Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Dr Richard O'Connor UFO Picture

  1. #1

    Dr Richard O'Connor UFO Picture

    This guy has certainly put in the ground work has he come up with the goods?

    http://www.freep.com/story/news/nati...roof/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

  2. #2
    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.
    HTML Code:
    For it is in giving that we receive.
    ~ St. Francis of Assisi

  3. #3

  4. #4
    The sequence of photos are on his site here

    http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation...star-visitors/

    The most interesting one is here
    http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation...-21-M-5_20.jpg

    Copy uploaded here:

    2015-11-04-12-00-21-M-5_20.jpg
    Last edited by Longeyes; 12-29-2015 at 02:50 PM.

  5. #5
    This is the photo that you call the most interesting one:

    An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
    - Jef Mallett

    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
    - Charles Darwin

  6. #6
    Senior Member majicbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Minneapolis. Minnesota
    Posts
    1,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Longeyes View Post
    The sequence of photos are on his site here

    http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation...star-visitors/

    The most interesting one is here
    http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation...-21-M-5_20.jpg

    Copy uploaded here:

    2015-11-04-12-00-21-M-5_20.jpg
    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 objectís surface in photo M 5/20." This would be true for any solid object being photographed. An explanation that makes sense eludes me.

  7. #7
    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?
    Last edited by Longeyes; 12-30-2015 at 12:04 PM.

  8. #8
    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.
    HTML Code:
    For it is in giving that we receive.
    ~ St. Francis of Assisi

  9. #9
    Senior Member majicbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Minneapolis. Minnesota
    Posts
    1,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Longeyes View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    "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.
    Last edited by A99; 12-30-2015 at 08:03 PM.
    HTML Code:
    For it is in giving that we receive.
    ~ St. Francis of Assisi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •