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.

 

Does anyone remember the triangle or wedge shaped UFO photo posted by a member a few years ago ?

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2020 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: devilhunter69

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: devilhunter69

See above.


Ohh my god - many thanks - has it been debunked ?
It was never debunked, it was inconclusive. Someone did a good analysis that showed it could be smaller than a hubcap and close to the camera, or up to 60 feet across and correspondingly further away, or anywhere in-between.

I agreed with that, I couldn't rule out a hubcap, but I couldn't rule out a larger object either. There are hubcaps with raised centers like the two in the back of this photo:

Neither is an exact match but there are many, many different types of hubcaps and I didn't try to search for a closer match.

I never would have guessed this was the photo you meant by the thread title "Triangle or wedge shaped", do you still think that describes it? It's neither triangle shaped not wedge shaped, it's round, roughly hubcap-shaped.



The original thread was what 10 years ago and I was describing from memory. Sorry if my memory is not as razor sharp as yours !




posted on Aug, 10 2020 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: devilhunter69
My memory isn't razor sharp, but once I opened the link to that thread, I remembered discussing in the thread the possibility that it could be a hubcap. But it was a long thread and perhaps you didn't read it.

One thing we tried to look at in the thread, was whether we could detect a string or line suspending the object. Through an unfortunate coincidence, the writing on the back of the photo bled through in the scan enough to interfere with the suspension line analysis. If it was really important to know (like if a photo was evidence in a murder investigation or something), it might be possible to make more sophisticated scans which don't pick up the writing on the back, by scanning using only limited frequencies perhaps, or possibly other techniques which won't pick up the writing on the back. But, it's not really that important, so it remains inconclusive.

By the way I think you have a point about memories not being that good after a long time, mine included. There's another thread where someone took statements from people of things that happened 30 years ago, and I don't think 30 year old recollections or memories are very reliable, for most people, though there might be a few exceptions. I even made a thread about that topic:

You Have No Idea What Happened

That study was done on college students who should be near the peak of their recall abilities, and they often had huge lapses in memory after a few years, and were even convinced that their wrong memory was right.

So I happen to be interested in the topic of memory loss and false memories. My question wasn't meant as an attack, sorry if you took it that way..

edit on 2020810 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 10 2020 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
No worries. I am just trying to inject some life into the forum in case it does go off line.



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Seems a bit asymmetrical to be a hubcap.



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Maybe you're right but I guess it depends on how much of it is actually not visible due to backlight and exposure. The object might as well have looked something like in the animated GIF below (maybe with a more flattened top):



It seems to be close to the camera since its sharpness level is at least as high as that of the trees on the right (click here for the fullsize image), but I suspect it's even a bit closer. It could be anything from a genuine UFO to a hubcap or a sombrero/hat tossed from a balcony that we don't see in that image.

edit on 11-8-2020 by jeep3r because: link added



posted on Aug, 11 2020 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Blue Shift

Maybe you're right but I guess it depends on how much of it is actually not visible due to backlight and exposure. The object might as well have looked something like in the animated GIF below (maybe with a more flattened top):

That's pretty much how I see it, except with a flat top instead of rounded top. I'm not seeing any signs the top is rounded like the gif shows. Here's the analysis from p35 of the original thread, showing a flat top:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: curious4ufos
My first post here on ATS… this thread just convinced me to register.

I have an extensive photo background and would like to throw some theories your way.
(snip)

The first level are the trees on the right (#1) with the thickest most defined focus edge and the last level is the hill top on the back with a very thin focus edge (#5).



Edge tells me that: the camera was focused on or near the trees to the right and the object was most probably behind or in front those trees.

If the object was in front of trees #1 it would be very close to the camera and very small, smaller a hubcap I think.
If the object was behind trees #1 then it was not that small (at least a car in length) and it would appear to be closer to trees #3 than to trees #1.

Haze and discoloration…
I sampled a lot of areas in the picture and I'm not getting the same values of density that jritzmann appears to be finding.

The object shows an average black density of 228, the trees below the object have an average black of 230 (very close) but the trees to the right show an average of 239.

So actually, black density is telling me that the object was farther away than the trees #1 and around the same distance as trees #3

Follow the link to see the full post, it was a long one.

edit on 2020811 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 12 2020 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the link. It always amazes me when I see that almost every case has already been discussed on ATS with so much valuable information hiding in the ATS archives.

IMO it'd be really great to have some of these extra bits and pieces available in some kind of database where cases and sightings are stored together with official material, analyses and other sources like relevant ATS contributions. Debunker explanations could also be included.

A rating system for each source, explanation or sighting criteria would help indicate how relevant and important a case is. Then one could try to connect the dots much more efficiently.

But that would probably be a huge project that only a paid "task force" could set up...




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join