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: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

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.

I noticed that. They don't mention the obvious dark blue top, either. If I were to cut them some slack, I would say that they're absolutely right about it being very shiny, just not silver.




posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP




Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

like lasers on mirrors , change the mirror to guide the laser. in this case the object has a static surface so the light alway's directed from the position of the sun.




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

True, but the object has a coned shaped bottom with a flat downside so the light bends diagonally back to the ground only the flat bottom side catches minimal lighting from the reflecting light-rays going diagonally and passes the flat bottom .

the diagonal flanks of the UFO refracts the light around also because it has a cylindrical shape so IMO it cuts off the shadow from the outside inwards.

I definitely going to ask santa for a present this year , probably something like " to make a long story believable short zapper "




posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Awesome. I really appreciate you putting in the effort to illustrate the differential in relative altitude. I can't explain the light/dark aspect of the shadow, but I sincerely thank you for making a bang-up effort in illustrating the difference in altitude.

Wish I could give more than just a star. Please accept my endorsement of your work as a consolation.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

It's not to look for lighting properties because CGI can mimic ground reflecting colors as easy as eating peanuts . It's looking for smear effects in the blocky deformation around objects. using a cut tool or magnetic cutting tool to replace objects always needs blurring for blending effects as of smearing effects so it reveals the authentic nature of the picture.

smearing effects always turn out darker in color because you mix all colors to one that always will be dark purple or dark grey.
Also blurring disguises defects somewhat but than you would see unequal blurring effects around objects



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

I used Gimp's "Select by colour" tool with a threshold of 40 and got this.


It shows what I mean, with all that darker bushes around, I think we should be seeing that darker colour reflected on the UFO's shiny surface, not the brighter dust colour.

And, as I said before, I don't think the reflections are right.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP




I think we should be seeing that darker colour reflected on the UFO's shiny surface

not true dark colors absorb light and do not reflect light..



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

I was talking about things being reflected on the UFO surface. Mirror surfaces reflect everything, dark and light colours.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: shawmanfromny


Keep in mind that description is just a rumour as to what it was like. He didn't actually see it himself he was just told that's what it was. Being in between jobs and having nothing to do the next day I made my way out there. (I'm not telling you how I was able to get there but I will say I walked a very long distance) as I got closer I could hear a helicopter so I peeked up over a hill and down in the small valley below sure enough I could see this silver disc out there. There were a few tan-colored trailers and other military vehicles on the North End of the valley. This thing would wobble along close to the ground very unstable. I don't believe anyone could have been riding on the inside but got the idea that helicopter was remotely controlling it.


At first I was too afraid to take any pictures but then it got really close to me so I started snapping some photos figuring that if I was going to be caught I might as well have some pictures. I also took a short video but then to save space on my camera I started deleting the blurry pictures. I spent maybe 10 minutes total watching this thing. I then turned around and got out of there as quickly as I could. I took my shirt off thinking the color of my skin would blend in with my surroundings better than the color of my white shirt. About halfway back I got scared and hid the camera in the desert.


nexusnewsfeed.com...


This part is total BS the radar range is over 30 miles from where these photos were taken i know as i worked as a security guard on the base and worked at the radar range out on Echo Range Randsburg Wash and with these new photos i am 110% positive i could take anyone right to the area the photos were taken 35°36'17.89N 117°36'19.50 W and its not on the navy base. the rest were taken in the same area and off to the southeast.



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

depends on brightness and contrast of the surrounding area brighter surroundings overrule darker objects



And, as I said before, I don't think the reflections are right.


So IMO the reflections are right they oppress the darker objects in the area . if the there were more bushes or darker regions like say 60 percent it should have shown in your referential picture?

And BTW they guy who shot these photographs was taking them in a standing position I wonder why he said he was covering between the bushes naked to blend in the surrounding area?


edit on 0b13America/ChicagoMon, 13 Nov 2017 20:23:13 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoMon, 13 Nov 2017 20:23:13 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   
There is no super glowing reflection, I believe it's a light source of some kind. And the coloration is countershading, common camouflage for aircraft (and animals). While I am often at odds with the too common theme of black projects to explain away the unexplained, in this case.. this might be such a project. Perhaps a military drone. But then again, hard to say.. there doesn't seem to be any other instrumentation, and as such.. would be a fairly worthless drone, unless you needed a billion dollar flying flashlight along with your mission.



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 01:28 AM
link   
im curious how big this object is in person, in all honesty.
edit on 14-11-2017 by clt1994 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
This is a fake off the bat!



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
depends on brightness and contrast of the surrounding area brighter surroundings overrule darker objects

It doesn't, when you look at a mirror reflection of a room (for example) you can see exactly the same things you see with your eyes. I'm not talking about mate surfaces like the ground or the bushes reflecting light, I'm talking about a specular surface like the UFO reflecting its surroundings.


So IMO the reflections are right they oppress the darker objects in the area . if the there were more bushes or darker regions like say 60 percent it should have shown in your referential picture?

Sorry, I should have said that I was talking about the reflection of the Sun.


And BTW they guy who shot these photographs was taking them in a standing position I wonder why he said he was covering between the bushes naked to blend in the surrounding area?

Maybe he forgot about that, being a good liar is difficult.



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Interesting story and photos, most definitely! Kudos to all for the investigative effort that has been put forward so far. I noticed a few things that I don’t see mentioned strongly enough in this debate... I hope I can add up to the observations so far:

If we look at all the evidence in this case one obvious question arises. Why is there such a difference between the photos, specifically in terms of reflection? And while at first look the photo with the “reflection” seemed quite striking in terms of the object being very much out of place, the rest look much MUCH better. Why is that? Or should I say, a poster almost hit the nail on the head with the suggestion that this is not a reflection that we are seeing in the first photo, it is also not seen in the rest of the photos so why the need to hoax it in?

As for the shadow, it doesnt seem like it is out of place, especially in the animated gif, as much there is a change in the height of the object, it is a change of a few meters most likely because so far we do not have size and distance nailed down, do we? I would not expect a drastic change, especially given.

While I have a lot of respect towards ArMap’s knowledge and experience in the field, I know the same could cloud one’s judgement on what is real and what is hoaxed, given a long enough period of fraudsters and hoaxes... I am not saying that is the case here, AM, but if you are open to the possibility the first picture does not give off a reflection, rather what we are seeing is a source of a light of some sort and the only part it is reflected is on the upper hull (not the sun) then we might have more to discuss? And while I agree with Blue Shift here that there seems to be more to the photos and story, I am not saying it is definitely truthful. I found what I’ve mentioned this far interesting to note so I am sharing.
edit on 14-11-2017 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-11-2017 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ch1n1t0

Well, if that's not the reflection of the Sun, where is it? A reflective object like that should show Sun's reflection.

Unless the Sun's reflection is exactly on the same place as the light, so we don't see it.



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

From your experience at the base, was there ever conducted tests and operations outside the base area? Did they ever go off the grounds, either deliberately or by accident?

If this is some not so secret kind of experimental LTA or drone, maybe they didn't really care that much if anyone saw it?

Or, is it feasible at all in your opinion, that even with stuff that is pretty secret, accidents and stupid mistakes happen?

Like testing this in a spot where it definitely should not have been?

Just curious as to your input as to the context here.

BT



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
To me the images scream fake. I dont have evidence for or against but at a glance the ufo just looks wrong and out of place. Like its been added.

Also im 99 percent sure military does not test that stuff in the daytime.
edit on 14-11-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
To me the images scream fake. I dont have evidence for or against but at a glance the ufo just looks wrong and out of place. Like its been added.

Of course, it's possible. The animation I made shows a reasonable, logical path that the UFO travels along. Pretty consistent. But I really had to bend and twist a couple of those images to show that, because they're all taken from slightly different perspectives. If someone faked it, they'd have to allow for all that shifting around in the original images and make each one separately viable but still consistent with the others in sequence. That seems like a lot of work. Not that somebody couldn't do it (like the CARET people), but it seems pretty ambitious.


Also im 99 percent sure military does not test that stuff in the daytime.

It's solar powered!



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

eactly my opinion, it looks too good to be true



posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: ANNED

From your experience at the base, was there ever conducted tests and operations outside the base area? Did they ever go off the grounds, either deliberately or by accident?

If this is some not so secret kind of experimental LTA or drone, maybe they didn't really care that much if anyone saw it?

Or, is it feasible at all in your opinion, that even with stuff that is pretty secret, accidents and stupid mistakes happen?

Like testing this in a spot where it definitely should not have been?.
Just curious as to your input as to the context here.

BT


The base is so large there would be no reason to test aircraft off base and only a few test like cruse missile fired at targets on base from off the calif coast are done.

The navy is not the only agency to use the ranges at china lake all services plus NASA use the china lake ranges.

Aircraft lining up for test runs on the base ranges may transit off base air space.

For test they want no one outside the base to see they have large areas to do them like echo range and the north ranges. where the security rivals area 51.
I worked there when they tested the F117 at the radar ranges using russian radars that the US acquired by hook or crook.

the base at china lake has done secret testing all the way back to the Manhattan Project's "Project "Camel"
en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join