It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Photo of a "Black Triangle"

page: 12
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:31 PM
Although it doesn't explain why the original picture is a different angle of the craft and why it seems to be a photo taken of another photo.

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:52 PM
Well if the craft is computer generated and then cropped into another picture, maybe the crator made several models of the craft at different angles etc?

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:59 PM
I've emailed him about it, I'll post his answer here.

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:04 PM
Nventual - I am betting he posted the image on CG sites. Possibly as a "work in progress". Whats on his site is the shot he wants to display. I am sure he has many renders different lighting/positions and so on.

I make a tens if not hundreds renders of models and scenes that never make it on my site. I'm sure if someone emailed him he would verfiy this. He would probably be amused that his shot stumped allot of us.

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:39 PM
Well i just wana add that i dont think its faked, i think it is a still shot from an xfiles episode as stated earlier.. and just blurred up to look more ..real.

I saw the episode ive seen them all. Just wish i had it on dvd still id takes loads of stills and see if thats there, it is fully on show in many angles, one point mulder is directly under it.

Nothing alien about it tho unless the technology and plans came from aliens..

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:44 PM
info_junkee - You missed it Nventual solved it on Page 11.
It's a CG scene.

Here's the direct link he supplied. >>UFO Solved ATS Link

Any bets?
It will probably be another week before this picture comes up again.

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:51 PM
oh god sorry, stoned again
i read half the posts then had to give in n jump to the end, il go check that now.

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:04 PM
I duno about you guys but im so fedup with fake pics
tho i guess i should laugh
is there ANY vids or pics on this site of aliens or ufos that CANT be dEbUnKeD??

Show me pleeeeeeeease!?

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:11 PM
This article has been linked to before, but I always find it amazing that would so openly support the existence of these "black triangles," whatever they may be.

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 08:51 PM
I didnt realise they were so popular... i still think they are old fashioned for some reason.. i duno.. maybe things are more advanced on my old planet and ive unconcious memory

Its probably ancient to aliens like a spitfire to us. Maybe there are no aliens exchanging technology, instead maybe the powers that be have the ancient texts from say... india.. talking about vimanas and how to build them etc.. but they dont want us to read that stuff thats why its so hard to find anyway... so yeah... they could just let us all believe the conspiracys that our government deal with aliens.. cause at the end of the day its safer for them, its all earning money and they know where we are all at....

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:39 AM
First email back from him.

"The UFO is the only cg. The rest is a photo.
This is the only image I made with this UFO."

Once I showed him the other photo he replied with.

"It my picture that someone has stolen. They have just graded the image which is why it looks a bit different.

It is a photo of real trees and the UFO was added in 3d."

And then with.

"Actually I just compared it to mine and the ufo is different.

I think it was done by a friend of mine because he is the only one with a copy of that photo. We had the idea together to and it looks like he has painted it because he was better at drawing than 3d.

So I can confirm that it is a real photo... of trees. The ufo is added."

I guess that explains it.

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:05 AM
Kinda late posting here cause I just seen this thing... on this forum... and the first question comes to mind is why is it out of focus?

The second question is why are there not more photos of it?

Wouldn't it make sense that if you did manage to grab your camera in time, perhaps in the rush of excitement, you forgot to check your focus, but then after taking the first shot, well, there would be a tonne more pictures taken and in focus.

No one in their right mind buys a standard camera which needs to be manually focused unless you know something about cameras. Most autofocus cameras work extremely well. The foreground does suggest a bush, or more likely a tree that was in front of the user... however, why not just step aside and provide a clearer picture of the 'thing'?

Another one of those fake pics I think. There are just too many inconsistancies to think about on this one. Why oh why? I hate it when the focus is off... what is this like your first time with a camera? And what's up with only one pic and it happens to be the one that's out of focus? Start clicking away man... What? Was it your last shot on the film? Or was it a digital camera? Well, that explains that eh!

One last question, was this guy hiding behind that tree? It does look like a very feable tree to be hinding behind. Reminds me of a Charley Brown Christmas Tree.
For one thing, the branches suggest this guy was either very tall or that tree he was hinding behind was very short!

[edit on 18-1-2006 by pkrska]

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:47 AM
pkrska - Those will always be valid arguments when it comes to seeing still images. Why aren't there multiple pictures? The reality is setting up CG shots can be a complex affair. Visual consistency can be tough especially if you have allot of post work for each image. ie: touch up and filter treatment work in Photoshop.

When it comes to UFO movies, I'll note most are always low resolution not to mention heavily compressed. The compression artifacts keep the bad details from showing through. So the lower the resolution the easier details get covered up. If people were to present higher resoltion video with less encoding, it would be easier to spot inconsistancies.

A sample video produced in 1998

Nonetheless it is just a matter of time before we get a flood of some real nice renderings that will be hard to discount.

posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 12:27 PM
reply to post by Nventual

Thanks for getting the email confirmation

But you missed this post on page 10

Originally posted by KnightStrider
The guy made it - click on the photo and he tells you how..

Also in the post on page 2 King Lizard linked to the original article and it said this..

Unfortunately, the young man who claimed in an accompanying letter (sent with the photographs) that his uncle photographed the 'FT' while out fishing late at night close to his home in SOUTHERN ENGLAND, declined to answer any questions when contacted on the telephone (he also provided his full name and address).

So it was never in Scotland...

I just went through 12 pages of people jumping to conclusions
But at least this one is solved
The Stills Gallery page is gone but available on the Wayback Machine that still has that one photo

edit on 7-11-2010 by zorgon because: Classified

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:51 PM
Not sure how many people know the site but:

If it was ever made or edited in Photoshop, it will show up there. Just click on detailed information. I rarely reply on this site, usually because I read the stuff on here a lot while I'm really high and typing a lot just seems like too much work.

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:05 PM
Just to add my thoughts , wether this has been debunked or not . It is easy to fabricate exif details in photoshop , using nothing other than the "layers" option .


posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:26 PM
please remember that some people will claim credit for anything that will give them a sense of hightened acceptance or acolades from those around them simply because they want to be seen as "important".

that being said i can see the plausability of this being someone's cgi work its extrodinary in its detail and quite frankly looks believable. so i find myself divided on this one. someone has claimed this remarkable photograph is thier work for a project of some sort. okay i can buy that.. but please post the .psp or working file (or partial) for us to see it is your project and not just you claiming credit for the 5 minutes of fame.

just because someone claims its thiers doesnt resolve us of the responsibility of a thorough investigation proof of the claim has to be validated just as proof that this is a real flying triangle must be debated and resolved before its nature is decided one way or the other.

belief in everything to do with ufo's is just as foolish as denial in anything to do with ufo's.

top topics

<< 9  10  11   >>

log in