F16 and UFO dogfight caught on 10 photos?

Mazille · **#21** by **Mazille** » Feb 20, 2012 9:33 pm

John P. M. wrote:If these were enough to establish UFOs of the extraterrestrial kind, then a grainy image taken two miles away of a brownish blob with a shadow in the outskirts of a forest would be enough to confirm Bigfoot.

Do I hear a resentment against blobs there? Because, let me tell you, we blobs do not take kindly to this kind of slander! :lay:

As for the OP:

...

...

*sigh*

...

mraltair · **#22** by **mraltair** » Feb 20, 2012 9:34 pm

Looks more like a Rafale to me.

ETA - You can compare it with this photo of a Rafale flying overhead at fairly high altitude.

A Rafale as another comparison.

See what I mean?

Dogmatic Pyrrhonist · **#23** by **Dogmatic Pyrrhonist** » Feb 21, 2012 3:57 am

laklak wrote:
Regina wrote:It's a pimple.

I'm going with "nipple".

Nah, it's clearly a face on a pyramid on Mars.

Darkchilde · **#24** by **Darkchilde** » Feb 21, 2012 11:06 am

!

GENERAL MODNOTE
Freespirit, in this post of yours, you are plagiarizing from the website you linked. You are advised that plagiarism and unattributed quotes are against the Forum user's Agreementto which you agreed when you signed for this forum. Specifically, your post is in violation of rule 1.2.m about quote mining and plagiarizing and 3.8 about proprietary rights:

starr wrote:3.8 Proprietary Rights
The Internet allows people throughout the world to share valuable information, ideas and creative works. To ensure continued open access to such materials, we all need to protect the rights of those who share their creations or information with us.

rationalskepticism.org expects that you will not use the service to violate anyone's copyright, trademark or other intellectual property rights. By submitting material to rationalskepticism.org, you are representing that you are the owner of the material; are making your submission with the express consent of the owner; or have legal authorisation and/or rights to submit any non-owned property.

In the interests of transparency, the maintenance of a high standard of debate and compliance with copyright law:
a. All quoted texts must be presented as such and attributed to a source to avoid confusion over authorship. Therefore, you must provide links to online sources or list author, title, and edition copyright when quoting from printed literature. The onus is on you to ensure that you have copyright permission to copy text from articles, in situations where fair use does not apply.
b. You may not post "copyrighted" material in its entirety or large amounts of material that is available from other sites.
c. You may not "hotlink" unless it is explicitly allowed by the website.

Please be advised that continuing with similar behaviour may lead to sanctions such as warnings and suspensions.

Please do not discuss moderation in this thread. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to PM me or another moderator for this section of the forum, or alternatively, you can start a thread in Feedback.

Spearthrower · **#25** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 21, 2012 11:15 am

freespirit wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
F16 jetfighter in dogfight with UFOs over Denmark caught on photography, maybe sounds like pure fiction, but there may actually be some truth here, especially when you study the pictures I shot on July 6, 2010

Are you sure you mean 2010? The picture quality looks more like 1910.

You know, when you can´t see any objects and just take photos sporadic of the airspace, you can´t expect focused objects. If I saw the objects and had a change to focus and zoom in on it, it would have been nice.

No matter what you think, the objects are there, and sorry for that...

I take it you're aware of the potential for artifacts produced by the hardware of the camera? Looking at the severely poor quality of the images, I don't think that can be ruled out.

Spearthrower · **#26** by **Spearthrower** » Feb 21, 2012 11:17 am

freespirit wrote:
chairman bill wrote:English isn't his first language, and by 'accidentally' he probably means 'just happened to have one with me', i.e. hadn't gone out specifically to photograph UFO dogfights with F16s. I think there's more important stuff here. Like the dust bunnies he's claiming are UFOs.

Edit: typos

I know everything about dust, both on the lens and the CCD, so please don´t try that on me, because it will not work.

Nope, don't get what you're saying here. You know that this is a rational explanation for such terrible images, but it 'won't work on you'? What won't work? Explaining something without resorting to fanciful claims?

freespirit wrote:The objects are there, everyone can see that, but some of them could be insects...

Well no, I don't agree. That's the point isn't it - are there actually objects there, or are they products of your camera, your post-production techniques, your imagination? Just saying they're there doesn't really make it so.

Paul · **#27** by **Paul** » Feb 21, 2012 11:22 am

This picture is from June 2006, an ASK21 glider in a dogfight with some UFOs over central England.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Actually there was a swarm of large flies around at the time, so maybe that could account for the specks on the image.

Notice also, the odd colour of the clouds - very suspicious.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Which was due to a circumhorizontal arc, which is what I was actually trying to photograph.

F16 and UFO dogfight caught on 10 photos?

Re: F16 and UFO dogfight caught on 10 photos?

Re: F16 and UFO dogfight caught on 10 photos?

Re: F16 and UFO dogfight caught on 10 photos?

Re: F16 and UFO dogfight caught on 10 photos?

Re: F16 and UFO dogfight caught on 10 photos?

Re: F16 and UFO dogfight caught on 10 photos?

Re: F16 and UFO dogfight caught on 10 photos?

Who is online