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.

 

Picture Of UFO Doing 90 Degree Turn Caught By Australian Photographer

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

It's just a light in the sky. It will never be more than a light in the sky.


Except when it's not just a light in the sky. But... we just ignore those sightings. : )


Try to get the point. A light in the sky provides zero relevant details. In terms of factual, solid information you are no better off having seen the light than you were before. You don't know anything more, just like the thousands of lights in the sky that we have seen before. This light in the sky has not contributed significantly to the knowledge base concerning UFOs. In fact, it's just more noise. In terms of energy expended, it's a waste. It's not something a serious UFO researcher would spend much time on. Catalog it and move on. if it's part of a pattern that is relevant, it should show up sooner or later. But let's not claim aliens just yet. It's just a small light in the sky.

The Hynek Scale (adapted from Wikipedia)

1. Nocturnal Lights: Lights in the night sky.
2. Daylight Discs: UFOs seen in the daytime, generally having discoidal or oval shapes.
3. Radar-Visual: UFO reports that have radar confirmation. These seem to offer harder evidence that the objects are real, although radar propagation can often be unreliable.
4. Close Encounters of the First Kind: Visual sightings of an unidentified flying object, seemingly less than 500 feet away, that show an appreciable angular extension and considerable detail.
5. Close Encounters of the Second Kind: A UFO event in which a physical effect is alleged.
6. Close Encounters of the Third Kind: UFO encounters in which an animated creature is present.

Bloecher subtypes

The UFO researcher Ted Bloecher proposed six subtypes for the close encounters of the third kind in Hynek's scale.

A : An entity is observed only inside the UFO.
B : An entity is observed inside and outside the UFO.
C : An entity is observed near to a UFO, but not going in or out.
D : An entity is observed. No UFOs are seen by the observer, but UFO activity has been reported in the area at about the same time.
E : An entity is observed, but no UFOs are seen and no UFO activity has been reported in the area at that time.
F : No entity or UFOs are observed, but the subject experiences some kind of "intelligent communication".

* Subtypes D, E, and F may be unrelated to the UFO phenomenon. *

Extensions of Hynek's scale

7. Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind: A UFO event in which a human is abducted by a UFO or its occupants.
8. Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind: A UFO event that involves direct communication between aliens and humans.
9. Close Encounters of the Sixth Kind: Death of a human or animal associated with a UFO sighting.
10. Close Encounters of the Seventh Kind: The creation of a human/alien hybrid, either by sexual reproduction or by artificial scientific methods

edit on 7/8/2018 by schuyler because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

I agree with you, but I also realize that Project Blue Book was largely formed to discredit the UFO phenomenon, so I really don't put much faith in their conclusions. I'm surprised they didn't explain all of the unexplained sightings. The 6% they couldn't explain was probably done to make their so-called study look legit in the public's eye. I see strange things in the night sky all the time on my deck, looking at the LCD screen on my Sony 50X zoom digital camera. Being sceptical by nature, I conclude those lights are satellites, space debris or meteroites. However, if I saw a moving, lighted object take a sudden right angle turn in the night time sky, how could you call me "gullible" if I conclude that object was a UFO? Wouldn't it be unidentified, if I couldn't explain what it was? That's the whole point in me starting this thread. I agree with you, that many people are gullible, but I believe many more have an open mind. Why is it, that some sceptics, can't accept a object being labeled a UFO, if it can't be explained with a thorough investigation?
edit on 7/8/2018 by shawmanfromny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: schuyler

I agree with you, but I also realize that Project Blue Book was largely formed to discredit the UFO phenomenon, so I really don't put much faith in their conclusions.


I didn't mention the conclusions. I simply informed you of the thousands of case studies compiled by Project Blue Book. Whether you appreciate their conclusions or not, they were the focal point and repository for thousands of sightings sent to them by civilians and military alike. They collected them. On 3x5 cards. I had the misfortune of attempting to catalog them for ATS for a time when they had the "Archivist" position here. It was a boring and thankless job that was ultimately worthless.


However, if I saw a moving, lighted object take a sudden right angle turn in the night time sky, how could you call me "gullible" if I conclude that object was a UFO?


You are having a hard time reading what I wrote accurately. I never attributed seeing UFOs to being gullible. If you then stated, "Aliens!" then I would call you gullible. That you saw an unidentified flying object is accurate, but that's as far as you can take it.
edit on 7/8/2018 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/8/2018 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

i have seen a similar thing but it was a different color.

and you have to think about the distance between you and whatever it was. it may appear to be a 90 or close to 90 degree turn but it more than likely as not so tight.


cool catch S+F



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 09:22 PM
link   
i agree with elevenaugust
something bumped the camera at the end of the exposure and caused deneb to go all wibbly woobly
it seems too much of a coincidence it would be below the brightest object in the image



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

I like to think that this place is not disclosetv or one of those other junk clickbait websites. If you have something to state why don't you try to produce a constructive argument.
edit on 9-7-2018 by Logiciel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord

And the angles all coincide with stars. Ockham's Razor.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

This reminded me of a 90 degree contrail I witnessed some time back, I made a thread about it here on ATS, complete with photos and my own amateur analysis;

90 degree contrail thread

I wonder if they could be connected, this is ATS, after all, 😎




posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaTribeEntity

Cool pic, but they can't be related. This is not a contrail, it happened over 4 seconds, and it is almost certainly the camera moving as the lines come straight off the brightest spot in the photo.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Ask any amateur astronomer and those 'objects' are very common in the night sky, I've seen a few myself and yes UFO.....



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

yep



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I typed that with tongue-in-cheek,

Second line,





top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join