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.

 

Kecksburg Pics -- NEW Evidence

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Nope, I don't see anything either.

The images iamian posted just look like random shapes to me. I can't make out what they are supposed to be.




posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
...to do some processing on these images. Here are three motion gifs showing the alleged Kecksburg, Pa. landing site, in the wooded area just south of what is now known as Meteor Road. Again, the pictures are oriented with North at the bottom, to make the landforms stand out better (satellite pics in the Northern Hemisphere are generally lit gfrom the South, which can be a bit disorienting if you're not used to it).

December, 1963 (everything's covered with snow and the trees are bare) versus the same area in November, 1966 (the dark frames; oops, the trees haven't lost their leaves yet).

The December frames have lost a bit of detail -- something had to be rotated to make the shots align, and it's impossible to rotate a digital image in anything except 90-degree increments without losing some detail somewhere -- but can be compared with the originals, above.

See if you can see any signs of tree damage, etc.

Anybody know the EXACT spot where that thing was supposed to come down? All the published reports are a little vague on the subject.







edit to make pics show better, hopefully
[edit on 25-1-2006 by rand]

[edit on 25-1-2006 by rand]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Rand, I dont see the differences other than obvious seasonal ones, but I have to hand it to you...
that is some effort to pursue the truth...
good work


I think when someone drops a tip in my lap that needs investigating, I will call you...




You have voted rand for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Rand!
would you please just draw a pencil line or an arrow at the point your looking at,

all the best



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
awesome find...

this happened about 10 minutes from my college... about an hour from where i live now.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
rand... maybe circling the actual crash site might help? I'm having a hard time telling where we should be looking



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
D*mmit
D*mmit
D*mmit

Photobucket is resizing and converting and otherwise messing with these images everytime I try to upload them. All three get converted from greyscale, downsized a few pixels (which screws the resolution), and all image annotation is removed. It even happens to a straight, ordinary gif I uploaded. I have no idea why; the originals are well within their size limits. Maybe they just hate gifs.

If I can find another hosting provider which won't @#$% with the images I'll reload them.


Originally posted by iamian
Rand! would you please just draw a pencil line or an arrow at the point your looking at


Originally posted by noslenwerd
rand... maybe circling the actual crash site might help? I'm having a hard time telling where we should be looking


Originally posted by rand
Anybody know the EXACT spot where that thing was supposed to come down? All the published reports are a little vague on the subject.


The crash site is always described like "...the wooded area south of Meteor Road..."; that's what these pictures show. I haven't been able top find a more exact description than that.


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Rand, I dont see the differences other than obvious seasonal ones.

Me too, unfortunately, although, as I noted somewhere up-thread, one image shows signs of splicing or compositing, right through the east side of the woods, in fact. I'm not sure now if this is deliberate, or just an artifact of the scanning process, but the result is that all along the splice around 100 feet or more of the original scene is missing. Here's an example that shows the "damage" better; note the distinct line running through the left image:


I'm going to keep disecting as I have time.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
rand... just host your images at www.imageshack.us

You dont need an account, just upload and go



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by noslenwerd
rand... just host your images at www.imageshack.us
You dont need an account, just upload and go


Much better. Much thanks

Here they are again, in full resolution, with annotations intact.
I'll try that 1024Kb limit next







posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
rediculous thread I've seen, why are you people wasting your time with this nonsense? How many times is he going to post the same photos over and over again before you get a clue that there's nothing to see?

This is a joke



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
The only thing I can really see is this bare streak through the trees.



I think you said this is a before picture right?

Anyway that's what I'd look for.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by promomag
rediculous thread I've seen, why are you people wasting your time with this nonsense? How many times is he going to post the same photos over and over again before you get a clue that there's nothing to see?

This is a joke


calm down! you dont have to reply to this thread!
now come back and say your sorry.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Sorry but still

Shaman can highlight what he see's what's the big deal with marking a map rather than posting it over and over again



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
The only thing I can really see is this bare streak through the trees.
I think you said this is a before picture right?


Exactly. Sorry I didn't caption the pics before but I'm just running out of time. It takes 20 minutes just to load up the originals from the DVDs
I'll be more careful in the future.

Check this area on the 1966 images. It seems to show "cluitter" or broken branches or something -- anyway, the area is much "rougher" -- that doesn't seem to show on the 1963 images.



This is the sort of thing to look for. But it's going to take closer inspection - almost pixel-by-pixel I suppose - to make sure.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Rand i love you!

Every time you've posted a diferent picture

i've kept my eye in this and still i'm mistified!
"your a winner!"
i'm gonna give you my vote, simply becouse



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I'm going to have to agree that this is a great post, simply because it started with pictures to look at.

I mean jeeez the Serpo thread lasted 119 pages with no photo evidence at all!

We could hit 130 pages looking at these black and grey pixels!

Hold it!!! I think that tree branch is broken, theres the proof we have all been waiting for!!!! Whooopie!!!


[edit on 26-1-2006 by KDX175DUEX]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   
broken branches?!

What?



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by promomag
broken branches?!

What?


Are you serious...
Wooosh!!! right over your head.

My point is..... that broken branches, upturned dirt, seasonal changes, whatever you "think" you might see in these pixels, theres nothing that you can "see" in these pictures that is going to "prove" it was caused by a UFO, and not a natural occurance.
So whats the point? Other than looking at neat pictures.

Unless you can get soemone to go hiking to the "mystery spot" and try to find some better evidence on the ground, - like the college student nearby.

(I think you feel the same way, judging by your first post on this thread
You just missed my sarcasm. Which I admit is sometimes thinly veiled.)



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by KDX175DUEX
My point is..... that broken branches, upturned dirt, seasonal changes, whatever you "think" you might see in these pixels, theres nothing that you can "see" in these pictures that is going to "prove" it was caused by a UFO, and not a natural occurance.
So whats the point? Other than looking at neat pictures.


I know I'm certainly not trying to "prove" anything with these pictures, just taking a close look at some of the only hard evidence available. I would be just as satisfied if no traces are found, as that at least puts limits on what may or may not have happened. As far as I know, these images have never been presented before now, and that's just about 40 years too long.

True, a broken branch is uninteresting. So are two broken branches. Three broken branches in a straight line start to be more appealing. A pattern of disturbed vegetation ending just about the point where witnesses say they saw a 10-foot metal object would be down-right interesting. But until someone takes that hard look at the pictures noone will ever know.

I would love to be on-site, preferably with a metal detector, but until somebody does that or pays me to, I'll have to be content with my wits and curiosity alone (well, along with some really neat internet resources!).

Which brings up a related point (about hard evidence, that is), and I'm not sure hether it deserves a separate thread: for 40 years sceptics (and I'm a sceptic, although in a different direction) have been telling us that the residents of Kecksburg all actually witnessed the Great Lakes Fireball of Deceber 9, 1965. Debunker.com has the best example, and I urge all to read it. However, it appears that large parts of Pennsylvania, including the Kecksburg area, may have been completely cloud-covered on that date. In fact, if you look at the picture at the website above, you can see clouds of the the developing front which poured rain just east of the Pittsburgh area that day. According to the Nat' Weather Service, the whole area between Detroit and NJ was socked in on the 8th, and SW Pennsylvania was still completely covered at midnight of the 9th, with heavy clouds still hanging to the northeast.

But then, who would want to look at just more pretty pictures?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join