UFO Photos 2007-2011

Alma.Innovadora

Jedi Council Member
Greetings,

I'm going to share a series of photos I took from 2007 to 2011. They are in high quality, you must download them so you can see them well. I did a separate crop of some of them and edited the contrast for better viewing and placement for when you enlarge them. By that time I was reaching a dead end in my research and then I found some information where they said that you could take many photos and from time to time, something could appear, so I did it with that intention and that was the result. At sight it was not possible to see them, they only appeared in the photos and maybe that is why it is rare to get a series of more than one, two or 3 photos of some sightings. The best and creepy but incredible sightings will remain in my memory and I think it is better that way. I wanted to see UFOs and that was enough!

In the lower left corner
2007 (2).JPG2007 (2)a.jpg

Center
2007 (3).JPG2007 (3)a.jpg

2009 (1).JPG2009 (1)a.jpg

2009 (2).JPG2009 (2)a.jpg

2009 (3).JPG2009 (3)a.jpg

2010 (1).JPG

2010 (1)a.jpg
 

XPan

The Living Force
From a 3D perspective

I often feel that images that the claim of possible ufo’s in images - yet often fail to look at more earthly explanations which are common errors in certain areas. Many people either don’t know or somehow have forgotten, or are to excited without putting effort into analyzing common errors behind images.

A lot of things can look abnormal, but that doesn’t mean that is always the case. I would like to see more critical minds checking possible issues with photos. issues that can be easily overlooked.

Such as:

Dust & specks on the image sensor

(Image pair example 3)
Digital photography has given rise to a couple phenomenons. One is that dust and specks easily grace the upper layer of an image senor causing weird spots.

They do not become visible until the aperture of a lens is stopped down a lot. Something you do (or the automatic program in the camera does it for you) when it is bright outside. Or you do it when you are doing landscape photography where maximum sharpness in details are desired and/or a large depth of field, by stopping down the aperture to f8 or f11

But

At the same time, that is what makes the specks and dust on the image sensor to become visible in images.


2) flying critters and insects.
(Image pair example 1, 2, 4, 5)

I have noticed a lot of blurry, elongated streaks or specks myself in photos in daylight and realized that these are fast flying insects passing in front of the lens. Birds can cause it as well sometimes, if they are not too far away. It is a matter of shutter speed on the camera. But even with 1/1000 sec shutter speed in broad daylight not unusual, a fast flying insect in 2-3 meter distance will still cause a blurry elongated streak.

3) night images of airplanes, drones, satellites, reflections via optics, and other lens-optical phenomenas

Those can confuse and raise questions of what is it you see in your final images, I get that.

Night images don’t look exactly like what the naked eye perceives. Especially not, if the object is moving, during the camera’s longer exposure, e.g. a couple of seconds. Then the appearance of an object will look different. Light streaks. Elongated streaks. Airplanes for example, often create light streaks with little dots on the side.

There are many other issues that can play into strange artifacts/phenomena in photography. Blurry focus for example. When a light dot isn’t properly in focus, it looks like a sort of larger “planetary” disk.

Aberrations in the optical system of a lens can cause that for example a bright white dot at night, located at the extreme border of the image gets distorted (often elongated) showing fringing, such as “mini” rainbow colors around the object. Or just distortion where a light dot transforms into other shapes (those characteristics vary from lens to lens)

I do not speak against the possibility of ufo’s existence - even if I personally have never seen one. I always keep in mind that there is a lot of good info to the phenomena, especially outlined by Laura and the Cassiopaeans. In particularly if a person’s senses goes beyond the normal sensibility and range.

But i am a bit allergic to the many claims of ufo’s with images containing little dots here and there, as evidence.


But please

I do not wish to offend you in any way with my critics. I believe in fact, that it is good to exercise your senses, to learn, as well learn to discern.

And it is wonderful that many more people have become far more observant of what is going on in our skies. I think that is great ! To be curious. And wanting to explore. To ask questions. To seek for answers.
 

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Thanks for sharing AlmaInnovadora,

Beyond the UFO possibilities some of the pictures are pretty good in their own right, so kudos.

Regarding what XPan mentioned, I tend to have a similar approach personally, and this really became my mindset about the whole phenomenon after reading some of the work of John Keel, he has a very healthy skepticism that remains forever open in his writing. And more than that, he is an engaging writer, so his work is rather easy to get through.

Have you read any of his work? If not, I would highly recommend it.

I have always found it interesting how despite the incredible amount of evidence out there regarding a phenomenon that transcends our reality, and how widely available it is, most people still choose to ignore it. And if I am honest, while I keep it in the back of my mind, it does not seep into my daily dealings with the world, so every now and then a good reminder of its existence, is actually nice to have.
 

AndrewMn

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Thanks a lot for the photo, @Alma.Innovadora !
About 15 years ago, I collected a whole collection of photos, with unusual (as it seemed to me) UFO phenomena. But, in most cases, many photos turned out to be fake or technical failures of equipment (dust, insects, visual effects of a completely earthly origin, and so on).

I sincerely share your desire and desire to capture a UFO in a photo. Although it can be dangerous for the person taking the photo, I would also be very impressed to see such a phenomenon with my own eyes. But I think these forces and entities are smart and careful enough to remain in the shadows for us. They don't need to prove anything by their presence or appearance in public, as they perfectly manage us with the help of higher technologies and other influences. Well, the rare mistakes that they also make, IMHO, are very rare and random.
 

Alma.Innovadora

Jedi Council Member
Hello guys!

But please

I do not wish to offend you in any way with my critics. I believe in fact, that it is good to exercise your senses, to learn, as well learn to discern.

And it is wonderful that many more people have become far more observant of what is going on in our skies. I think that is great ! To be curious. And wanting to explore. To ask questions. To seek for answers.

Don't worry I am not offended and I'm not talking about my photos only, because it's not about me, there's no problem, it's not going to trigger a self-important program where I feel that you are attacking my photos (laughs). In fact, if we are looking for knowledge I can't do it. But I can't say lightly that it's all dust and hair and distortions of light. And not because I won't accept the evidence, because if we're here, that's why we're looking for an answer to all that. But if there is something that I do not understand, it is like not believing in UFOs, which are only an acronym (which I understand well what they refer to separating U.F.O in the literal sense of the word) but if we believe or accept 4d beings and lizards and abductions and in a communication with beings in 6 degrees above among other horrible things that happen product of hyperdimensional reality. I find it too contradictory if something is manifesting itself in my own face and not accept it.

I listen and investigate further and integrate. Trial and error. Many thanks for the detailed information because as a photographer I find it very useful when explaining to others too. Only say that "they appear only after taking pictures" gives room for support that it may be dust or light distortions. My observations on light distortion, dust, chromatic aberration and shapes in terms of speed and distances captured and in my limited way of expressing myself in the absence of terms that give greater basis on what I say, are these:

Dust & specks on the image sensor

Dust will always maintain a fixed distance and position which can be checked with the photo sequences and they are always, always, "transparent dark balls" also their dimension varies depending on the lens being used. Light distortions, depending on the lens aperture and how much light enters the sensor, can always capture the direction they are coming from and the positions are also fixed.

The shape and definition of the blades depends on the distance at which you are working, but the shape is the reflection of the blades, of the diaphragm, being octagonal when they are more defined, otherwise they are circular. And depending on the angle of the light they will always be oval or circular. Again it is to know the behavior of the light through the equipment and the elements in the environment.

But even with 1/1000 sec shutter speed in broad daylight not unusual, a fast flying insect in 2-3 meter distance will still cause a blurry elongated streak.

It depends more on the type of camera. When you become familiar with the different slow shutter speeds, objects always leave a trail of equal size and distance characteristic depending on the speed at which the person or object is moving. Unfortunately I don't know how to express myself in correct scientific terms to say that the maximum speed of a mosquito is X therefore a photo at X shutter speed is sure that you can always "freeze" the mosquito, out of focus or blurred, you will see that it is a mosquito with the only difference that due to the blur, it will look transparent and bulging, but that you will see the mosquito, you will see it. I have done this even when I have gone within 60 cm of the lens, a blurry spot with wings. The closer it gets, it expands and sometimes even "disappears".

Also if you observe a black dot, defined and is present in the same place in all the photos, and maintains the same dimension, that is dust. Birds are the ones that could confuse the most at a very far distance, but they are still dots and they still appear in a series of photographs, with a predictable trajectory and distance. If the person pays attention to that behavior, he will also notice that the birds look in V or m, as if they were drawn by a child.

3) night images of airplanes, drones, satellites, reflections via optics, and other lens-optical phenomenas

Those can confuse and raise questions of what is it you see in your final images, I get that.

For the eye that is not accustomed to differences in the behavior of light on objects, yes, they are easily confused. But the light of airplanes are usually flashes, not rectangular or oval with an intensity close to those emitted by a star and less that surrounds the entire plane, even with the lights on steady. Also an airplane or satellite, maintain a fixed, constant motion and speed. I don't know how air traffic is in other countries, but whoever pays attention to it, knows its the trajectory.

When you make a picture of night scenery at low speeds generally most of the lights present in the scene or close to a source of light outside of the scene, and depending on the angle you get to make another light may enter in through the corners of the scene, reflect, distort, intensified, and his chromatic aberration is larger due to the large amount of light that you are allowing to enter the sensor and that depends on the type of photo that will make, it must be at very low speeds where trepidation is also an important factor for something so contrasted to happen. And if there is trepidation, it is more evident that it is a human error, because all the lights will present the same movement that the camera exerted. They all have the same direction, dimension and distance.


Until now that has been the pattern, a dust, a mosquito, an airplane, etc.that until now I have captured or appear in the background without intention of being captured, at the distance or 20 cm away from the lens and at high and low speeds, has not ceased to be something recognizable and identifiable.

Thanks for sharing AlmaInnovadora,

Beyond the UFO possibilities some of the pictures are pretty good in their own right, so kudos.

Regarding what XPan mentioned, I tend to have a similar approach personally, and this really became my mindset about the whole phenomenon after reading some of the work of John Keel, he has a very healthy skepticism that remains forever open in his writing. And more than that, he is an engaging writer, so his work is rather easy to get through.

Thanks Alejo, I did not accept the photos as evidence before but because I did not live it at that time I never told myself that it was not true for not having had the experience. I do not confirm that all the photos are real but I also do not discard them easily as dust and reflections, I can not due to my experiences also outside the camera. It is good to have a fundamental knowledge of how the camera can create false positives, but it should not always be used to bury and discard lightly.

Have you read any of his work? If not, I would highly recommend it.

I have always found it interesting how despite the incredible amount of evidence out there regarding a phenomenon that transcends our reality, and how widely available it is, most people still choose to ignore it. And if I am honest, while I keep it in the back of my mind, it does not seep into my daily dealings with the world, so every now and then a good reminder of its existence, is actually nice to have.

¿John Alva Keel? who wrote Operation Trojan Horse, men in black, The prophecies of the Mothman? The classics of mystery: Kerry Cassidy, David Icke, etc. (laughter). In case it's that one. Yes, I spent a good bit of time between that kind of material and some Richard Dolan, but it left me with a bad taste. When I found the first Cass forum, it was something else, I was reading something that went straight to the point. Why didn't he talk directly and only about "monster" and always the dead end with the CIA as the mastermind.

That's like Laura coming along one of these days and saying this is all collective madness.

Thanks a lot for the photo, @Alma.Innovadora !

I sincerely share your desire and desire to capture a UFO in a photo. Although it can be dangerous for the person taking the photo.

Thanks AndrewMn,

Nope, I don't want it. I commented at the beginning of the thread that it has been enough with the ones I have had. It's not like I kept hunting UFOs. When I say "I wanted to see a UFO" I am referring to that moment we all go through and would like to see something extraordinary in life as children, from ignorance and curiosity, the rest was to test an investigation that I encountered many years later and also out of curiosity. It is not so complicated when it seems it should happen and yep. Difficult, it is not to have the camera at hand when something really crazy happens, in the end there is the real sighting of the black boomerang confirmed by cass. And Yes! I perfectly understand the danger, once I almost had an accident at the same time I was observing an event.

I was looking for the transciptions where it says something similar to: "The sighting can be fortuitous, but if they want, they will show themselves to you and you will see them." I know I saw him days ago (the transciptions) and now he's gone.

Q: (L) Is it true that some people cannot see aliens or UFOs because they block them from their own minds?
A: That can happen, but the blockade can also be inspired by the alien.


Like the third man?

come on! you should try it yourselves and come out of skepticism. Go out and play with the crocodiles. 😁
 

XPan

The Living Force
Dust will always maintain a fixed distance and position which can be checked with the photo sequences and they are always, always, "transparent dark balls" also their dimension varies depending on the lens being used. Light distortions, depending on the lens aperture and how much light enters the sensor, can always capture the direction they are coming from and the positions are also fixed.

I thought of that too, and wondered if I should mention that in my entry (like a sort of rule for checking dust), but left it out.

And the reason for that is, that the test isn't foolproof. Even if dust does usually stays in the same position from frame to frame - sometimes fragments detach or shift position on the image sensor between images. (Especially, since many cameras have a function where the sensor is vibrating with high frequency, in order to make dust detach); so there is movement of dust and it ain't all fixed !

Oh, but @Alma.Innovadora
I didn't really mean it as an attack on your pictures. If I sounded like that, I sincerely apologize to you. I am (I guess) more grumpy on people on the internet when they make bold claims of ufos with pokey images attached, which almost never hold up.

So, (at the core) my criticism was more meant to highlight possible sources of errors; the areas that could possibly interfere with the analysis of ufo images - before going out with claims of ufo's.

I was mainly speaking from a 3D kind perspective, because well... I have never seen phenomenas of ufo's or other creatures bleeding through (but I am also no stranger of that this is possible, and does seem to occur, no doubt. I also interpret that these things are not (yet) open to everyone to see. Personally, I suppose that my 3D reality coding is still filtering out visual bleed-through aspects of reality, or just not are sensitive enough for me to see things with my "bare eyes".
 

Alma.Innovadora

Jedi Council Member
And the reason for that is, that the test isn't foolproof. Even if dust does usually stays in the same position from frame to frame - sometimes fragments detach or shift position on the image sensor between images. (Especially, since many cameras have a function where the sensor is vibrating with high frequency, in order to make dust detach); so there is movement of dust and it ain't all fixed !

Yes, indeed. Vibration can do that but the dust is still identifiable. For example, you take a series of 10 photographs or 100, all different and just in a landscape photo, you observe dots of different sizes and locations. When you look closely at non-landscape photos, especially on light backgrounds, you will also find the same spots in the photo, a little higher or a little lower, but they will be there, distributed in the same proportion and dimension. Never mind that from a landscape, you went on to take a picture of a dog.

On the other hand, the vibration must be too strong to move the dust and cleaning it by itself is complicated. The zoom determines the size and definition of those spots because the dust is not only lodged on the sensor, it is also lodged on the lens glass. The sensor cleaning mechanism can help you to see all that, because it stirs up the dust that is not so fixed. It's a headache.

I haven't taken any more pictures yet, when I have some examples, I will post them to support what I mean because it is the most important step when editing the picture, to detect all those elements. Sensor, mirror and glass. It's like having your face stuck to the mirror, impossible to focus.

Oh, but @Alma.Innovadora I didn't really mean it as an attack on your pictures. If I sounded like that, I sincerely apologize to you. I am (I guess) more grumpy on people on the internet when they make bold claims of ufos with pokey images attached, which almost never hold up.
I was mainly speaking from a 3D kind perspective, because well... I have never seen phenomenas of ufo's or other creatures bleeding through (but I am also no stranger of that this is possible, and does seem to occur, no doubt. I also interpret that these things are not (yet) open to everyone to see. Personally, I suppose that my 3D reality coding is still filtering out visual bleed-through aspects of reality, or just not are sensitive enough for me to see things with my "bare eyes".

That is the detail, just because someone has not lived that experience, does not mean that it does not exist or happen to others. I don't talk to cassiopaeans, should I be closed to accepting that reality just because I'm not the one sitting in front of the board channeling? nope.

I do not feel annoyed or criticized in a bad way by your participation, on the contrary, thank you for complementing with that information because as you saw, I left many important points out that are necessary, really thank you. You don't have to apologize. Your observation makes me work harder and that is a positive thing.

Like Mulder and Scully.

It's fine to be skeptical, but you're more shutting down than actually analyzing and you're answering yourself by acknowledging that you tend to be a little cranky on the internet. You are just blocking yourself and unconsciously imposing your way of seeing it, by not experiencing those events and being able to see it to your naked eye. It is precisely because I have seen them with my naked eye, that I care little about the outcome of the photos I may see on the internet or my own.

See it as an endorsement of something, everyone's time comes if they are open to the experience and pay enough attention. It is not as difficult as you think, sometimes you will go somewhere or go out to your garden, for a walk, whatever, and suddenly you will turn to some point in the sky involuntarily and you will see them, if they want or some other reason without so much mystery involved.

It is not enough to say "oh yeah... out there something must be going on". Perhaps it is something deeper in us that leads us to start that engine and not precisely the word "belief" but that is how we define it. We all feel the driving force called "belief" in something and then start the search. Sometimes we need to "believe" a little at first in order to understand. It does not have to be divorced from skepticism, you marry with her along the way as you begin to question yourself. You balance both, you don't position yourself at the extreme of one or the other.
 
Last edited:

XPan

The Living Force
That is the detail, just because someone has not lived that experience, does not mean that it does not exist or happen to others. I don't talk to cassiopaeans, should I be closed to accepting that reality just because I'm not the one sitting in front of the board channeling? nope.
Oh gosh, i never suggested you to indulge into a closed mind, just because you don’t have a front row seat at the channeling board.

Look; We are all here, by free will, and have chosen with an open mind, to read and to exchange / networking with other members to understand more about the underpinnings of our 3D reality, as well what lies above as well below !

I do not feel annoyed or criticized in a bad way by your participation, on the contrary, thank you for complementing with that information because as you saw, I left many important points out that are necessary, really thank you. You don't have to apologize.

I do so because at the same time, it is a both a message to you to let you know that i meant no harm - and at the same time - it is an act of reminding myself to connect to a deeper sense of respect and always watch my attitude towards other people. And to review it internally.

Like Mulder and Scully.

It's fine to be skeptical, but you're more shutting down than actually analyzing and you're answering yourself by acknowledging that you tend to be a little cranky on the internet. You are just blocking yourself and unconsciously imposing your way of seeing it, by not experiencing those events and being able to see it to your naked eye. It is precisely because I have seen them with my naked eye, that I care little about the outcome of the photos I may see on the internet or my own.

I don’t quite agree. I don’t bitch (or engage) on the internet when people come with photos claiming to show ufo’s. Usually it is more of an internal reflection, like “rolling my eyes” kind of reaction, nothing more. I don’t mind “proof”, but at least a little bit “more meat on the bones” would be nice for a change (if possible) ;-)

My mistakes was - especially when I react too fast - that i made it sound like i put your photos and all the rest from the internet, into one and the same bin. Well, that was a bit rude, but I never honestly meant it to sound like that.

I am not sure if I block myself from seeing things. My attitude regarding that is as following: i am a keen observer. My senses are almost always tuned and observant (with a sort of childish innocent and playful, wondrous sense). Quite different from how I write, right ?

I have my eyes in the sky when nobody else looks at things generally. And i have done this as long as i can remember in my life. So, I don’t think i am that closed really. As a photographer for 35 years with a million photos under my belt… i know at least a little bit, and can share some experience with other people, if they like.

One question still remains; do I really want to see ufo’s and/or entities more closely ?

Since i joined the Cassiopaean family (forum), i sometimes wondered about that. I think there might be something to it - that i partially block any deeper, possible involvements with such primarily negative powers. While at the same time i know that when the time comes - and i choose to open up wider/deeper then before - it is because i am more mature to be able to handle it. Or so i believe.

I am aware of negatives entities @Alma.Innovadora - their manipulating aspects into our 3D world - both on a large scale as well on an individual level. Plus all the “wheels within wheels” aspects on top.

I have sensed it strongly at times during the latter years, my husband has sensed it - individually (especially during the first years in our relationship). And we talked about this together afterwards how strange the resonance interferences were (in 2017). By putting our minds together and sharing our experiences, more pieces of the puzzle fell in place (which by the way ended/weakened further attempts of attacks significantly)

So, there you go.


It is not enough to say "oh yeah... out there something must be going on". Perhaps it is something deeper in us that leads us to start that engine and not precisely the word "belief" but that is how we define it. We all feel the driving force called "belief" in something and then start the search. Sometimes we need to "believe" a little at first in order to understand. It does not have to be divorced from skepticism, you marry with her along the way as you begin to question yourself. You balance both, you don't position yourself at the extreme of one or the other.
It seems to be interconnected like you wrote. The state of what is within us (and the progress of it in spiritual terms), connected with what we perceive on the outside of our realities… i also agree to that it can be a little bit kickstarted (to some degree).

Maybe my soul makes less differences on my inside, compared to when i write critically. But there are issues involved in photography nevertheless.

I read a german book about the possible whereabouts on planet mars. And possible ufo’s here on earth, but with images that to my eye were extremely weak - with a tiny, tiny elongated short streak in a corner of a photo made in brought daylight.

I see them all the time in my own photos too: during summer season. As the insects buzz by…
 
Last edited:

Alma.Innovadora

Jedi Council Member
Oh gosh, i never suggested you to indulge into a closed mind, just because you don’t have a front row seat at the channeling board.

Look; We are all here, by free will, and have chosen with an open mind, to read and to exchange / networking with other members to understand more about the underpinnings of our 3D reality, as well what lies above as well below
That's not what I meant and for the last time, I am not offended by your remark but... well buddy, only you know how well you know yourself and what you see. I don't want to be in this constant of "tell me and I'll tell you". I don't understand your contradictory apologies or what you tell yourself and what you don't, seriously, I got tired.

If there is one thing that bothers me in a conversation, it is the overlaying what someone else says, the "nobody is right, I just know that I don't know anything". With all due respect, just turn the page.
 

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
One question still remains; do I really want to see ufo’s and/or entities more closely ?

Since i joined the Cassiopaean family (forum), i sometimes wondered about that. I think there might be something to it - that i partially block any deeper, possible involvements with such primarily negative powers. While at the same time i know that when the time comes - and i choose to open up wider/deeper then before - it is because i am more mature to be able to handle it. Or so i believe.
This is an interesting question to ponder about, I think that as a rule, once we become aware of something, our curiosity kicks in and we tend to almost by default want to get acquainted with it. But when one really thinks about it, would one really want to cross paths with such entities? I suppose it depends on the level of the encounter, and it's very particular to every individual I think.

¿John Alva Keel? who wrote Operation Trojan Horse, men in black, The prophecies of the Mothman? The classics of mystery: Kerry Cassidy, David Icke, etc. (laughter). In case it's that one. Yes, I spent a good bit of time between that kind of material and some Richard Dolan, but it left me with a bad taste. When I found the first Cass forum, it was something else, I was reading something that went straight to the point. Why didn't he talk directly and only about "monster" and always the dead end with the CIA as the mastermind.

Yep, that's the one, so I can presume you're acquainted with his work, he has, IMO, the most scientific mindset when discussing the subject that I have seen, besides Laura's work. Have you had a chance to check this thread out?
 

Alma.Innovadora

Jedi Council Member
This is an interesting question to ponder about, I think that as a rule, once we become aware of something, our curiosity kicks in and we tend to almost by default want to get acquainted with it. But when one really thinks about it, would one really want to cross paths with such entities? I suppose it depends on the level of the encounter, and it's very particular to every individual I think.
Exactly, i would also add that, the way in which you access that reality may also determine the level of interaction at a given time.

Yep, that's the one, so I can presume you're acquainted with his work, he has, IMO, the most scientific mindset when discussing the subject that I have seen, besides Laura's work. Have you had a chance to check this thread out?
I actually forgot most of them that was years ago, I would have been less than 24 years old. But many thanks for the link, Alejo.
 

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I actually forgot most of them that was years ago, I would have been less than 24 years old. But many thanks for the link, Alejo.
I can relate, I went through a rediscovery, I think I first became acquainted with him when I was about 19 or 20, but then I decided to get through most of his work in my 30's and I was very glad I did, I was in a different place in life and my priorities were also different, it made his work that much more enjoyable.
 

Alma.Innovadora

Jedi Council Member
I can relate, I went through a rediscovery, I think I first became acquainted with him when I was about 19 or 20, but then I decided to get through most of his work in my 30's and I was very glad I did, I was in a different place in life and my priorities were also different, it made his work that much more enjoyable.

That's right, now it's my turn too (laughs) you redirected me to something important that I must remember from the book "Operation Trojan Horse", thanks again.
 
Top Bottom