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.

 

ufo photographed in los angeles 1991

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
i originnaly posted this photo at the unknow source photographs thread i made:
www.ufocasebook.com...
however someone found its source: it was taken in los angeles ,in 1991, by a woman named dorothy drudge in a foggy morning

the picture is interesting enough to merit its own thread so i made one
the photo showns a disc shaped object floating over a suburban landscape
the object in itself is disc shaped with two odd knobs at the bottom and possibly a rim structure around it though it could be just an sun reflection
the only problem is that the picture doesnt look foggy enough
so what do you think of it ats?




posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Someone threw something in the air, and took a picture.

Sorry, nothing even close to interesting going on here.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

The lighting seems off and the poor focus is leading me to think this UFO isn't outside at all and is actually much closer (so it is appearing blurred), probably inside.

Not a lot in this image screams "that is a genuine object" so for me personally I'm happily filing it away in my internal filing system as hoax
edit on 29/3/2017 by constant_thought because: clarity



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

Yea...sorry, guess you didn't get the memo but all photographs and videos about UFO's are debunked as CGI on ATS; the interesting aspect of how these threads unfold is the inevitable discussion about the quality of the CGI job.

Que the debunkers............



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: humanoidlord

Yea...sorry, guess you didn't get the memo but all photographs and videos about UFO's are debunked as CGI on ATS; the interesting aspect of how these threads unfold is the inevitable discussion about the quality of the CGI job.

Que the debunkers............


Deny Ignorance is the ATS motto...

This is not a site to have a discussion about a fake video/photo.

If its CGI it will be called out as so. If a photo is faked it will be called out as so.

Are we supposed to ignore the obvious???



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
There is nothing "obvious" about this photo being faked. Only your wishful thinking. If the craft is spinning then the focus will not be as good. Same goes with camera movement. But if you do not want aliens to be real you will consider every photo of a UFO a fraud. Which means you are just being ignorant on purpose and should not waste your time being in a UFO thread. Unless of course the government is paying you to deny their existence.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Jefferton

could be specially due to the blurring



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: constant_thought

i dont know something like that could be easily attempted outside



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

but a lot of those are fake!



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

The "knobs" on the bottom make that image resemble very much the old "flying saucers" of Adamski. The ships he saw or created had three large balls on the bottom. In a military sentry post closest in 1957 at Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo., I saw an old, small, metal lamp shade that was a dead ringer for the body of his UFOs.

Adamski was probably a sincere guy and he was not along in those early days of the flying saucers. It could be said that he and some of the other driven people were made by the initial ETIs to behave as they did. Their simple goal given these people was to save the world. Their efforts all failed as it evidently was not the right conditions for that type of a standard type of religion to be birthed (again). Today, the level of intelligent belief in this whole business has moved beyond that point.

Such points about Adamski and others in the history of mysterious devices seen in earthly skies should not be rejected out of hand as worthless but be seen as indicative of exploratory efforts to reach the human psyche. We abductees can be seen as a continuing part of an on-going program.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

adamsky is a hoaxer do your research



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
For me the issue (aside from the blurriness) is that the picture itself is taken from a higher vantage point. Quite possibly so when they tossed the object, it would look like it was flying higher above the buildings below it, than an object tossed from ground level and a picture snapped. Certainly nothing here to provide any level of proof of it being anything other than a tossed object.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: constant_thought
a reply to: humanoidlord

The lighting seems off and the poor focus is leading me to think this UFO isn't outside at all and is actually much closer (so it is appearing blurred), probably inside.

Not a lot in this image screams "that is a genuine object" so for me personally I'm happily filing it away in my internal filing system as hoax
I don't know if it's inside or not, but what suggests the object is relatively close to the camera is the sharp contrast between light and dark areas on the object. At greater distances the contrast becomes lower and this is true in any normal LA picture, and even more so in foggy conditions which Dorothy Drudge said were present at the time of the photo.

The same problem was noted with the Rex Helfin UFO photos, that the contrast of the UFO was too high indicating it was a small object close to the camera, so there are similarities with that case:

badufos.blogspot.com...

In these photos, distant objects are hazy because of the Los Angeles smog, while the UFO is not, probably because it is tiny, and very close to the camera.
Same problem.



originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: humanoidlord

Yea...sorry, guess you didn't get the memo but all photographs and videos about UFO's are debunked as CGI on ATS; the interesting aspect of how these threads unfold is the inevitable discussion about the quality of the CGI job.

Que the debunkers............
It's easier to debunk your post than this UFO photo. No CGI needed here, so you sound extremely ignorant for mentioning CGI in this case. It appears to be a small object close to the camera because of the contrast, and you can easily see in photos of LA that more distant objects have lower contrast, that is if you're interested in getting to the truth instead of making ignorant comments about debunking.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
nvm...
edit on 29/3/17 by SecretKnowledge because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TonyS
If you need to play victim to support your case, then you haven't really got an argument. It's quite clear that the background is in focus while the object in question isn't, and it appears to be a small item close to the lens. You can call it a debunking but in reality it's camera principles.



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Looks like a an older model UFO. I would say circa 1991 generation.



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 04:48 AM
link   
It could be an early stage drone??



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Apart from it not being that simple to throw an object into the air and take a picture of it, especially in 1991 when digital cameras where not in use and you couldn't just preview the shots and keep going until the right one appeared. This shot looks as though it was taken from a high vantage point so if the object was thrown, from where? I cannot imagine someone at ground level throwing it that high and if she threw it from the window, she would have to be pretty darn quick to get the camera, find it in the viewfinder and snap the one-chance shot before said object fell to the ground. Speaking of which would it not be a tad dangerous to be throwing objects willy-nilly out of a high window, over the gardens of your neighbours?

The blurrines could be due to the motion of the object. Everything else in the picture would be relatively still in comparison...houses, poles, wires etc. The high contrast could be due to the material of the object...highly reflective, shiny, metallic and not the dull, flat surfaces of the buildings.

I'm not saying it's genuine because I don't know enough about the case but what I am doing is putting my thoughts and opinion across. It does look suspiciously similar to the Adamski objects, which casts it in a dubious light. Does anybody know what the presumably household object could be?



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
A hubcap from an old pickup truck? Just my opinion. I still enjoyed the post for making me observe and think.
Well get answers one day. S&F for you.



posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

the current conclusion is that its indeed a trown object



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join