Watching that video the message semmed to be less “Angels are among us! See the evidence!” and more “These people are gullible idiots! You’ve gotta hear them!” Sadly, based on my personal experiences with many people with a similarly low level of critical thinking, I would not be surprised if these folks had never seen a hummingbird moth, or had ever bothered to take a close look at things like bugs in the garden or stars in the sky.

Somehow though, I imagined it to be too small not to be noticed whilst up in the ferris wheel, as it would have to be very close to satisfy the dynamics of the photo, ie, like a few inches away from the camera. I, too, wondered about the slight hint of antennas above the head, but considered that a long shot.

It is also obvious that more than a few people have not opened the links to view the original full photo from the ferris wheel to see the conditions under which it was taken.

Go on, take another look.

In the Xenophilia link, the “Shopped” version of what is supposedly, and “eventually” became a hummingbird very clearly, seems too manipulated. Was it done for clarity by a reverse process? Was taking a clear picture and fuzzing it up to illustrate the point, and showing that by un-fuzzing it, it could fit the queried photo? I’m not accusing anybody of fraud here, merely that they were illustrating a point.

Phil appears to have worked with the computer programs that enhances images, that sharpen edges, and add and/or reduce brightness, contrast and color etc., and the shots of the bird are to me, too good. I appreciate what has been done though.

My vote is still a moth, but I don’t know which species. I leave that to the locals. And whatever became of Jonathon Livingstone Seagull anyway? (Another Elvis type Sighting?).

Ivan.

Depends. For a sufficiently large pin…it could be many.

Better yet—how many Boeing 727s’ fit on the head of a pin?

The original shots were taken in dark conditions. I am willing to stake some reasonably valuable item that the person behind the camera was NOT an “experienced photographer” (goodness knows she wasnt a very original THINKER!) and was using (no proof of this – yet) a “point-and-shoot” small camera. I am also willing to bet that something I generally sneer at – the flash being used for extremely long shots – was employed. I sneer because I am a snob and know that outside of maybe 20′ with a small camera. a flash is useless. Taking distant shots with a flash on is just silly – but I also know that sometimes, you just can’t shut it off – or don’t know how. I also know that SOMEtimes, it us useful to have on – but I am basing my assumptions on the photographer not knowing any of this.

A small camera will have a small aperature, but in this mode it will be “wide open” – giving an area of “reasonable focus” out maybe 20 feet. The object is not in focus, so it is probably inside of this distance. It is also nicely reflecting the flash – only good to maybe 15-25 feet on a small camera (enhanced by light, reflecting colours)

So – this object can be presumed to be closer than 25 feet from the camera – and is therefore, not very large. If it were outside this range, it would be A: clear(er) and B: dimmer (unless it emitted it’s own light

It is, therefore, a rather small object. I really like the hummingbird moth idea. I have yet to see the one my kids have seen around my house. My daughter actually had one fly right into her once – and I have never seen it! They all SWEAR it is a hummingbird though – until they get close and see that is is really a moth. Wild!

JC

By the way, slightly off-topic, but I’ve seen an ultrasound image of an unborn baby whose face looked exactly like the skeletal figure which appeared on most Iron Maiden album covers. I know it didn’t “mean” anything, but it was pretty cool.

Everyone, listen to his sound files

http://anothermonkey.blogspot.com/2005/08/more-insects-in-my-garden.html

It doesn’t looks too much like a hummingbird. I still say seagull. Maybe someone ought to try the technique with a seagull.

Hummingbird moths are neat, because at first glance they look like hummingbirds, until you notice the six legs.

“When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from
childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible
for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately,
and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem
to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I
could do it myself.” – Mark Twain

Or let me put it this way, if that manouvre indicates that it _could_ have been a hummingbird then this picture indicates that it _could_ have been a Boeing 727:

http://hem.bredband.net/b120780/Boeing.jpg

Even if it’s just in the space of plausabillity, it’s a misdirection.

We aren’t really arguing whether it’s a broad-tailed hummingbird vs. a ruby-throated hummingbird, or a hummingbird vs. a pigeon, or a bird vs. a moth vs. a bat.

What we’re really arguing is that there are several creatures that easily resemble that picture, and are much more plausible than an angel. Then we’re having a fun discussion of the specifics because we’re geeks that way.

I agree that it would be nice to have more info to pick it apart more easily (such as an original copy of the picture), but I also have a feeling that the person who took the picture will object to us getting better information to analyze her claim in depth.

To me, the picture is just an anomoly of optics/light. Maybe of a real object/bird) maybe from a reflection off an object.

We need allot more info, which is attanable, but only if we contact the owner of teh picture. Like: How big is this anomoly relative to something else in the picture? Was this something that appeared in some corner of a picture of the scenery?

They say they were in a ferris wheel…How high? At night? (do [humming] birds fly that high at night?)

If this thing was the subject of this picture (i.e. not in the corner of a picture of another subject) then how close was it to the shooter? etc etc etc.