Summary. Photographic analysis of a small cloud in the atmosphere revealed a UFO camouflaged in the cloud. It could be perceived either as a saucer-shaped object as described by Adamski, or as a triangle-shaped object similar to the Belgian UFO photographed during the flap in 1989-90. Further, the area around the cloud contained a novel hyperbolic shape as well as toroidal objects previously associated with UFOs (see Treurniet, 2007a). The optical effects behind and ahead of the UFO on it's apparent path indicate the presence of an energetic process that may be associated with the UFO's propulsion system. Similar effects are seen in a 1990 photo of a Gulf Breeze UFO sighting.
On April 19, 2007, I took a photograph of the sky near my home with the sun just outside the field of view. The exposure time was set to automatic and turned out to be 1/1254 sec. The photo was of no particular interest since it contained only a small cloud. More recently, I obtained image processing software able to reveal subtle patterns that are otherwise difficult to see. This software, a free Photoshop plugin available from Mehdi, was used to analyze the image. It is an equalizer utility on steroids, in that it enables variable emphasis of shadows in the equalized image. This increased emphasis can compensate for variations in brightness so that subtle patterns can be seen in brighter parts of the image. The method allows the mapping of levels to false colors, and was very useful in the present case. The interface also gives the option to equalize the red, blue, and green channels independently.
In the photo gallery, versions of the photo are shown for different settings of the Shadow parameter. As the setting is increased, more detail can be seen in the brighter areas of the picture, while detail in the darker areas is lost. For viewing the processed images, the display should have adequate spatial and color resolution; for example, 1600x1200 pixels and 32 bit/pixel. The following discusses some interesting observations at different values of the Shadow parameter.
At the lowest setting of .5, there appears to be a projection of an hyperboloid in the lower left corner of the image. The clearly defined geometry initially suggests that the object is an artifact of the camera's optical system. However, it is hard to see how such an artifact could completely eliminate the cloud formations outside the hyperbola. It is more likely that the lighter areas are really clouds and that they are due to some process that encourages condensation.
Around the settings of 80, 90, and 95, interesting objects come into view to the right of the supposed small cloud. At the upper right, the very bright area is likely due to the sun outside of the field of view. Next to it, however, is a smaller area of brightness shaped like a ring. Additional circular or toroidal areas of lesser brightness can be seen between this ring and the cloud. Similar toroidal optical effects often accompany UFOs in photographs taken over the years, and are described in an earlier report.
An interesting property of the cloud itself is revealed at the setting of 99. Here we can clearly see that the brighter points of the cloud form a triangular pattern. Further, there are approximately six points of even brighter light distributed over the surface of the triangle. This is reminiscent of the triangular UFO photographed in the 1989-90 Belgian UFO wave. It seems likely that the small cloud in the photograph is actually enveloping a UFO.
In conclusion, the optical effects revealed by the image equalizer were most likely caused by some kind of energy field produced by an unknown technology. The field was visible probably because it caused condensation of water vapour that could be seen on the surface of the hyperbolic structure and around the UFO. The resulting clouds are an effective camouflage for UFOs, and suggest that the frequency of occurrence of these objects in our atmosphere is greater than we might think.
In the above discussion, I suggested that the camouflaged UFO has a triangular shape. It was brought to my attention by Dr. Stoyan Sarg at York University, Toronto, that the 2D projection could also be of a saucer-shaped craft photographed by Adamski in Palomar Gardens, California, in 1952. A similar craft was photographed by Stephen Darbishire on Coniston Old Man in the English Lake District in 1954. The following figure was taken from the book published by Leonard Cramp in 1955 entitled Space, Gravity and Flying Saucers. It shows first the Adamski craft and then the Coniston craft.
The height-to-base ratio for the Adamski and the Coniston saucers and the camouflaged UFO (using the image associated with Shadow 80) is approximately .3 in each case. Note also that the angle at the top of the Adamski and Coniston saucers is about 120 degrees, while that for the camouflaged UFO appears to be about 125 degrees. So the 2D projection of the camouflaged UFO does map reasonably well to the saucer design in Adamski's photograph.
Another photograph, which was first published here, recently caught my attention because of a similarity between it and the photo in the gallery. The unprocessed photo is reproduced below on the left. The processed photo on the right emphasizes the brighter, possibly toroidal object below the UFO, and a fainter torus between the UFO and this object. A similar configuration is also seen in the gallery photo at a parameter setting of about 90. The supposed craft in this picture clearly has a saucer shape rather than a triangle shape, and thus supports the proposal in Addendum A that these effects are associated with saucer-shaped craft.
Another photo published in a report of a 1990 sighting in Gulf Breeze, Florida, has features similar to the picture of the camouflaged UFO. Photo 4 of this Gulf Breeze report is shown on the left below, and an enlargement of the UFO in the photo is shown on the right. The object's odd shape later morphed into a dark disc with a light at the center.
The sequence below shows the enlargement of the Gulf Breeze image enhanced with equalization, followed by the camouflaged UFO enhanced with shadow parameter settings of 70 and 95, respectively. These images have at least two features in common.
Note that the hyperboloid, UFO, and torus have roughly similar positions relative to each other in the two photos. As suggested earlier, the hyperboloid and the torus may be signs of an unknown energetic process that accompanied both of these UFOs.