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.

 

Jaw-dropping photos taken above CERN’s Large Hadron Collider lead to wild new conspiracy theories

page: 10
60
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: smarterthanyou



CGI, why am i not surprised you responded with that. 2nd

That video originated from a self proclaimed youtube hoaxer. Yes, it is CGI.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 7/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: smarterthanyou



CGI, why am i not surprised you responded with that. 2nd

That video originated from a self proclaimed youtube hoaxer. Yes, it is CGI.
www.abovetopsecret.com...




No offense to the OP intended, but what is more jaw dropping to me, is the fact that this thread got so many stars and flags, over what is clearly just a thunderhead......

And where im from (Texas) thats not even a large one.........

so what gives? and how does this indicate ANYTHING



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask



and how does this indicate ANYTHING

It indicates how gullible people can be when they want to be.
Right?



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

OR when they've inadvertently trained themselves to not notice they're being...

But, maybe some people have truly never seen or noticed an isolated storm cell like this one. And the photography is well done and well, if subtly, edited. I can understand how it would be eye catching.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy



But, maybe some people have truly never seen or noticed an isolated storm cell like this one. And the photography is well done and well, if subtly, edited. I can understand how it would be eye catching.

Actually, I've never seen a thunderstorm like that but that doesn't mean I don't think they happen. "Portal" would not be my first assumption.

What makes you think the images were edited?
edit on 7/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
DP
edit on 3-7-2016 by SemperFried because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

I don't know how much over Cern it is or isn't.

I understand about the long exposure. Did you find the exposure data or is it your assumption from looking at the pic?


Since lightning moves at the speed of light it has to be a long exposure to capture it on film. and rain looks like sheets/lines or cloud like from a distance.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Argyll




It wasn't.


It wasn't what? Directly over CERN?

Actually it was, the CERN tunnel comes within 5 km to the West of the lake and in the pics the thunderstorm is West of the lake too seemingly moving towards the lake so it seems to have come from the direction of CERN and was directly above it.


(post by mortex removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: mortex

Oh look.
Someone thinks that a post about me is relevant.





And I'm not even one of the people who thought it was a portal or the like.
Good on you.

edit on 7/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mortex

Are we supposed to just agree with the op?.
Oh and nice rant lumping all Americans in the same boat...
edit on 3-7-2016 by TheKnightofDoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa




Since lightning moves at the speed of light it has to be a long exposure to capture it on film.


No it doesn't.

And even if it did your post would still make no sense on different levels. For instance, for high speed events, you would typically use high speed cameras with very short exposure times. And all light we see or capture on film is moving at.....the speed of light.
edit on 3-7-2016 by SemperFried because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I don't mean edited to remove original content or add something that wasn't there. But it's common, if not standard industry practice in professional photography to tweak the images. Adjusting contrast, saturation, brightness, etc. to reveal or clarify details that weren't as obvious or sharp in the original image. I'm not suggesting that it was done obscure or imply anything. Just as a matter of increasing the aesthetic quality of the image.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: mortex

About time someone figured out who I am. All hail me.
Though, how about next time, instead of going straight for the insults, try and engage someone and perhaps use your own intellect to show them their arrogance is unfounded. Insults rarely bring about humility.
As for not having thought it was a portal to begin with, I am glad we're at least on the same page there. Do you think, being in the vicinity of the CERN facilities, there's any chance it could have been?



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Oh. It was about you?
Odd, your post didn't seem very overlordish.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pfishy

Oh. It was about you?
Odd, your post didn't seem very overlordish.


But you know yours are?




posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: SemperFried

Of course not.
But my avatar may give that impression.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well it sure helps.




posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: SemperFried
a reply to: yuppa




Since lightning moves at the speed of light it has to be a long exposure to capture it on film.


No it doesn't.

And even if it did your post would still make no sense on different levels. For instance, for high speed events, you would typically use high speed cameras with very short exposure times. And all light we see or capture on film is moving at.....the speed of light.


According to the book, "It's Raining Frogs and Fishes," by Jerry Dennis, lightning bolts travel at speeds up
to 93,000 miles per second. That's pretty darn fast.What we see as a single lightning flash is actually several lightning bolts that follow each other so rapidly that our eyes see only a single flash.


SO yes I was a little off its HALF the speed of light basically. Still fast enough to need a specilized camera.
Lightning photography generally requires slower shutter speeds, so as to provide enough time per exposure to get at least one bolt.

SO actually when shooting lightning your exposure should be slow.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SemperFried

Of course not.
But my avatar may give that impression.


BUCKAROO BANZAIII!!!!!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join