available for this purpose, but because they were the best possible equipment available that are within my budget. I installed these cameras well-aware of their functional limitations and knowing that they were not designed to be activated at a distance of greater than 100 yards, but all the while essentially hoping for a miracle. I assumed that highly intelligent beings who might cooperate in this effort would either maneuver their craft in very close to the house to trigger the camera, or that they would be capable, somehow, of employing a means to overcome the design limitations of the cameras and trigger the cameras from a distance – perhaps by using a laser, for example. Is this what happened on November 4?

lionheart001
12-31-2015, 08:18 PM
The craft closest, having a bright purplish spot on the front and a white small spot on the rear, with the brightest colored zone on the opposite side of the sun, I think, might be caused by a magnetic propulsion system that has a front and rear polar set of zones, which when hovering would then be top and bottom. Usually the bottom is colorized and a color reflecting the frequency and/or power ratio of the propulsion system. In this case, the color zone appears on an end, so it could be that its in full horizontal magnetic flight mode and thats why you see the lights.

Also, it might (might) be that this is going left to right, which would then make sense, as the color zone I think is almost always on the 'push' side. I could be wrong though. Might be photonic instead of magnetic.

A99
12-31-2015, 10:19 PM
Why not use the approach that those objects are somewhere in-between. Then, through extensive research, attempt to establish standards that fall in that category. All I'm seeing, so far, is an attempt to fit things into mainstream science's paradigm. At this point... nuff said.

http://i932.photobucket.com/albums/ad164/A99_x/Capture455yrthrty.jpg

Marvin
01-04-2016, 10:20 PM
Looking at the EXIF data on 2015-11-04-12-00-21-M-5_20.jpg…

The camera is a:
http://www.reconyx.com/product/PC900-HyperFire-Professional-Covert-IR

The last three frames shown at http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation.org/update-another-invitation-to-the-star-visitors/ are approximately 1 second apart. There are no objects visible at 12:00:20, there are two similar objects visible at 12:00:21 and there are no objects visible at 12:00:22. If these are passing objects, and are passing at a distance, they would have to be moving relatively fast (to be in and out of frame in under 2 seconds).

The two objects visible at 12:00:21 appear to be “in focus”, which would tend to rule out distant, fast moving objects. But also, it is possible for the objects to be small and relatively close to the camera (like flying insects) and the motion blurred object can appear to be an in focus solid object (looking a bit like a disk or “rice” shaped object). I think we can rule out flying insects because of the light emanating from the ends of the “rice” shaped objects. What is interesting is the “light” emanating from the end(s) of the “rice” shaped objects. They happen to “line up” with the lens flare being caused by the sun, with the brightest of the “lights” being on the farthest side of the object from the sun. It is like we are seeing the light passing through water or a void in glass (in effect, acting like a miniature lens). One can see this affect with water droplets on a car windshield (while setting in the car with the sun to the side of the direction of view).

The exposure time was sent to 1/2880 of a second, which is a very short exposure time. This can allow a fast moving distant object to not display as much motion blur.

The photos have been modified Q=75 and some have been stripped of their EXIF data. It would be great to have original photos to examine.

This is a good puzzle to ponder. I think there is some "ground" work that needs to be done.


M

Longeyes
01-05-2016, 12:00 AM
Insightful thanks Marvin