Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Dr Richard O'Connor UFO Picture

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by majicbar View Post
    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?

  2. #12
    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.

  3. #13
    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.

    Last edited by A99; 12-31-2015 at 09:38 PM.
    HTML Code:
    For it is in giving that we receive.
    ~ St. Francis of Assisi

  4. #14
    Image analysis expert Marvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Heart of America
    Looking at the EXIF data on 2015-11-04-12-00-21-M-5_20.jpg…

    The camera is a:

    The last three frames shown at 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.

    Last edited by Marvin; 01-05-2016 at 12:18 PM.

    Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting...

  5. #15
    Insightful thanks Marvin

Posting Permissions

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