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.

 

saucer craft, daylight pic......downtown Boise Idaho 3/31/05

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   
One thing is missing though on the satellite view...: there seems to be a double railroad or a highway (not very clear) on the picture... Where is it then? I mean, this is one of the elements I've been trying to find to try to locate the point of view of the photo, but to no success...




posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I am suprised that there was no media attention.It could be a real ufo but the pic is so low quality.I can also see smoke comming out on the top of the ufo.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Here's a pic w/the same tall building in it, appears to be taken from approximately the same vantage point....bummer it's panned too far right to see our "mystery object" .

www.boisestate.edu...

I used to live in Boise, btw.

edit:
OK, after some further investigation, I've concluded that the white pyramid building found by Cug and MCory1 is indeed the most likely explanation for what we saw in the original picture.

The original pic is downtown Boise. I think the tall building with the 3 and 5 windowed sides is the JR Simplot building. The capitol building is just out of view to the right of the Simplot building. The object appears situated near the foothills, which begin a few blocks behind the capitol.

So, if the pyramid building is in the foothills, near the capitol, then it is probably quite viewable from the angle the original picture was taken.

I went to google maps and then to Boise Idaho. Then I typed Boise Capitol Building. For me, it appeard as listing 'H". If you zoom up all the way and keep panning "H" back onto the screen you'll see the weird loopy road the pyramid building is on is in fact a few blocks behind the capitol building, just into the start of the foothills.

Cug has found our UFO, IMO.


[edit on 17-4-2005 by tjack]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Im relatively happy in my mind that the object in question is not on the hill, but in the air, infact I think its rather clear. However I guess for the majority of people we need another shot of the area to confirm.
If so then this pic has to go down as one of the best and clear ufo shots ever taken.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Looks like its on the ground to me - theres little bumps of grass that are in front of it. It reminds me of that silo or the tarp pic in another ufo thread.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrDead
Looks like its on the ground to me - theres little bumps of grass that are in front of it. It reminds me of that silo or the tarp pic in another ufo thread.


Yeah same here...Just a building of some sort?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
see the edit to my previous post....Cug and MCory1 found a non-mysterious pyramid shaped building in the exact same place our mysterious pyramid shaped UFO was last seen flying.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cug
Focal length was given. You might want to download an exif viewer of some sort.


Thanks, Cug. I see a few freeware versions available. Can you recommend one?

Edit: I found a good Exif veiwer here. Now need to figure out how to calculate distance from focal length.

[edit on 4/17/2005 by Hal9000]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Middle of the day over a high populated area and no news reports? Not very convincing in my opinion. We would of heard if this was indeed a real alien craft.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
after analysing the phto more i can see the top of a tree
IN FRONT OF IT





if u look close where i circled



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
While rechecking the date on the camera........YES this pic says it was taken on the 2nd.....


xu

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
it could be a prop that is bound to the powerline above with fishing line etc. , you can definately see a vertical line visible above the "thing".

the focus of the camera doesnt matter, because the cameras look to the whole picture and determines the focus, or looks to the center and determines the focus, you cant autofocus a fly which has mountains behind it. and in wider angles it focus really doesnt matter much, also the picture looks out-of-focus in general.

and the color of the object, "white" like plastic, or a paper, I dont know I am just speculating.

did you notice this object after you take the photo or were you aware of it at the time of the shooting. if you observed the object move around and if you couldnt figure out a bond between the craft and the powerline then there is none. but if you didnt pay much attention to that theory at the time of viewing maybe you didnt notice? was there wind?

check this place again if possible, and if the object is still there, well you see what I mean. children would like to do something like this. after giving it a thought even I would like to do something like this. making a prop attached to a fishing line and throwing it to the powerlines until its stuck.


of course I dont know if this is something like that, but it seems possible.


Cug

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by xu
the focus of the camera doesnt matter, because the cameras look to the whole picture and determines the focus, or looks to the center and determines the focus, you cant autofocus a fly which has mountains behind it. and in wider angles it focus really doesnt matter much, also the picture looks out-of-focus in general.


You are mistaken.. the Focus can tell you A LOT. Next time your at the store pick up a sports magizine and look at the pictures, notice how the athlete who is the main point of the picture is in nice focus but the guys in front of and behind him are out of focus? That a result of a long lens, a big aperture (a low F stop) and the relatively close distance.

Also the lens can tell you alot too. a telephoto lens (larger mm) will make thing further away look larger than they really are, while a wide angle lens will make closer things look larger than they really are (I'm sure you have seen a photo taken of a persons face when they are really close the the camera.. ever notice how LARGE their nose looks? that's because it's the closest thing to the lens.)


xu

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
cug you got me wrong, "the focus does not matter in this case.

someone said the focus is 2000 ft. therefore the object is at 2000ft, what I was trying to say it is not always the case.

and in wider (i.e. 35 mm)angles depth of field is too wide, it doesnt really matter if something is out-of-focus or not, because there is a limit to maximum blur that de-focused object will create. but of course in narrow angles (i.e 200 mm) depth of field is to narrow that even a slight defocus will blur the image highly.

I started to print my B&W photos while I was 12, which I shot in a full professional camera at the time, and I didnt have exposure meter then, so please...


Cug

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by xu
cug you got me wrong, "the focus does not matter in this case.

someone said the focus is 2000 ft. therefore the object is at 2000ft, what I was trying to say it is not always the case.

and in wider (i.e. 35 mm)angles depth of field is too wide, it doesnt really matter if something is out-of-focus or not, because there is a limit to maximum blur that de-focused object will create. but of course in narrow angles (i.e 200 mm) depth of field is to narrow that even a slight defocus will blur the image highly.

I started to print my B&W photos while I was 12, which I shot in a full professional camera at the time, and I didnt have exposure meter then, so please...


I brought up the the subject of distance and gave the numbers. And it DID matter, as it suggested one thing. "The object was not close" that's all I said. And as I said in another thread this stuff is just clues, nothing you can do with a digital image that could be called "proof positive".

Oh I was printing BW prints by the time I was 10 ;P (My dad had a darkroom, and I got to use his old 'blad)



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I am interested in seeing how a B&W printed photo will be differant? and what the differances are?



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
As much as i would love to believe this photo is a real craft, It looks to me like you were lined up at that intersection with one of Boise's potatoe farms.
It seems to be covered in white plastic to protect the taters from getting moist and rotting; or to heat the ground and create moisture(im not a serious farmer so im not 100%).

There is a building at the end of the field which looks like the top of the craft. And the Field is of course Square enough to give a triangular shape to it, but the bottom of the object isnt rounded like a disc would be.

Besides, if the disc was floating outside of any one of those buildings, alot of people would see it right out their window and im sure there would be many more photos taken from a much closer angle.

im hungry for some french fries now




posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
obviously the picture was taken by the author knowing fully that the building looked like a UFO from his viewpoint. nice fake...

it's a shame you waste our time.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   

obviously the picture was taken by the author knowing fully that the building looked like a UFO from his viewpoint. nice fake...

it's a shame you waste our time.


somehow i doubt the river goddess is a male. but she probably didnt really think it was a genuine UFO.. just an odd thing to come across while on a roadtrip, first instinct? snap away. i would of done the same....



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess
It was not moving when we saw this....it was SO strange I immediately took a pic, for I had the camera in my lap being we were on a little trip and seeing the sights. We were on a hilltop area and took this pic at an intersection.


Let me get this straight... you're a member of a popular online community where extraterrstrials and UFO's are a significant topic... you believe you saw a "flying saucer" UFO... and only took one picture from one angle?

That just doesn't add up. Sorry.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join