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.

 

Spectacular UFO image

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
supersaint

Very interesting point. A user who registered a day ago and whose only posts are for this thread.. V. interesting indeed.....who knows??

I have not been a member long but have been reading this thread with interest and amusement. The main source of amusement is the fact that it is listed as "Spectacular UFO image"....which it is, but only because there is some question of what kind of bird it is!!

As things have progressed and the defence was challenged enough to cause more than reasonable doubt, other images have been introduced by means of defence evidence. Yet again the consensus was they were all birds and the defence rested on the inability to properly identify the type of avian.
There are thousands of species of birds, many of which have a variance in shape, colour and/or size due to either season, climate or age. As with reference to a human, a bird can be viewed from an infinite number of positions (not just 360 degrees ) in a true 3 dimensional way. It is also moving, its muscle mass is contracting and expanding , as too its lungs. It is capable of varying its geometry in flight in ways that aero-engineers would really envy. An example, is the way a Harrier can turn its shape into the wind and hover almost effortlessly, whereas the Human built Harrier is burning gallons of fuel (although I would rather take a the jump jet to war).

My point? Essentially you have a complex variable geometric shape that can be photographed from any angle. Add to that a "blurry" out of focus shot, it could look like anything. But note that is "look like anything" not be anything!!

The difficulty in finding an exact picture, of the exact bird, at the exact angle, could be down to the fact that at that angle, perhaps, that birds dont look as spectacular, as when they swoop / glide head on e.g. Maybe even the fact that you are viewing it side on with its variable wing geometry.. making a shot like this possible only once every wingbeat.
Also as has been said it is a blurry picture. I can just see an ornithologist going along to a twitchers meet and showing all these blurred pictures.."Thats a Peregrine Falcon that is"...Of course they would throw out the blurred pictures.

The fact is an alien visiting this planet equiped with an "I spy" book of birds could identify it as a bird, even if they could not identify the type. Is there an "I Spy" book of UFOs??

It is amazing how much time has been taken up by this thread and how entrenched the posoitions are.
It would be great to have real proof that we are visited from out there. But we need real proof. I think the fact that the photos originator did not want to be fully identified is something to be considered and the fact that no-one is confident in his work to fork out 30 grand says a lot.




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Folks, this is clearly a seagull...

I believe it's already been pointed out as to what's what...beak, eye, etc.
The size is due to perspective. The bird is close to the ferry.

30 grand for a seagull pic, huh? Hope he doesn't quit his day job.....



Ok guys you have succesfully bashed me and made me out to be a person uncapable of simple logical comprehension, for that I would like to thank each and everyone of you. However, I would like to respectfully disagree with you guys, those links I posted are not of seagalls but your pety insecurities prevent you from seeing the bigger picture, I know for a fact that the Jersey pic is genuine, I will not go into eplaining to you why or how I know for a fact since I do not wish to be bashed to death on an online forum.


While some did make some warn-worthy comments....even a logical person can easily fail to make such a distinction here..... We've ALL been fooled in our lives...plenty of times. You are certainly free to disagree... I'm sure the pic is genuine, but of a genuine seagull... Take a look at my location... You can't even take a sandwich out at the beach without being attacked by these things......

[edit on 19-3-2006 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Yes it is an unknown object, only because it is poorly defined by the photograph.

And while it does give characteristics of a bird in flight, actually gliding through the air (possible tucked in head with wings flared at sides of body) it's still not clear if this is a species of bird or any other animal for that matter. It's almost like the object was shot clearly just out of range of proper magnification, and is therefore blurred or less defined.

Then again if it is an U.F.O. that might explain the perplexing lack of clarity of the image.

I don't know really... this one should be categorized as a "something, whatever" like a really unknown-possible-U.F.O.-possible Bird sighting and leave it at that.




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Wow, how can this even be up for debate (and for 14 pages)??? This is a pic of a seagul. It has been broken down and disected to perfection and there should be NO doubt at all.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Regarding the very first post:

I saw a seagull or other flying bird immediately after clicking on the pic link.

After much research and preponderence of the rest of the postings, however, I am forced to conclude...

it still looks like a seagull to me! I also believe that the postings to the contrary are put there by actual aliens!

ê¿ê



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by w1kdtr1p
Yes it is an unknown object, only because it is poorly defined by the photograph.

And while it does give characteristics of a bird in flight, actually gliding through the air (possible tucked in head with wings flared at sides of body) it's still not clear if this is a species of bird or any other animal for that matter. It's almost like the object was shot clearly just out of range of proper magnification, and is therefore blurred or less defined.

Then again if it is an U.F.O. that might explain the perplexing lack of clarity of the image.

I don't know really... this one should be categorized as a "something, whatever" like a really unknown-possible-U.F.O.-possible Bird sighting and leave it at that.



Poorly defined does not make it unknown and in this case it just means it was at a distance and in motion. It has some of the characteristics of a bird in flight, because that is what it is. Its that simple.

Let's save the "unknown" tag for the things and events that cannot be explained. Let's call it a bird...the only thing unknown is how someone thought they could get 30 grand for a picture of one.

Worldblend



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by w1kdtr1p
Yes it is an unknown object, only because it is poorly defined by the photograph.

And while it does give characteristics of a bird in flight, actually gliding through the air (possible tucked in head with wings flared at sides of body) it's still not clear if this is a species of bird or any other animal for that matter. It's almost like the object was shot clearly just out of range of proper magnification, and is therefore blurred or less defined.

Then again if it is an U.F.O. that might explain the perplexing lack of clarity of the image.

I don't know really... this one should be categorized as a "something, whatever" like a really unknown-possible-U.F.O.-possible Bird sighting and leave it at that.


It's a seagull mate, stop flogging a dead horse.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Thanks Lanton your insight and your wondefull expertise is greatly appreciated in this discussion. I mean with your last post I can sleep easy now knowing that you put an end to all my questions. Thanks you holy Messiha



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Hey guys first post here.

I read almost all the way through this until got fed up with the exact same things being repeated over and over and over and over..... anyway not to sound like a broken record by repeating anyone but...

IMO(thats the important part it is MY opinion) when i first looked at every one of the likes that you, Jenga, have provided for us, i instantly thought it was a bird BEFORE looking at the rest of the posts. I find it funny as hell that this has gone on for so many posts.

However I am not insulting you for your opinion because what i just said is mine. BUT you and the others on your side are getting all up in arms about people basically attacking your integrity but IMO(there it is again, MY opinion) it seems to me that you are doing the same to the people who believe that they are NOT UFOs. You could just say that:

"I appreciated your argument but I am not swayed by it and still firmly believe these to be UFO's and not birds. Sorry."

I am still 100% sure that it is a bird and there has been pretty conclusive evidence to support this and I agree with every part of it. If you think it is a UFO then please give a proper detailed argument against the Bird Theory and support your own claims.

To be absolutely honest IMO i cant see how anyone can believe these AREN'T birds whether gulls, ducks raptors or any bird that has ever existed. But I AM NOT KNOCKING YOU FOR HAVING YOUR OWN OPINION ON THIS. Im not saying that I dont believe in UFO's beacuse I DO. Thats all folks. Peace Out.

[edit on 19-3-2006 by Lawless]

[edit on 19-3-2006 by Lawless]

[edit on 19-3-2006 by Lawless]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Damocles- Please explain how they are hoaxes? I can buy the bird theory but hoaxes? They are provided by 4 different people from 4 seperate ends of the world? So please elaborate on how they are fakes?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   

are mr jenka and megaman the same person? same tone to posts, same blinkered views to others opinions etc.


We share the same tone and views on opinions? Did you read this topic? One can plainly see I disagreed with Mr. Jenka regarding his interpretation of the first image of a seagull, the clone of the seagull in the second image, and the image of the hooded crow near the pyramids. I agree those were birds while he did not. I disagreed with his refutations of other members’ perspectives on why the bronze-colored object may be a bird and I clearly have a unique view on the object and simple want a decent explanation of it. Mr. Jenka has shown he will believe what he wants to believe regardless of what is put forth while I have shown I will agree it is a bird should a decent explanation come forth.

As pointed out by Ochre, my writing style is also different in that I tend use “bigger” words, I spell things correctly, sentences and paragraphs are constructed properly, and my punctuation gets placed inside quotation marks and parenthesis like an American’s writing should be. My written words show I understand lighting and perspective and my images show I have experience with Adobe Photoshop while Mr. Jenka thinks lighting and perspective are nonsensical and he appears to not have any advanced photography tools at his disposal.

As pointed out by GoToTheLight, I have just registered and this is the only topic I have participated in. There is some reason for suspicion so I do not blame you for the accusations. Still, I am not Mr. Jenka. The moderators of the ATS forums have our IP addresses. If you think a person is creating multiple accounts then you can—and should—contact the moderators regarding the matter. They can cross-reference IP addresses to determine if members are the same person or not. If my different tone, different opinions, different background, and different writing style are not enough to convince you then I’m certain the moderators can convince you by telling you our IP addresses are different also.


Umm, you didn't debunk anything. You gave an extremely detailed version of an air craft straight out of your own imagination.


I showed why the first duck explanation did not hold water. The first duck explanation required the presence of a tail on the left and there was no tail in the picture. The first duck explanation required the left side of the object be the back end of a duck but everyone knows duck bodies are oval and, thusly, come to a smooth point near the end of the backbone and butt and not extend outward. If ducks had that shape then they would look like pyramidal-shapes when they are swimming in the water and not oval. That duck explanation does not fit the picture. The lack of a head in the picture, the lack of a tail in the picture, and the pyramidal shape of the back end of the object make the duck explanation nonsensical.

I showed why the snow goose explanation did not hold water either. First and foremost there is no beak in the picture. I am equally literal as I am figurative when I say this bird explanation “does not hold water.” This explanation also cannot account for the “flare” or “shine” in the center of the object. There is no specie of snow goose or variant that matches the bronze color of this object. The small orange-red underlining near the tail section is as long as the tail is and that certainly cannot be the feet of a snow goose because snow geese legs are not that long. It is not altogether impossible for a bird to lack a beak as it can be shot off but those birds die shortly afterwards from starvation. While there are millions and millions of birds of different colors what are the odds of coming across a snow goose that suffered a birth defect or mutation that caused its legs to be a few inches too long, that grew up not to be white or white-blue-black but bronze with a white and orange-red flair on the side, that had been shot within the last few days directly in the face causing its beak to break off, the bird was silent and was not audaciously loud like one would expect from a bird that had been shot and is starving, this extremely odd “bird” happened to be in New Jersey and apparently nowhere else in the world, and the person taking the picture couldn’t see the harmed and mutated bird that, when photographed, looked like a highly symmetrical and metal object mistaken by the photographer as being a UFO? The odds are extremely slim and are probably incalculable. The odds of photographing a new military aircraft seem better.


The fact is an alien visiting this planet equiped with an "I spy" book of birds could identify it as a bird, even if they could not identify the type. Is there an "I Spy" book of UFOs??


Who said anything about aliens?


Take a look at my location... You can't even take a sandwich out at the beach without being attacked by these things......


I agree about the seagulls. My first visit to a beach in Florida, when I was like 10 years old, consisted of ~seven seagulls scratching and biting me trying to steal my lunch. I think they won that battle *laughs*



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   
It's a bird!

It's a plane!

It's Superman!!!




OK. Just joking. You guys keep figuring this out. I'm goin for a pizza!



[edit on 20-3-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Birds fly around and dont stick in the same place
for the ammount of time he...

1. "took the picture"
2. "zoomed in"
3. "took another picture"
4. "zoomed in again"
5. " took another picture"...

The supposed "bird" or "segal" would have moved its wings just once in that three frame process....

look at ware its "moveing" ITS NOT!, its hovering
and with out any...

"flapping of wings or movement in any three frames"

then the word "segal or bird or any other type of bird in that case"
is cancled out of this convo.





Pictures dont lie


doctord? maybe... i think its real.

if by any reason these pictures have to be removed, please tell me and i will remove them asap!.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by TheLostAccount]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   
ROFL, it's a bird, 'nuff said.

I could go outside now with my digital camera, throw a garbage lid up in the air, take a few shaky pics of it, edit it on photoshop (adding some blur and specks of black), post it on this forum, and half of you would believe me if I said I was a beacon for visiting little green men.

That picture is of a seagull, near a port...which means it's basically out flying over the sea...which, funnily enough, is what seagull's tend to do. Seagull's, btw, don't flap like they're on acid (like smaller birds do).



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
ROFL, it's a bird, 'nuff said.

I could go outside now with my digital camera, throw a garbage lid up in the air, take a few shaky pics of it, edit it on photoshop (adding some blur and specks of black), post it on this forum, and half of you would believe me if I said I was a beacon for visiting little green men.

That picture is of a seagull, near a port...which means it's basically out flying over the sea...which, funnily enough, is what seagull's tend to do. Seagull's, btw, don't flap like they're on acid (like smaller birds do).


well it would have moved, so its a ufo, and your words dont give any proof its a bird.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLostAccount

Originally posted by Lanton
ROFL, it's a bird, 'nuff said.

I could go outside now with my digital camera, throw a garbage lid up in the air, take a few shaky pics of it, edit it on photoshop (adding some blur and specks of black), post it on this forum, and half of you would believe me if I said I was a beacon for visiting little green men.

That picture is of a seagull, near a port...which means it's basically out flying over the sea...which, funnily enough, is what seagull's tend to do. Seagull's, btw, don't flap like they're on acid (like smaller birds do).


well it would have moved, so its a ufo, and your words dont give any proof its a bird.

Those three 'frames' are of the same single picture. They're just blow-ups of the original.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   


you decide im not bther now



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLostAccount


you decide im not bther now

It's a seagull. There's the head, the wing, the body and the tail.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
have you ever thought they could be built like that, just to make you think there birds at a side angle.?


If we had a pic of a birds eye view, it would probbly be "circualr" but i cannot prove that.

half the craft could be diffrent in shape, is an alien craft, what do you expect?

Ive never seen a seagul with so much shimmer on the body, oh well, must be the sports model.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLostAccount
have you ever thought they could be built like that, just to make you think there birds at a side angle.?


If we had a pic of a birds eye view, it would probbly be "circualr" but i cannot prove that.

half the craft could be diffrent in shape, is an alien craft, what do you expect?

Ive never seen a seagul with so much shimmer on the body, oh well, must be the sports model.
Where's the shimmer?




top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join