Well, it certainly is an interesting picture. Of course, as is often the case with these news stories, the picture provided isn't detailed, nor highly resolved enough to allow closer scrutiny. However, I'm rather surprised that a so-called 'photographer' could claim that it might be something on the lens. Firstly, being a photographer, he will have a good understanding of depth of field (DOF), and for a speck of dirt on a camera lens not to be thrown fully out of focus, and for the plane to still be in focus, means that there was a huge DOF. This would only be possible if a very wide angle lens was used and/or a very small lens aperture was used. We can't see the whole picture, so I don't know when focal length equivalent the lens might have been set to, but I think this scenario highly unlikely. Furthermore (I guess, following on from above, that should be 'secondly'!), such a speck of dust would likely also have appeared on other photos until the lens was cleaned or the dirt rubbed off accidentally (though we don't know if this was the case).

I think there is a good chance that the object is, in fact, a bird caught in-flight between the camera and the plane, the bird's movement causing the slight blurring effect. (This is similar to the effect which caused the so-called Cornwall UFO photo from January this year.)

However, it's an intriguing enough picture to warrant further study, should a full-frame, full-resolution copy of the photo become available. It would also be interesting to see all the other photos that Mr. Robson captured that day to rule out any camera-specific effects.

Regards,
Neil Jenkins
Independent Paranormal Investigation Advisor

In response to the above, I am the so- called photographer, I make a living as such and tho not professing to be neither the best nor a technical wizz with pocket cameras I would wager this- small auto based pocket cameras are generaly used in a "program mode" and usually default around 400 iso, as the gentelman in question was snapping the open skies at an object some distance away i would GUESS that his setting would "auto" to F11 or even F22 in order to get maximun sharpness and depth of field and to stop down (stop me if your all bored,please) due to the predominantley bright sky, then such abberations or guff as i call it COULD show up on a lens of such wide field of view, or poss on the sensor it self ( I have numerous "proffesional" cameras and spend many tedious hours scraping the muck out). My comment was a throw away remark re a grainy unsharp picture and should not be construed as the be all and end all, I am not a total skeptic, and, as i cant see the wind i dont rule it out, the same goes for our intergalactic bretheren/nemesis (nb: also applies to backache, migraines jesus god et-al). I would sincereley ask people to always shoot RAW files and send them in to be assesed by people who have the software to analyze images in great detail. I would welcome a closer inspection of the submitted picture. I will offer this, we are usually dismissive of this stuff as we think they wouldnt come here surely? If they stay long enough around tyneside there liable to get a hefty council tax bill, the parking is atrocious these days too ( ive seen these space ships in the movies your talking the best part of two bays at least!) and if they run on diesel or unleaded theyre going to have to rob a bank to get home again its £1.30 a litre round here!Seriously though lets not rule it out, who knows!

Hi John. Thanks for responding and adding to this debate!

Thanks to Liam Thompson of the paper, I've had the opportunity to examine the original photo, including the EXIF data, and can confirm that the camera reported a wide aperture setting for this snap. Oddly, the camera set a pretty slow ISO (75). I've forwarded an analysis to Liam so prefer not to elaborate here.

Anyway, my money's still on the bird!

Best regards,
Neil