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.

 

"Supposed" UFO Picture Near Naval Air Weapons Station In 2007 Just Released

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
loved that film
(reply to Blackfinger)


edit on 13 11 2017 by RoScoLaz5 because: something




posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Excellent work



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Great discussion folks! Love all the opinions. I zoomed on the object in a paint program and fiddled with saturation, hue and input histogram. Came up with this:

That large "reflection" looks odd...notice the dark circles around the light. The smaller light above it looks like the sun's reflection, but what do you guys think about the larger reflection. Could this be the output of some type of propulsion system? Weird.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Shiny bulge metallic objects always diffracts the light around the object not?
So IMO the light on the top of the object could be refracting at the rim of the object and straight on into the camera lens?





And doesn't get lighter with the UFO's altitude.


Thats because the angle of the sun changes more on top of the UFO thus leaving a wider shadow drop on the ground ..


And as the UFO takes on height the shadow gets bigger as when close to the ground reflection of light from the ground bounces back to the ground again from the reflective surface of the UFO and brightens the shadow and making it smaller..
edit on 0b16America/ChicagoMon, 13 Nov 2017 18:11:16 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoMon, 13 Nov 2017 18:11:16 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

neither me



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

that looks very fake
though i still dont know how he did it



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

Maybe asking that green fella flying the disk he noticed him around, laying cover in the bushes taking some holiday shots
edit on 0b06America/ChicagoMon, 13 Nov 2017 18:21:06 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoMon, 13 Nov 2017 18:21:06 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

I hear ya. Like they say, if it's seems too good to be true then it probably is.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Anybody figure out how big this thing might be and how slow it was going because my phone is pretty slow taking pictures and the frame didn't seem to move much.




posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

Speaking of "holiday shots," anyone notice Rudolph hanging out under the UFO?




posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny
I'll bet he took off his coat , it seems like a mid summer day looking at all dried out grass , I say it's the Easter bunny laying some eggs to find..



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
What if the altitude of the 'UFO' is higher in the first frame than the last?

It's not. You can see that the distance between the UFO and its shadow changes from image to image.










posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

You must have used a very wide range for that image, the colours are not that similar.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Essentially everything you said is meaningless but because you provided graphics some people will give it weight.

Only if they don't think for themselves.


Do you see my point?

I do, but I think you are wrong.


Sorry my man, I give no weight to your analysis. No offence, you do try to convince well, but I ain't close to convinced.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, I was just trying to explain my point of view, as I always do.

I don't think people need to be convinced, I think people should want to learn for themselves, so I always try to explain things the best I can, even when I'm explaining why I was wrong in previous occasions, as has happened several times.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   


because you provided graphics some people will give it weight.


That method helps support and communicate the point being made. It's what ATS should be and has been in the past.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Shiny bulge metallic objects always diffracts the light around the object not?

No, diffraction happens when the light goes through the object, here we only have reflection, although the shape of the reflection changes according to the shape of the reflecting surface.


So IMO the light on the top of the object could be refracting at the rim of the object and straight on into the camera lens?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.


And as the UFO takes on height the shadow gets bigger as when close to the ground reflection of light from the ground bounces back to the ground again from the reflective surface of the UFO and brightens the shadow and making it smaller..

Not really, as the reflected light isn't going in the same direction as the direct light that is casting the shadow.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

the last picture is the first picture in row , because the helicopter is heading towards the UFO .
also the clouds shape and the shadows from the bushes have have changed .

Clouds dissolve or change shape in minutes so I say four or five mines passing..



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Well, I think the underside is white, and not mirrored, so it won't reflect the ground quite as well.

I forgot to say in my previous response to this post that, according the story, the UFO was described as being "shiny like a mirror" by the witness' friend and as a "silver disc" by the witness himself.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

The order of the photos and the time between photos is irrelevant for what I was saying, that the object was at different altitudes in the different photos.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
You must have used a very wide range for that image, the colours are not that similar.

Narrow it if you like, but it still shows up. I can see it with my own eyes, without the need for enhancements. Rather than being a nice white, like the reflections or the clouds, the bottom is brownish that sort of matches the ground. I give it a little leeway, because I don't know the color of the ground right underneath it. It's desert, and it's not a uniform color. And neither is the color on the bottom of the thing. So "reflections?" They look appropriate to me. It would be nice if the resolution was high enough to get a reflection of the helicopter on the saucer.

Again, I'm not trying to prove the thing is real. I'm just looking at the photos. If they are fake, then somebody went to a lot of trouble to create four different photos, each from a slight different perspective, and Photoshopped in a 3-D model or CGI, making sure all the colors and shadows and reflections were aligned within reason (or at least our ability to tell with our limited photo analysis skills and tools). Seems like a lot of trouble for something that is unlikely to have a satisfying explanation either way.

If it really was an alien saucer that the Air Force managed to cut a hole into and get off the ground -- sort of -- nothing in these photos or the story is going to prove that.




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join