BTW I have mentioned this before, but forgot to mention in this article earlier, that the largest object was visible to the naked eye. Though it was very far away, and dim, it was clearly visible and seen by my husband and myself. Also before we went out that night I had an intuition that something was out there, as I have had many times before. As a MUFON investigator I am not given to falsely reporting any type of phenomenon such as this, and I am very critical of anyone who does. I have the highest standards for the truth, and I am sure that my good friend for many years Dr. Leo Sprinkle would vouch for me on that note. I have known Dr. Sprinkle since 1981 and this is not the first UFO I have reported. If you want to know more about my character I would invite you to contact Dr. Sprinkle and ask him about me yourself.

I have read your response. I do not see how the objects in the sky are lens flares when they do not look anything like the streetlights below. Not the same color, size, or shape. Also, I have not tried to "sell" anything. I have not made a dime off of anything, nor am I trying to. I have never publicly stated that these are nothing more than "objects". I am not a photographic expert, and if you are that is great. I have just shared an interesting photo and others as well with people who do know photography, and yes others have said they are lens flares also simply because their positioning resembles the street lights below. That is not enough to determine they are lens flares. Your explanations seem more emotional based than science based. Let me ask you this, have you ever had a close encounter??? Probably not...

Dear Arcesileus,

Oooops, I sincerely apologize for failing to give credit where credit is due. You are absolutely right that you first mentioned the mushroom's axis of orientation and also the fact that the "blue orb" is no different than any other star in the photo. thank you for also finding and posting the link to the high resolution original photo that made further analysis possible (/www.alienseekernews.com/articles/interview-with-christine-dickey.html)

In my rush to get the suggestions of the readers into the analysis I forgot to give proper credit where due. I will update the graphic with credits and see if UFODigest can replace the current one. If they can't then I will resubmit the changes in a new analysis which will be coming forth. Until then this blog entry will have to suffice.

By the way the new analysis will include the following new items:

1) spectral analysis of mushroom UFOs showing that their spectrum matches the spectrum of the street lights. It is easy to see that the mushrooms represent small spectral rainbows (red-orange-yellow-green-and even a hint of blue). This is due to the lens splitting up the street light into its spectral component like a prism. Because the street lights have a yellow tint the blue end of the spectrum is weak. I will include spectral graphs.

2) Intensity analysis of the street lights vs the size and presence of the lens flares. You are right in that the orientation of the street lights makes a big difference over the intensity of the light reaching the lens. It also appears that the presence of the sunburst pattern around some of the lights is a decent indicator of whether the light intensity and/or orientation is suitable to create flares

3) statistical analysis of UFO placement vs street light placement. This will involve dividing the image into a grid and then calculating the probability of that the UFOs and the street lights happen to fall in the squares locations predicted by 2-fold rotational symmetry. My initial analysis show that the odds for winning the lottery are better than the chance of the UFOs lining up with the street lights.

Keep the suggestions coming.

Sincerely,
Swampmoon

@ Joseph Capp

You say: "For me the only way to resolve this is for some expert to try and prove you wrong and then if they can't ...I will accept your answer."

Well, I think that both Swampmoon and myself would be quite happy to accept your challenge (although, doubtless, I will be the one left to do the actual graft), and who would be better suited to take up the gauntlet on your behalf than Mr Ron Nusbeck; the original proponent of this picture; Mrs Dickey's friend and ally; self-proclaimed image expert; and apparently, in fact, part of a team of scientists who can do wonder stuff such as getting infra-red and x-ray data from an ordinary image file. If he can't demolish our arguments then who can?

So, please give us your verdict on his success so far - have any of his counter points hit home with you? And how about stipulating a time limit after which he will be considered to have failed?

I had thought that Swampmoon was one of the good guys trying, like myself, to make UFOlogy a scientifically respectable field of research. However, he well knows that all but one point of "his" new analysis of this image derives from comments that I made concerning his original analysis, and yet where is the courtesy of an acknowledgement of that fact? Are plagiarism and intellectual theft (I have the original page archived to my hard disk to prove it) now acceptable in UFOlogy as well as charlatanism?

Incidentally, concerning the final point, I might add that I had already figured out why only five of the lights produce flares, and it is actually not so much that they are brighter as that light from them radiates directly into the camera lens and also, moreover, in a 360 degree arc. This can be clearly seen in this crop from the original full size image (I have lowered the gamma of the image to 0.5 to reduce the glare):

http://i39.tinypic.com/35hfg5w.jpg

If Mrs Dickey were doing her proper job as an objective MUFON investigator rather than obviously merely trying to "sell" us her picture, then she could go and find out why these five particular lights are physically different to the others whose lights are all directed downwards.

I didn't bother to post this final observation, partly because I thought there was no longer any audience to read it and partly because I was beginning to get very bemused by the whole business and extremely uncertain about the motivations of the players involved on all sides. Clearly something other than the search for truth has been going on here and I am still not exactly certain what it is.

Since we're quoting Shakespere Doth Protest..yada..Methinks Swampmoon is correct, its lens flare, and the 'jellyfish craft' are coincidently all angled towards the street lights in addition to the street lights lineing up with the "UFOs" which incidently look still look like fuzzy blurs of light in the sky, And whats interesting also is something I never took into account before about the Earth moving a little during a long exposure would cause a slight blur, Combined by the fact that the poster of the original photo seems to post incredible photos of aliens and spaceships every week here on UFO Digest, the Notch craft, the Alien slave arc, etc, leading Me to beleive that one must consider the source, reward or not. lol, Im not a debunker,just a little skeptical, I would really love to see some really wild pictures,Over all this time even with all the cameras, internet technology out there Noone has taken that ONE photo that changes everything. I think the "truth is out there" you know like the X-files, but the blurry pics of the greatest ORB photos ever taken is a stretch.

DOUBLE TALK, NOT STRIAGHT TALK


In your article you said the bright blue light is a star, can you show me one start that looks like that? You are really reaching for anything to debunk the photos. I am with Joe, no proof, no science, and most of all just bunk….
Your article shows how far debunker have gone, swamp gas, military flares, space junk, Venus and hot air balloons. Give it a rest.

I want an explanation that takes in what the witnesses saw without the camera. They saw the lens flare? Unless you are calling them liars. I think you explanation, although A possible explanation of the photo alone just doesn't support what the witnesses saw, and I will be dame if that is going to start that happening again WITH OUT MENTION IT.
I believe in many of the witnesses because I'VE gone through this so many times. In the history of UFO research we find researcher stretching the bounds of realism to defrock the witnesses and explain away UFOs craft no matter what. Gordon Cooper saw spider webs. Newhouse saw birds. Take it into a lab and futz with it exclude the witnesses testimony and presto you have an answer. People are not stupid,either they saw what they saw or there are lying.
I believe some of these startling pictures are real. But over and over honest skeptics take these photos to a lab passionately wanting to find and explanation, minus the witness testimony or course.It usually ends up an injustice. For me the only way to resolve this is for some expert to try and prove you wrong and then if they can't ...I will accept your answer.
This type investigation was done at Stephenville, before they got the Radar tapes... I remember reading the MUFON journals and it wasn't so supportive at first minimizing the witnesses.
UFO Witness testimony is negated all the time not only by debunkers but by UFO researches. Second opinion for me.
I am just wondering what kind of craft is up there that can't be photographed or videoed.
Joe Capp
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog

Your explanation is weak and over the top with guess work and no science. It seems like you protest to much and seem suspect. Not convincing at all, try a new line of work......
Marty