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.

 

Interesting Image in real estate photo (Experts Needed !!)

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Well... it seems like an average pic of a something or other , but since you don't know who took it or where they took it , it simply has to go in the interesting but unverifiable pile.


I know the general area it was taken in. I would say its more then your "average" pic




posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
It can matter to you as much as you want it to, but when there are thousands of reports worldwide and they have a heck of a lot more than just an ATS member that knows the general area to back them up.

So why waste your time on an anonymous photo?

You might find the photographer one day , and have him tell you " Oh! Jeez! That was a fly in the photo that wouldn't leave me alone!"

So why not just make the case your making with the thousands of better more verifiable reports , rather than waste time on something that is anonymous?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whompa1
I know the general area it was taken in. I would say its more then your "average" pic

I have found that it is often the less obvious photos that are the hardest to debunk. If a picture is spectacularly detailed, then you can be fairly certain that it is probably a fake. Pictures such as this one are harder, simply because of the fact that there is something there and it can only be a limited number of things. I'm still leaning towards a fault with the camera itself, but that is something outside of my realm of experience.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Right! Something is in the picture.

But you can't know anything about it unless you can talk to the photographer.

And since that isn't possible why not make a better case with the better cases?

If you taut this case as " being the real thing " and you have no photographer or real case to make , how will that look to the people exploring the field for the first time ?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Right! Something is in the picture.

But you can't know anything about it unless you can talk to the photographer.

And since that isn't possible why not make a better case with the better cases?

If you taut this case as " being the real thing " and you have no photographer or real case to make , how will that look to the people exploring the field for the first time ?


Well, I don't think Whompa is touting this photo as "the real thing". From what I read, he just said it was interesting, which I think it is. You're right, without knowing who took it and with no way to speak to them about the photo, we are limited in what this photo can give us. However, it is possible that somebody with greater experience in photography might be able to tell us what it is. And if they say "Yep, it's a speck of dust", then that's fine. I don't think Whompa is expecting this photo to prove the existence of UFOs.

As for what people who are new to the field think, well we are not out to impress them, merely to take each case as it comes, on its individual merits. Yes there are better photos for making the case for the reality of UFOs (the Battle of Los Angeles photo springs to mind), but if we are going to dismiss out of hand any photo that doesn't meet the criteria of being possible evidence for UFOs then the field will die a quick death, in my opinion.

[edit on 5/9/05 by Jeremiah25]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I don't know if I would be considered an expert; but I am an avid amature/ semi professional photographer. I have had some odd jobs shooting photos for people. I have worked at a photo lab when I was younger for approximatley 5 to 6 years, and I have taken photography classes before.

To me it looks like a speck of dust/dirt on the lens. Maybe even inside the lens itself. The reason for it being fuzzy around the edges would be simply the fact that it is out of the lenses focal length. Kind of like the human eye when an object gets to close to the eye it blurs out. Other posible scenarios could be a flaw in the emoltion of the negative, or a possible development flaw. I would have to look at the real print and negative to tell for sure. If it was a digital camera then I would definitley say that it came from the lens.

That is just what I see anyway....



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
It can matter to you as much as you want it to, but when there are thousands of reports worldwide and they have a heck of a lot more than just an ATS member that knows the general area to back them up.

So why waste your time on an anonymous photo?

You might find the photographer one day , and have him tell you " Oh! Jeez! That was a fly in the photo that wouldn't leave me alone!"

So why not just make the case your making with the thousands of better more verifiable reports , rather than waste time on something that is anonymous?



With that attitude whats the point in even scanning the skies? I'm not making any case just pointing out something interesting (to some) that cannot be easily dismissed. Your post is one of the inherent problems with ATS in general. Just because it is not a close up were you can see the grey giving you the finger doesnt mean it something that should just be neglected and tossed. You mentioned people who new to this topic. Why would someone who finds something as this bother even want to bring it up if they are going to run into people who would just as soon tell you that your wasting time with it? They hear that enough there just gonna give up and never explore it again. If I wanted to I could track down the photographer and ask them about it but chances are they probaly didnt even notice it.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by Whompa1]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
I never once stood on the roof tops shouting "This picture shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that aliens are real." I'm sorry maybe I misunderstood the whole point of this forum and the point of search for UFO's. Not every photo is gonna come out with a well defined craft. 9 out of 10 photos are like mine. Pictures of images that could be something or nothing at all.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by sinta_ilfirin
I don't know if I would be considered an expert; but I am an avid amature/ semi professional photographer. I have had some odd jobs shooting photos for people. I have worked at a photo lab when I was younger for approximatley 5 to 6 years, and I have taken photography classes before.

To me it looks like a speck of dust/dirt on the lens. Maybe even inside the lens itself. The reason for it being fuzzy around the edges would be simply the fact that it is out of the lenses focal length. Kind of like the human eye when an object gets to close to the eye it blurs out. Other posible scenarios could be a flaw in the emoltion of the negative, or a possible development flaw. I would have to look at the real print and negative to tell for sure. If it was a digital camera then I would definitley say that it came from the lens.

That is just what I see anyway....



Sounds like a reasonable enough explanation to me.


Thanks for the response, sinta_ilfirin. We could have been here for days umming and ahhing over what it may or may not have been.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whompa1
I never once stood on the roof tops shouting "This picture shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that aliens are real." I'm sorry maybe I misunderstood the whole point of this forum and the point of search for UFO's. Not every photo is gonna come out with a well defined craft. 9 out of 10 photos are like mine. Pictures of images that could be something or nothing at all.


That's true , but I never claimed that you made any claims , I simply stated their are better photos than the one you presented. You admitted that you had only come across the photo , and did not even know who took it .

Did you not?

So why should you be so defensive , over nothing? ( A pic you have admitted that you didn't take )

Since you didn't take the photo why did you say " 9 out of 10 photos are like mine."



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Nice photos , were they taken recently



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Originally posted by Whompa1
I never once stood on the roof tops shouting "This picture shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that aliens are real." I'm sorry maybe I misunderstood the whole point of this forum and the point of search for UFO's. Not every photo is gonna come out with a well defined craft. 9 out of 10 photos are like mine. Pictures of images that could be something or nothing at all.


That's true , but I never claimed that you made any claims , I simply stated their are better photos than the one you presented. You admitted that you had only come across the photo , and did not even know who took it .

Did you not?

So why should you be so defensive , over nothing? ( A pic you have admitted that you didn't take )

Since you didn't take the photo why did you say " 9 out of 10 photos are like mine."



You are correct. I don't know who took the photo. I came across it while working in a batch of real estate photos and noticed it. I am getting defensive because:

A: You don't think its interesting...good for you move along. No need to dirty up the post by saying the photo in question is crap and should be immediatly disregarded.

B. Is this whole forum for situations just like this? Finding a photo like this and trying to shed some light on it?

C. Refer to #A

D. You come across as if I am proclaiming this is the ultimate proof. Which I am not. All I said was "Its interesting" thats it.

I came upon the photo. I did not take it however too the best of my knowledge no one else noticed it. Were as I did. So yes I bring this photo to the board as mine in the facts that I discovered the object. Most photos of UFO's are like this one. Of an object that is not in focus and cannot be readily dismissed as something else. Camera problems aside.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by Whompa1]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Inno887
Nice photos , were they taken recently


It was taken last week.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:23 AM
link   
whompa1,

My only mission is to make the case for the ETH.

If that doesn't tickle your fancy , who cares?

My mission is to teach people that they have the means to understand the truth, if your pic doesn't meet my standards , then it simply doesn't meet my standards.

I never said I wasn't interested , I am.

But as to whether it is useful or not , and you did ask for opinions, it is not . I have stated the reason why.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
My only mission is to make the case for the ETH.

What does ETH stand for? I am assuming it is an effort to construct and collect convincing cases of UFOs and aliens.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   
The ETH is the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis.

It simply states that some UFOs are ETVs. ( ExtraTerrestrial Vehicles )

Thus explaining why 21% of Blue Book cases are in the " Unknown" category , that is separate from the insufficient data category.

It is also important to note that if only one UFO , is an ETV. That would be the biggest discovery mankind has ever made!

[edit on 5-9-2005 by lost_shaman]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Well..for POSITIVE this mountain in the background has purposely cut ski runs on it.
So we know it snows there in winter and melts in the summer. Could be Utah, Colorado, Oregon, Idaho, California.....Washington State, Wyoming or New Mexico......
I do NOT think this is East coast ski terrain.

The trees coloring seems to say more of mid summer than any other time of year. Full fat leaves........not spring growth. Not coloring like fall either......



[edit on 5-9-2005 by theRiverGoddess]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Sry to say but the pic has so low details that its almost impossible to get anything out of it, without count the object is really far/small.

As lost_shaman said..it be great to have the photographer to give us more details.

The original pic(the one without the cropped area) already seems to be zoomed...or it looks like it was taken by a webcam.

I vote for a ballon or an artifact on the lens as was said.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krpano
Sry to say but the pic has so low details that its almost impossible to get anything out of it, without count the object is really far/small.

As lost_shaman said..it be great to have the photographer to give us more details.

The original pic(the one without the cropped area) already seems to be zoomed...or it looks like it was taken by a webcam.

I vote for a ballon or an artifact on the lens as was said.


If you will read back to the start. The picture was taken for a real estate production piece not because of the object in the sky. Had someone seen it and focused on it that would be different but as it is now the ufo or whatever it maybe was an afterthought that would not have been seen had I not been working on a batch of photos yesterday. It was not taken by a webcam. And yes river goddess that is a ski run or several if you will that you see chopped into the mountain and this is not east coast, its in the north/western US.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
If it is a real estate photo, then you should be able to find out where it is. why would a website advertise a piece of land without telling you where it was?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join