So tell me… HOW is this plausible, that UFOs are just all over the place, hundreds of them? Yes, I am finding this hard to believe. You should too.
Rob Hartland has taken more than 20,000 photos of the day-time sky in the past six months and analysed them on his computer.
It began when he was taking photos of clouds to test out a new camera when he noticed a “smudge” that, when enlarged and enhanced, “had some structure to it, suggesting it could be some sort of craft in the sky”.
He says since then he has identified a dozen different UFOs including round, square and saucer-shaped craft, posting the photos to his website wispyclouds.net for extra-terrestrial buffs and sceptics to ponder.
Mr Hartland, who has completed a PhD in biochemistry, said he had no history of mental illness or drug taking and that he never altered his photos, though he acknowledged many people would find his claims hard to believe.
A “smudge” is not a “craft in the sky”. We’d be safe to call it unidentified but it could be lots of things. Insects or other flying animals is a better choice. Remember this ridiculosity?
Let’s head on over to his website, wispyclouds, where we find additional mistaken assumptions.
We don’t see these craft with the naked eye but detect them on the digital images when viewing and enlarging them on a computer screen. I use a compact digital camera, the Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100, which has a 20 megapixel / 1 inch CMOS sensor to take high resolution images which are later enhanced using a photo-enhancing program like Adobe Photoshop.
These craft are fast-moving and fly at fairly high altitude as I usually focus the camera on the edges of mid- to high-altitude clouds. … On some days there may be craft present in more than 5% of the photos, although many are too small for enhancing.
These objects are of too low resolution to be enhanced to this degree. There is distortion. Yet Hartland claims he’s sees occupants inside?! No. That’s unwarranted as is much else on this page.
At a certain point, people who believe in UFOs as craft lose perspective. They fail to realize how utterly implausible their suggestions are because they are so invested in it. I don’t know why this piece was printed. Those who read it will either believe it too and be misled into thinking something is going on or they will laugh at Mr. Hartland.
The Sunday Times picture editor noted that dust and distortion may account for some of the images. But with this low quality evidence, it is not reasonable to say these are “craft” and then talk of UFO disclosure.
Tip: Kylie Sturgess