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.

 

oh crap i found what the infamous nick pope photo show!

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

It's not a real photo.

I'll try and find the link when I get time but pretty sure it was a recreation (possibly by a newspaper) based on Nick Pope's recollection of the alleged photo.

In terms of getting a Hopeless Diamond type craft, making it big and filling it full of helium- it just doesn't work using conventional materials.

The most convincing argument for BBT man made floaters I've heard would be using none conventional materials (flexible ceramics for e.g) and making a stealth vacuum airship- where instead of helium, the craft is made up of a layered honeycomb of vacuum chambers to provide structural integrity.




posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jukiodone
Thats not a photo nor a photocopy of a photo.

As I remember, the "shape" and the harrier were a graphical recreation (i.e picture) of a Photo Nick Pope claims he saw.
Accordingly no inference to shape/size can be made - and I wouldn't put outright lies or a prank on Mr Pope out of the question.





No,, that's from a photocopy of the poster/photograph Nick took. Remember also that, someone higher up the chain arbitrarily took the photo/poster down from over Nick's desk and Nick never saw it again. It's worth reading Karl12's link as it shows there were six photos taken and the MOD took it very seriously. The MOD have a track record for this sort of activity as well that is, "losing" or "mislaying" anything which comes close to providing any sort of photographic or filmic evidence of "strange craft".

There are also several cases from the 50s through to the 80s where people claim that, they gave the MOD undeveloped film of photos that had been taken that were never seen again and the MOD denied ever having them, said their was nothing on the film when developed or, claimed they had "lost" them. One of the crucial repositories of UFO incidents are books published from the 50s through to the 80s where often, they were little more than a catalogue of such occurrences rather than, some theme led narrative.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: FireMoon


No


Taken from Nick Popes site here

"The MoD files that contain documents relating to this case have been released and are available at the National Archives, though MoD says that no trace has been found of the images, aside from one poor quality photocopy of a line drawing that was done as part of the original MoD investigation."

Line Drawing from an eye witness.
So someone reported it and this drawing was the result of their recollections....i.e no sizes/shapes can be accurately inferred.


edit on 8-12-2016 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

The original photo is nowhere to be seen. Although someone created a very nice CGI mock up version some time ago.



As far as I recall the provenance of the photo(s) was that an unnamed photographer took the series of photographs and sent them to the Daily Record newspaper in Scotland. The Daily Record in turn sent them to the UK Ministry of Defence, for comment, before running a story on the subject. But the Daily Record never published a story for reasons unknown.

There's a bit more about the story here :



According to the files, the Ministry of Defence first became aware of the existence of the craft when the Daily Record newspaper presented it with six colour photographs of the object. The UFO seen by two men, one of whom captured it on camera, as it hovered in daylight near the A9, at Calvine, north of Pitlochry, on August 4, 1990.

The witnesses said it hovered for about 10 minutes – during which time military aircraft were also seen making a series of low-level passes – before moving upwards, out of sight, at great speed.

The files show that officials established from the photographs that the military craft were Harrier jets even though, intriguingly, none were operational in the area at the time.

An MoD minute prepared for the then Armed Forces Minister, Sir Archie Hamilton, and dated September 14, 1990 states: "Under Secretary of State (Armed Forces) may wish to be aware that the Scottish Daily Record may run a story regarding an alleged sighting of a UFO near Pitlochrie [sic] in early August. Such stories are not normally drawn to the attention of Ministers and the MoD press office invariably responds to questions along well-established lines emphasising our limited interest in the UFO phenomenon and explaining that we therefore do not have the resources to undertake any in-depth investigations into particular sightings.

"They [the photographs] show a large stationary, diamond-shaped object past which, it appears, a small jet aircraft is flying. The negatives have been considered by the relevant staff who have established that the jet aircraft is a Harrier (and also identified a barely visible second aircraft, again probably a Harrier) but have reached no definite conclusion regarding the large object."

The MoD even prepared a defensive media strategy in the event that journalists should bombard its press office with questions about the craft.

Journalists who quizzed the department were to be told that "no definite conclusions have been reached regarding the large diamond shaped object".

However, the Daily Record did not run the pictures.

Dr David Clarke, a university journalism lecturer and UFO expert, said: "This is the most tantalising of all the UFO reports. This shows how the MoD was worried about what the hell they were going to say. They had no idea what it was. They couldn't even identify where the Harriers had come from. It is a real mystery. It is one that can't be explained. They took it very, very seriously."


Daily Telegraph UK





edit on 8/12/16 by mirageman because: bda eglinsh



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

that looks exactly like the plane i posted



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Taken from Nick Popes synopsis on previous link:

"It seems that, somehow, MoD managed to persuade the reporter to part with not just the photos, but the negatives."

Typical innit?
It's enough to have you thinking nothing ever existed beyond hearsay and a crappy eye witness line drawing.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: FireMoon


No


Taken from Nick Popes site here

"The MoD files that contain documents relating to this case have been released and are available at the National Archives, though MoD says that no trace has been found of the images, aside from one poor quality photocopy of a line drawing that was done as part of the original MoD investigation."

Line Drawing from an eye witness.
So someone reported it and this drawing was the result of their recollections....i.e no sizes/shapes can be accurately inferred.



Only that's not actually true, which if chose to delve a little further you'd know however, that wouldn't suit your particular agenda . Someone actually photocopied the photos and then went over them to fill in the missing detail. If you've ever tried photocopying a photo particularly on dated machines, you'd n know exactly what was actually meant.
edit on 8-12-2016 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: FireMoon

My agenda is to follow the evidence.

You say Nick Popes version isn't true but then don't provide any refuting evidence.

Yes, I know photocopying can be tricky.



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Jukiodone

I think a lot of UFO stories in the released UK MoD files are a waste of time. They don't really tell us much.

But this is one that sort of sneaked through the filters of official secrecy. Although without confirming anything more than the MoD obviously felt this was of "significance". Even though they have always said "UFOs were not of defence significance".

At the end of the day though all the evidence suggests is that there was something 'unidentified' flying over Pitlochrie and that included one, maybe two, RAF Harriers. If the RAF knew about them they aren't telling us.

Sigh!



edit on 8/12/16 by mirageman because: clear up



posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: FireMoon

My agenda is to follow the evidence.

You say Nick Popes version isn't true but then don't provide any refuting evidence.

Yes, I know photocopying can be tricky.






No, you're quoting from the Telegraph story which does not give the full details, there is a huge difference. If you really wanted to "follow the trail of evidence" you'd know that. It's been pointed out time and time again that, evidence is filtered, often unintentionally, via the media and when you actually talk to those directly involved in an incident then the story takes on a wholly different complexion. Both sides of the debate are prone to cherry picking details, often totally out f context, to suit their agenda and that often leaves us with key points totally overlooked. So far, I am unaware that Nick Pope has dismissed the CGI interpretation of the photo he had so that means we can make some basic deductions about size of the object from it. The fact that, it apparently hovered motionless for some minutes, pretty much puts it outside the scope of our known technology at the time. Even more so, when the witnesses describe the object as "taking off straight up at high speed".

One of the key as yet unanswered questions about this case is simply. why didn't the Daily record publish the photos themselves and just deal with the fall out afterwards? If they were fake it wouldn't have mattered one jot and yet, to my current knowledge the newspaper has never flat out denied that they were sent them. Make no mistake, had the newspaper bought the copyrights to them from the photographers and printed them then, they would have made and absolute fortune from their syndication, so why didn't they?

Why did a newspaper send their only copies of the photos to the MOD and not replicate them? They were sitting sitting on a goldmine and someone obviously lost their bottle or was "leaned on" to pass them on first. Oh and then oh so conveniently, they "were lost in the post" when the MOD claims they returned them. Personally and given their intrinsic monetary worth, I'd have told the MOD from the outset, we''ll come and pick them up personally. when you have finished with them. We're not talking one photo, we're talking six, and virtually every newspaper in the world saying... "I'll have a piece of that thank you".

So let's say they were a hoax, that's definitely a possibility, so you explain to me why it runs counter to how hoaxes normally play out? Given that, at the core of all hoaxes, is a person or persons wishing to to be "noticed" and seen as, in some form or another, as "special". When the newspaper didn't publish them why didn't the hoaxers simply take them to another newspaper, say a foreign one, knowing full well they would have no problems publishing them? Why haven't they come forward to claim their fifteen minutes in the spotlight since? The truth is, as yet, it runs wholly counter to how hoaxes are normally perpetrated.

I've put feelers out about this case and the photo taken in 1947 from the Outer Hebrides and nothing , nada, zilch.

1947 colour UFO photo Outer Hebrides

Again, a relatively clear photo of some strange object in the sky and guess what? The MOD have no idea who took it etc etc etc. I'm pretty sure, given where it was snapped, it would have taken the MOD less than a couple of weeks to have worked out a very short list of people who might have taken it and been in touch with them to ask them about however no, it seems it was just filed away and "quietly forgotten".

On the other hand , both these cases seem to fit a pattern the MOD is notorious for namely, sit on the evidence then "lose it" or give us the big "no idea" when they have to pony it up.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah i kind of figured that out, it would be a Steve Austin landing every time!

But that engine has tons of thrust, i guess it's thirsty too......

Not much of the nuclear plane tests ever gets out, in any case all these high-tech planes have been superceded by 'antigravity tech' or what i prefer to call gravity control.

For example, if Lockheed are building 'ufo's' in secret, would they bother with something like Pumpkin seed?
Hmm i guess we could ask NASA the same question.

Theres always the old-fashioned fusion drive to fall back on, you'd have thought they would let THAT into the public domain by now, it's been over 60 years already.

ETA; According to my notes, we had the gravity tech BEFORE we had the fusion tech. Go figure.....
edit on 9-12-2016 by playswithmachines because: afterthought



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: playswithmachines

OK a layman's (me) description of the engines.

Pumkin seed has dozens of small pits in it's surface, like a golf ball.

In these pits are nozzles that spray jet fuel onto the surface. The temperature of air friction is enough to light the fuel, that is why i call it an 'external engine'.

The fusion drive has much less thrust but is ideal for space, it can get you up to some pretty good speeds using Helium-3 reactions. Cheap to run, lots of bang for your buck, and you can carry enough fuel to reach Pluto & back easily.

The antigrav drives, well there are at least 3 of them, working on different-but-the-same principles, like the Flux Liner, TR3b etc etc. The more direct (and super efficient) mass-to-gravity conversion would be something like Bob Lazar's Element 115 driven sports model UFO.
There is also a kinetic drive system using a high speed water turbine, but that as yet isn't fully validated.
But the rest is.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join