The object does not appear to be blurred because of camera movement, subject movement, atmospheric haze or a fingerprint on the lens. My opinion is it is blurred because of the cloud, which is partially covering it, distorting its outlines and softening its contrast. The cloud seems to be forming on top of the object and flowing over it like dry ice vapor, obscuring it. One could say the dark object is "cloaking" itself in the cloud.
This is weird! I've never seen anything like it before, in a photo or real life. It reminds me of the U.S. Navy's WWII experiments to make anti-submarine patrol aircraft less visible by putting lights on the leading edges of their wings so they more closely matched the lightness of the sky. Planes thus equipped could get 30% closer to submarines before they were observed!
Now, let's turn to the second object:
| At first this appears so blurred nothing can come out of it, but I didn't give up. When I altered the contrast and color balance, something remarkable happened: |
 |
| You can actually see shading and highlights! This second object begins to look like a donut or inner tube, with a characteristic highlight in the right place, given the position of the sun. Using "glowing edges" brings this out clearly: |
 |
| I don't know what these things are, but the optical "signatures" are not consistent, from what I know, with a bird, bat, flying insect, airplane, balloon, any type of conventional aircraft (helicopter, blimp) or anything else that flies in the skies of Earth. There's no evidence of trickery. |
 |
These objects ought to be sharp – everything else in the picture is – but they're not, possibly as a result of this "cloaking" with clouds. This is, of course, my interpretation and does not actually represent what was happening. But I do think "Dave" has taken one of the most remarkable UFO photos I have ever seen, and I would suggest you send this one to Dr. Bruce Maccabee or someone else credible for analysis. I have done all that I can, given my limits of time and energy.
I seriously thought this photo would turn out to have a conventional explanation, like others I have analyzed, but they do not. Thanks very much for the chance to investigate this fascinating photo!
Yours, Malcolm J. Brenner
Visit Malcolm's company website: www.photosbymalcolm.com/.
|