It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Very unusual object photographed in Arizona sky

page: 12
37
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Could it be...





posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
It's hard to understand how is this getting this much attention... a photo of an obvious bird provided by an OP, who clearly wants to convince us and himself quite badly that he has seen something interesting and rather unusual (actually, taken a photo, not even seen it with his own eyes), so badly that he won't even consider approaching the bird theory to put it under scutiny and apply a bit of science (after educating himself about perspective, size, distance, focus etc.) but he rather stomps his feet childlishly to the ground and shout "It's not a bird cause I said so". Have you even thought about your ego basically needing it to be something else cause it will make you feel more important?

And this has been going on for 10 pages already and has tons of attention.

Oh ATS... the state that you're in these days...

P.S. OP, friendly hint - how do you assume/calculate/wish upon the "object" to be much bigger than a bird, ergo it's impossible to be one? Google "calculate size of an object in perspective". It's a bit more complicated in reality, saying "It looks bigger to me, therefore, it is", won't do the job.
edit on 11-5-2014 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: drivebricker
Could it be...


A piece of insulation blanket that would have burned up in orbit in 1998? I'd say probably... not.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Lol at the bird explanation in this thread. I've seen every pic of birds posted in this thread and the object captured by the OP looks nothing of the sort. Primarily because of that bump on top and the lack of a tail appendage. Not saying this is indeed a kite but people were better off using that description.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: htapath




I would suggest focussing on the object instead of objecting to its existence.


The poster did, they gave their opinion of it being a bug on the window.


Your replies in this thread are extremely telling and Blue shift hit the nail on the head when they described this thread in a post of theirs on page 6, here it is




This is just the latest in a long line of cases where somebody posts something supposedly asking us what we think something is, and then essentially refusing to accept a reasonable explanation. Which indicates that they weren't really interested in knowing what it really is, or our opinions, but instead only wanted us to pat them on the back or something for having finally after all these years capturing incontrovertible proof of... whatever.


So true, this thread is a great example


Say what you will. I'm not here to deceive anyone, and I've replied to all the relevant questions to the best of my ability, including the bug on the windshield post. As I've stated previously, this isn't my first rodeo. The putdown that you reposted adds nothing of value to this thread, which obviously you and others consider to be worthless in the first place. I'm a little disappointed that you didn't author an original putdown, like most of your cohorts.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: htapath

The point is it similar in size to the OBJECT in your picture and it's the SAME 72 dpi resolution your object is 19 pixels across on your picture!!!



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
looks like a big ol fly close to the camera to me.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: htapath

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: htapath
a reply to: gortex

Are you just trolling me or are you serious?

The wings in your pic are not even close to being perfectly vertical, and the motion is obvious. There is a head, tail, feathers, and a beak. The object in question does not possess these characteristics necessarily. Can't you find one image that matches the object? I wonder why?



Here is an image of a hawk with it's wings in in similar position at a low resolution, it's not quite at the same angle as it would be in your picture but have a look.



Now if you press control & + plus on your keyboard to enlarge the view on screen you will see the problems and how detail disappears very quickly.

On your image you see what could be the head and the tail could be hidden due to the angle and POOR resolution of your phone camera picture and being a jpeg picture.



I'm on a small screen here and that pic is just way too small to make out any detail whatsoever.


Here you go first your object a crop from your picture, then the 2 pictures of hawks I posted all at 72 dpi like your image.








posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: htapath

Hi I posted the exif data from your picture it's 72 dpi which is low res

WMD, I would take issue with this. While you are quite right that the photo does almost certainly show a bird, the "72dpi" figure is a red herring. It means nothing about the resolution. The important point, as you say, is that htapath's object is 19 pixels across.

The "dpi" figure is a flag that only affects the print size, of an image. What matters is the number of native pixels.

For example, you could have two identical 1800 x 1200 pixel images, with the same detail, the same resolution etc.

If you set one of them to be 72 dpi and one of them to be 300dpi, the only difference would be that one would print at a size of 25in x 16.67in, and the other would display or print at 6in x 4in.

Neither of them has any more or less detail if you are viewing on a computer screen at the pixel level, because computer screens can be any size.

To repeat: "dpi" is irrelevant to resolution. What matters is the number of native pixels.

I say native pixels because of course you could blow up that 1800 x 1200 image to 3600 x 2400 or 18000 x 12000 and you wouldn't have any more resolution.

But this is a minor sidetrack in the discussion of the OP's image. I am on my phone so don't have a graphics program handy but could somebody flip and rotate gortex's bird picture on the previous page and paste it next to the OP's one? I think the results would be quite striking...

Can the OP really not see the resemblance?





edit on 11-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: htapath




The putdown that you reposted adds nothing of value to this thread, which obviously you and others consider to be worthless in the first place. I'm a little disappointed that you didn't author an original putdown, like most of your cohorts.


Putdown? I thought it was a telling description for this thread and a number of others where members supply a photo for analysis and don't like what they hear from other members.


Your replies are what lead to a recession in this thread if you want discuss value.

No, not worthless but humorous after you started attacking the bird explanations and opinions supplied by almost all posters.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale

You hit the nail on the head here.

I'm not insisting that this must be a bird. I'm not insisting that it must be a kite, trash, a balloon, or a bug.

I'm suggesting what it could be.

The OP on the other hand is insisting that it CAN NOT BE a bird. That's an absolute statement, of which he has not proven at all. The evidence he gives to insist that it can not be a bird are wrong (IE lack of being able to make out a head, legs, tail. Lack of movement....it's a picture for god's sake. Not a video, and a picture taken with a very fast shutter speed. That it's orientation is proof it's not a bird......as though birds would never fly that way. That there was no wind......hello.....might not be wind on the surface.....now go up in height and be surprised, you have winds. ).

I'm completely open to alternate explanations.......however, when the OP starts making absolute statements, with no actual supporting evidence, then it's a problem. We already have too many people in this field trying to make absolute statements, and not using critical thinking.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Hi YOU are correct got carried away checked a few pictures reduced to 72 dpi but they also had pixel dimensions changed my bad.

I also include similar image to you but they are similar in size to the object in the OP's picture to show the likeness of his to hawks in flight.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful




The OP on the other hand is insisting that it CAN NOT BE a bird.



Perplexed as I am, its ATS as expected.





Lack of movement....it's a picture for god's sake. Not a video,


Yes, I was going to reply to that insane statement with a joke of the picture being a still photo and not a video, well not a joke just pointing out the fact it seems stationary because like you say, its a picture, a still photo.




That there was no wind......hello.....might not be wind on the surface.....now go up in height and be surprised, you have winds. ).


Might be windy 20miles away as well, I believe that is the distance OP estimated this at.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
Some (hopeful) words of wisdom.

Its very easy to convince yourself that you have seen something.

Its also very easy to confuse yourself about an image of something in the sky, especially if you desperately want it to be something special.

But...

The people who come to ATS have seen lots of things like this. Some are birdwatchers, some are aviation enthusiasts and some are UFO researchers. What they all have on their side is experience.

So when people are saying they see a bird here, its because they are seeing a bird.

OP - There is nothing wrong with being mistaken. There is absolutely nothing wrong at all with being wrong about something. Its happened to every single one of us at one time or another.

Stubbornly refusing the consensus of your peers who have spent time analysing such things in the past and have stopped by to offer their opinions and give examples of it however, is obtuseness.

Please think about that. No one is attacking you. No one is making fun of you. You are - in this case - very probably just mistaken. Thats life. The best thing to do is deal with it graciously.


I appreciate your sincerity, and I understand where you're coming from. But, and this is a big but, I'm not sure that you understand where I'm coming from. I have my reasons for sticking to my guns in this thread, and it's not because I'm afraid to admit when I'm mistaken. The fact of the matter is that I've seen objects almost identical to the object in question in my dreams. There were giant beings piloting them and they traveled in pairs. So try to imagine what it's like to be in my position and attempt to adequately convey this into text. I wasn't going to mention this for obvious reasons, and if the floodgates of ridicule swing even further open due to this post, then so be it.

Believe me when I say that I don't want the object to be anything, but it is what it is. I showed the picture to a Hopi friend of mine after I first took it. A few days later I ran into him again, and he was all excited to tell me that had a sighting of the same thing near the same place.

I've physically shown this photo to literally hundreds of people, and almost all of them are local to this area. NONE of them saw a bird, and they were all intrigued. That's why I'm amazed that so many ATS members have reached the same shallow conclusion, and a few have resorted to ridicule and derision.

If people honestly think that the object is a frigging bird, then their opinion has been heard ad nauseum! I don't understand why they can't just go on their merry way and allow the discussion to continue in an orderly manner. The disruptions are uncalled for and very amateurish.

I have to wonder if some of you are even looking at the same image. The object looks NOTHING like a bird, to the point of being utterly ridiculous.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: htapath




You declaring that ATS has collectively made some determination is a ludicrous statement.


Is it,

Read your thread, see how many posts are in it and then see how many posts give their opinion of it being a bird.

It might not be the whole collective but a fair majority so its not as ludicrous as it might seem to you.



You have some faulty reasoning going there. The majority isn't always right, and sometimes the perceived majority is actually a small minority who have multiple accounts and have an AGENDA. Do you understand the word agenda and its connotation? Look no further than the 9/11 forum if you want a better example. I'm glad you liked the picture.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: htapath

Dreams? Dreams are not real. Why should that have any bearing on a photo?

I took this photo on holiday last month. I didn't see the object in the sky when I took it, only when I went through the pictures later. Should I have started a UFO thread too?




posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: htapath




You must be kidding me.


No,

Because in the same post you posted this




Why do you keep insisting it's a bird when there are obvious anomalies which suggest otherwise? A headless, featherless bird with no tail or feet? A bird with out of proportion wings that appear to be rigid, perfectly vertical, and show no evidence of lateral motion? A bird that has a face-like appendage protruding from the inside of one wing and dots of light along the perimeter of the other? Oh and it just so happens that the bird is the same shape as the clouds and wasn't visible to the photographer?


You have to be kidding, all this was addressed in a logical and rational manner but you need there to be some unknown anomaly because the clouds looked strange or what not.


Yes I'm kidding, because you can't be serious. A two year old knows that isn't any bird or what not. The image still speaks for itself, and let me tell you it speaks volumes. Logic and rationale are excellent tools to possess when they are applied in the correct context. To say that the object is a bird is both illogical and irrational, however.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Edited out as I changed my mind. Sorry for the interruption.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: totallackey
a reply to: htapath

I need to get this straight...

You acknowledge wing-like features...



And even they are in an orientation that is not consistent with a bird in flight.

This statement is false. There are plenty of photos of birds with their wings in a downward position while in flight.

With wings that massive, either the head or tail would be most apparent.


Perhaps...if the photo was taken with a better quality camera, we would see the head and tail of the bird in question.

Yet, you claim,


In conclusion, the object in question is not a bird.


How can you make this claim?

The camera you used to take the photo does not have the capability to take high definition photos.


Actually you got it wrong from the outset. The term 'wing-like features' was used because I was illustrating a point. In another thread on another timeline, I might well refer to them as platforms (which would likely be a much more apt description).

And sure there are lots of pictures of birds in flight, but that has nothing to do with this object.

So let me get this straight. Videos are no good because they could've been edited. Eyewitness testimony is no good, because there were no pictures. Pictures are no good, unless they were taken by a professional photographer with a peer reviewed camera? And yet you act like you're looking for proof of something?



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: htapath


A two year old knows that isn't any bird or what not.
I'm 37 and I think it's a bird. Erik's son is 11 and thinks it's a bird. My daughter is 2 and when I get home tomorrow I'll show it to her and see what she says

edit on 11-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join