Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Spectacular UFO image

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
esdad71, I'm not a skeptic at all, I've seen a few UFO's and I believe they exist without a doubt! But I still see a seagull in that picture. The other pics I can't debate one way or the other, but the link to the first pic is a seagull for sure in my mind.




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
It did look odd to me upon first inspection. Then I seen the bird outline, and well, it looked like a bird.

Of course, all the photos look like pictures of the same (meaning similar) object: if one is a bird, then I think they all are; if one is an extraterresrial craft, then they all are.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I can admit, as soon as I read "seagull", that is what I see when I look at it again. But then I realize, the wings to me do not look correct, for the size of the bird. I have been around these 'skyrats' all my life at the beach, I know what they look like.

Think about the potato chip you see on Ebay, if you look at it, you may see nothing. If someone tells you it is a picture of Elvis and Jesus drinking beer, you bid on it. The mind is a fascinating thing, and simple things as this show how easlily one can be manipulated to believe one side, or the other....



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
But how would a seagull give off a reflection like that? I know about perspective and all that...but I'm sorry I can't say thats a bird.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Semiazas- Well than your an idiot for thinking that. I am not personally calling you an idiot, but I started this thread and have been called all sorts of things, if you don't agree with the seagall theory than your an idiot.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
mrjenka, that wasn't very nice.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
You might of misunderstood me, I wasn't calling the man an idiot. I was being sarcastic, people keep calling me an idiot for my opinion, I do not believe that that is a seagall and people keep calling me an idiot, so I was simply stating that is the response he is going to recieve if he does not agree with the seagall concept as I caught flack for it all night. Wasn't trying to be rude, just sarcasim, sorry.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
If find it amazing that people have been seeing aliens/UFO's/nessie and who knows what else for centuries, and accurate, easy-to-operate and cheap cameras have been around for ages, and STILL NO ONE HAS A GOOD PIC OF THESE THINGS!!! Why not? Why are the pictures always blurred, always not easily identifiable?

Now don't get me wrong, I believe in aliens (you are stupid if you do not) but I can't for the life of me work out why no one has a clear-cut picture of a UFO/alien.

But the pic this thread is based around is a seagull. Where the hell are people getting the metal argument from? I see no metal! And steroids? The positioning of the wings makes the bird look beefy! Why can people not see this? Grrr.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I'm going to have to join the rest, and say it is a seagull. I can see the bird clearly. I'm an artist, and I've had to draw and study some strange perspectives of birds (along with other animals) I don't know about the other two pictures,... probably a strange perspective, but this photo is definitely a seagull in the foreground. Here's my artistic (though crappy)interpretation of it (hopefully it works).



Here I tried to re-draw it in a little more detail. (Sorry about the quality, digital drawing isn't my strong-point) Forget the feet in my drawing. That's my own addition.
In the photograph they are probably tucked underneath the feathers, as birds do that.




There are some people here with wishfull thinking. As much as I'd love to see a clear shot of a UFO, this (unfortunately) is NOT it.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
thats a terrable hoax, even i can see its fake and im no where near an expert on debunking photos, but it one of the most obvous fakes ever IMO



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I ignored whether or not it is a gull and instead had a close look at the histograms and other tell tale signs (yes I'm qualified). The artifacts appear normal for such a low quality digital camera everywhere but the supposed UFO. That area and only that area has been purposely smoothed to hide something. If you look closely you will note the artifacts around other elements are worse than the area around the object. Smoothing is usually done to hide details. Why would anyone want to obscure the details? Conclusion: This photo was manipulated which makes the originator a liar which means there is no reason to believe anything else.

As to the claim of having the original file on the card? It is not a problem to alter a raw file or a jpeg and then save the changes to the card. So, whats the point?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
It kind of reminds me of a movie. Does anyone remember the Disney movie Flight of the Aviator?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Thank you Blane, there is an answer I can live with, don't just tell me it's a seagull and that's it at least Blane had something knowledgable to say.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
wow. doesnt look like the regular shape of a ufo. It smells fresh from area 51.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
wow. doesnt look like the regular shape of a ufo. It smells fresh from area 51.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Frequency- I don't think it's all that now.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Maybe it's the Seagullians in their Seagul inspired Star Cruiser?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I looked at this picture a hundred times the first time it came out, I could not see a seagull then and I can not see one now. I am more inclined to believe as Blaine said, that SOMETHING has been cropped into the picture.

Wait I think it looks like.......a shiny bolt. Sorry, that was the best I could come up with.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Its a seagull. He's right. You are confusing the background sky with a metallic lustre.

Also, the lighting direction on the lustre is wrong given the backlighting.

At least this one will help us determine who is able to discern.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
And I should note, I didn't realize it was a seagull until someone mentioned it. So, I lose.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join