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.

 

What is this thing in the sky?

page: 4
56
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

It just seems extremely strange that there is no shutter listed and that ISO says 0, since that doesn't really seem like a valid setting for a camera taking a picture at night...

You blacked out two settings, one I am assuming is the phone make/model. What is the other?

Edit: And there is actually a very easy way to tell if someone has edited the exif data. Most people don't know how to change everything they need to change.
edit on 7-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Yeah, people gettin real paranoid these days


Anyway I wish the phoneix lights phenomenon and the whole ****0 thing would get settled already. I think a nail in the coffin on that whole thing would also end alot of other conspiracytheories.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Please post more technical observations, i.e., how long after sunset did this take place? If it was within a couple of hours within sunrise or sunset, then I can tell if it is luminated by the Sun, as it appears to be pretty bright. If it's the middle of the night, then it is most likely self illuminating. Also, how fast did it traverse your field of view? Did you hear anything? or was it a total 100% non-acoustical event. Did you observe any morphing? even just a tiny bit of change in size even? Finally, did you notice any shimmering or change in brightness/colour? Post anything! no matter how insignificant you think it was. None the less, this was an intriguing picture you caught here! Good job!



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk
THANK YOU for posting that!



No prob! The black triangle UFOs are my favorite UFO-related subject because I think they have the most credible evidence. The Illinois sighting is among the best of the UFO cases, IMO. Here's the original documentary I saw about the case:

www.youtube.com...

And here's a shorter documentary on the sighting:

www.youtube.com...

It's pretty good, though in the last 10 minutes or so they get into a lot of technical jargon and speculation about the tech of the craft.

SOMEONE out there is flying these things around, whatever they are.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Charizard


Thanks for those two vid links.
Downloading now



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

Would you PM a link to the original image that includes the exif data?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: VoidHawk

Interesting. If this is a regular occurrence, can you get your hands on a higher-quality video camera with a good zoom? I'd lend you mine if I was nearby, but I'm across the pond.



So annoying, I have one of those old Sony cams that record onto tape, but the tape mechanism is screwed, its annoying because it has a 25 x optical zoom and would be perfact for the job. getting a cam capable of capturing this thing is now a priority.


Well if you do make sure you can set EVERYTHING on manual I will post 2 pictures from a video I took.

I knew what this was grabbed my 16mp Sony SLT DSLR with a 70-300 mm zoom on it change none of the settings from my previous shoot got this using MANUAL focus.



Your typical youtube light in the sky type shot.

This is what I got still on manual focus but changing the exposure.



The local Police Helicopter.

That illustrates the problem shoot manual for best results that includes focus even although my camera has one of the best autofocus systems of any camera for stills or video mode including Nikon & Canon pro models at night manual focus!



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Charizard

Charizard, that vid you posted - OMG!

From my op.
"it doesn't fly very high and moves very slow"
From the vid.
"very low and moving very slow"

From my op.
"This object flies about like it wants to be seen"
From the vid.
"its as if it wanted to be seen"

From my op.
"The way it moves indicates its very much like an airplane - slight banking as it turns"
From the vid.
"it banked as it turned"

From my op.
"And there's no noise! none at all."
From the vid.
"there was no sound"

From my op.
"I think the orange glow must be something to do with its means of propulsion"
From the vid.
"one can theorise the ufo's lights are linked to some kind of propulsion technology"

From my op.
"I'm now wondering if the camera is picking up infra-red from the object"
In the vid they discuss infra-red being used on the front of the craft.

Compare the pic I drew with pics drawn by two of the police officers.
Mine


Theres


The only real difference between what I saw and what they saw are the colour of the lights, and I saw now lights on the bottom, and at one point they saw it travel at high speed.
I'm 100% certain that what I saw was of the same origin as what those police officers saw. The colour difference of the lights makes me wonder if what I saw is a later model?
The lights on the bottom that the police describe I suspect are for illumination because they were not visible on the object that I saw.

While writing this I realised something that seems rather disturbing. The first time I saw this craft it did a very tight full circle. I now realise that directly below where it circled theres a school!
I dont know if your aware of the case in Melbourne (see the link in my siggy) but on that day two craft landed in full sight of a school, and there's another case (think it was africa) where a craft landed in front of school children.
It would seem that whoever is in these craft is trying to reveal themselves to school children!

Thanks for posting that vid! Its realy set my mind on overdrive



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

As I mentioned, it was not my camera/phone, and I didn't have time to alter any settings, I just happened to glance out of their kitchen window and saw this thing, asked if they had a camera handy and was given the phone, I rushed out to the other side of the house and took the photo as the object passed over top.

We have a police helicopter around here too. Its very noisy and very obvious what it is. I saw the object thats in the photo with my own eyes and I can assure you that it was not a helicopter. It was exactly as I described, both times I've had a very clear view of it.
Had I not seen it before I wouldn't even have bothered to run outside to get a photo, but after seeing it the first time I knew I had to capture this thing on camera. Its just a shame I had such a poor quality camera!

I dont mind if people doubt what I saw, I'm guilty of doing the same! I posted for those who know this thing exists and also in the hope I might learn a little more about it.
Charizard posted a link to a vid and I am just amazed at the similarity between what I posted and whats in the vid. See my reply to Charizard.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

Would you PM a link to the original image that includes the exif data?


As I said, it wasn't my phone therefore I dont have the right to pass on a file that may contain identifying information. For example it contains what looks like the serial number of the phone, that makes it traceable.

The exif data that I posted is what is revealed to me by my operating system, do you think there may be more than I posted? If so I'll take a closer look. What specificaly is it you want to see?
As I said, I'm happy to post the full untouched picture, but it'll be a copy minus the exif.

If your request is because you doubt what I'm saying, thats fine, I doubt many of the pics that are posted. If your asking for another reason then I'll try to help.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

I wasn't doubting you at all until your last few posts...the exif data on my phone doesn't contain my phones serial, it contains the serial of the camera. I would assume this is the same for all phones but I could be wrong...

Nothing in exif data can identify a person.

Last year you posted a very similar thread using a picture with a long exposure, so to me it seems you are trying to hide the exposure time of the picture.

Posting the undedited image without the exif data may quell my notions, but I still find it odd you refuse to offer up the raw image with exif data.

Edit: also, you redacted two lines from the exif, not 1. What was the other line?
edit on 8-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

I wasn't doubting you at all until your last few posts...the exif data on my phone doesn't contain my phones serial, it contains the serial of the camera. I would assume this is the same for all phones but I could be wrong...

Nothing in exif data can identify a person.

It sure can! Any serial number be it for the camera or the phone can be traced to the person who bought the phone. Just ask any police force. Also, many phones now insert gps info into the exif data, that would pinpoint a persons location! Thats why I asked you if there may be more data than my os is showing me.

I'll boot into my old windows in a little while, I've got progs in there that will allow me to look inside the file, I'll see what I can find.
I'd still like to know why your so interested in the exif data?
Also, what was the file I posted last year? I've made many posts so cant recall what it was.





originally posted by: raymundoko

Posting the undedited image without the exif data may quell my notions, but I still find it odd you refuse to offer up the raw image with exif data.
Why do you find it odd that I wish to hide a persons identity on a public forum?


originally posted by: raymundoko
Edit: also, you redacted two lines from the exif, not 1. What was the other line?
Phone model. I give nothing away that I dont need to.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

Last year you posted a very similar thread using a picture with a long exposure, so to me it seems you are trying to hide the exposure time of the picture.



Is this the photo your refering too?


If so, you'll notice I never made any claim to have taken the shot. Look in my siggy and you'll see a link to a thread I made with old photo's given to me by a friend. While going through the rest of them I noticed that photo and thought it was interesting, so I posted it. It was quickly discovered how it had happened. There was nothing suspicious whatsoever about that thread. Here's the LINK for those who want to take a look.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

I never said you claimed to take the picture. I said it was very similar.

Your original image to me looks like pictures I've taken of Venus or Jupiter and accidentally moved the camera.

The biggest thing I find strange is you had the camera set to auto and your ISO says zero. You wouldn't pick any light up with that setting. You would have a black image...A camera taking a pic in the dark would have to be at least a few hundred as a daylight setting us usually about 100.

Granted I only do this as a hobby (night shots of planets, the sun during, the moon etc) but something doesn't seem right with how you are presenting this to us.

Can you upload the full unedited image without the exif data?
edit on 8-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Have to say, by the number of times you've mentioned bs, I'm beginning to wonder if your trying to inject doubt into this thread.

Exif data is meaningless! I've said it in other threads and in this one too!
As for the exposure time of zero, do you not think I couldn't have inserted ANY number I chose into it? I could have, I could have it read 1984 if I wanted to!
The exif data I posted is exactly how my pc presents it to me minus possible identifying data.

You seem to have ignored my comments about exif containing identifiable data such as GPS, do you agree that it would be silly to post such data on a public forum?

I'm gald to see you'd like to look at the photo, rather than a set of meaningless data. I'll post it in a few minutes.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

Exif data is not meaningless at all, why do you think it is?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

Exif data is not meaningless at all, why do you think it is?

Its not meaningless to a photographer, but for phorensic use, as I keep saying, anyone can change it to say whatever they want.

As for the ISO=0
I've just done some googling concerning this and it seems many android devices report exif data incorrectly, that would explain why this has happened.
I've just tried exiftool, reported as being one of the best exif readers out there, and it shows the same data as my os showed me.
I can only assume its an andriod problem, or the firmware of the phone.

If you really want to question whether this photo is genuine, and I realy dont mind if you do, then please do so by questioning the picture rather than the insecure text it may contain.
Good phorensic analysis would involve looking at the byte values across a section of the photo.

Look closely at the photo in my op. If I had added anything to it, then by looking at the byte values you should see either a drop or an increase in the average value in any area you think I might have altered.

The photo in the op is a very good example of a photo on which it would be almost impossible to hide changes because the thick cloud layer has caused varying shades right across the sky! For me to insert something into the image without it being detectable I'd have to manipulate just about every byte within the image, and being as its a 2692x1944 (5 million bytes) image, I think that would be rather a lot of work!!!



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

And again, it is extremely easy to catch 9 out of 10 amateurs who try to change the exif data. There is a key thing they don't change usually that gives it away.

Are you going to upload the unedited photo sans the exif data?

Edit: and not once have I said you added anything into the photo. However there is clearly a blowup in the OP indicating that is a doctored image if at least for easier viewing. How much else was cropped out?
edit on 9-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

I never said YOUR object was a helicopter I posted my example to show the difference of what can and can't be seen due to exposure settings!



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

What type of phone was it then if you haven't already mentioned it as the spec could be checked.

No doubt being auto iso it has went to the highest setting and we already know the shutter speed was long enough to cause the shape seen and white balance the colour of it in the picture.




top topics



 
56
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join