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.

 

UFO Photographed in Germany, 05-06-06

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Found this tonight at UFO CASEBOOK




Witness: No other witnesses since I took many photographs that day and when I uploaded them from my camera, this one photograph had one object in it which according to me is surely an UFO as there is no other logical explanation for it.


This is a strange one. Take a look.




We took many photographs that day at different places in the city. This interesting photograph was taken in the city center called Alle Center near the ELBE river. Near the bridge there is a Parking space and I thought it will be a nice idea to take photo on the green grass.


In my opinion this one appears very convincing. What do all of you think?

Original Photo:



Enlargement:





posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
The first pic seems fake to me simply because who takes a picture of someone while having the picture include alot of nothingness above the person....?

you would think that the man in the picture would be the focus point no?

In the second picture it looks like a shoe box with a string attached to the top to me lol.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The picture is obviously meant to show the person and the grassy hill behind him.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
That looks like a chopped pic of an upside down cake pan. I don't think I've seen a ufo pic of that shape before.


Pie



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
very interesting, that's the strangest shape i've ever seen, it's almost like someone said, they have seen lots of the disk shaped one's will throw this one at them and see what happens



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I was surprised when I done a google search and found so many other reports of rectangular ufo sightings.

Several Reports UFO Roundup

I know that I have seen a similar photo somewhere before of a same shaped craft. I am still searching.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
The large JPEG has been modified from the original camera image. It contains none of the typical meta data that indicates exposure, time, etc.

In addition, a 200% zoom and "find edges" in PhotoShop shows some edge artifacts on the object but not the line of the hill... further indicating that the object may have been "pasted" into place.




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Also, a square or rectangle object is not very aerodynamic is it? not suitable for intersteller travel eh?



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
looks like a flying sardine can skeptic's post
does that mean that in your opinion it fake ???



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
It dosnt look like anything except maybe a scratch or chip on the lens.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Thanks SO for your help. I know I have seen this same craft in a photo some where but can not seem to find it.

Will let all know when I do.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I likewise find the composition somewhat suspicious for 2 reasons ...

1. Basic composition seems odd in the placement of focus ... its almost as if the photogapher was taking the picture of a famous hill i.e. "I was at Mt. Rushmore"

2. For most cameras, taking a picture towards a bright background is problematic ... due to the wide dynamic range of light to dark (vs. the limited exposure range of digital cameras in particular) Notice that the individual is semi obscured and underexposed by the overpowering background light. To counter this, the common technique is to minimize the background light (crop in the picture with less or no sky) and or to use augmented fill flash.

As one of the posters above implied, why would you take such an "imbalanced" shot ... bad photography perhaps ... but also plausible to create the context for digital manipulation.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Also, a square or rectangle object is not very aerodynamic is it? not suitable for intersteller travel eh?


SO's debunking of the pic is a lot better than yours...


But still.. I stand by that the "odd placement of focus" a non issue. I've done it myself in the last weekend on a hiking trip. No biggie.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I found this by searching ATS but no photo.




A rancher and his sons saw a UFO as big as a hotel which was
accompanied by four smaller ones. Rectangular in shape, 300-400 feet long,
and 60 feet high. A helicopter approached it and turned into a small UFO.


A SITUATION REPORT ON OUR ACQUISITION OF ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY AND INTERACTION WITH ALIEN CULTURES

by O.H. KRILL

His Report Here

Thanks TheBandit795. I guess that settles this one.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by Harry55]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Haha ... a little off topic ... but ....

its only a matter time (relatively short at that) when the hypothetical "flying saucer" is photographed with a degree of veracity (if they exist) that rises above the suspicion of hoax.

Case in point ... cell phone cameras ... they started off as a novelty ... but they are improving quickly ... in a few years you will have a decent multimegapixel "camera" that would be carried by the multitudes ...

... of course by then the hypothetical "prankster" alien would simply generate some sort of localized EMP ... then no electronic pictures ... alot of dead hardware and a mystery.


jra

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
I likewise find the composition somewhat suspicious for 2 reasons ...

1. Basic composition seems odd in the placement of focus ... its almost as if the photogapher was taking the picture of a famous hill i.e. "I was at Mt. Rushmore"


2. For most cameras, taking a picture towards a bright background is problematic ... due to the wide dynamic range of light to dark (vs. the limited exposure range of digital cameras in particular) Notice that the individual is semi obscured and underexposed by the overpowering background light. To counter this, the common technique is to minimize the background light (crop in the picture with less or no sky) and or to use augmented fill flash.


I disagree. I don't find the composition odd at all (except that they cut off the feet at the bottom). The exposure is bad I agree though. The person should have used a fill flash, but i'm guessing this person wasn't a total amature, but not a professional either.


As one of the posters above implied, why would you take such an "imbalanced" shot ... bad photography perhaps ... but also plausible to create the context for digital manipulation.


It could be due to the automatic settings of the camera and/or the lack of photographic knowledge of the photographer. No every one can create a balanced shot. Infact it can be really hard. But you could be right that it could have been done as a means to make a manipulation.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The large JPEG has been modified from the original camera image. It contains none of the typical meta data that indicates exposure, time, etc.


Yeah I notice the lack of camera data as well. Judging by the size of the image it looks like it should be the original, but the lack of data is concerning. Doing basic things to an image, like shinking it, doesn't remove that data, so it's highly possible that something was done to it. It's definately not the original copy.


In addition, a 200% zoom and "find edges" in PhotoShop shows some edge artifacts on the object but not the line of the hill... further indicating that the object may have been "pasted" into place.


My "Find edges" looks different then yours. Also I don't like to use filters as a means to find issues with a photo. They probably do more harm than good. I did some level adjustments and a few other things. Their are .jpg artifacts all over the image, not just around the unknown object.

all in all I say the sign still points to a fake.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The large JPEG has been modified from the original camera image. It contains none of the typical meta data that indicates exposure, time, etc.

In addition, a 200% zoom and "find edges" in PhotoShop shows some edge artifacts on the object but not the line of the hill... further indicating that the object may have been "pasted" into place.




damn you beat me to the punch, however you can see the outline even more defined by equalizing the colors.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Looks like a damn Matress to me



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Also, a square or rectangle object is not very aerodynamic is it? not suitable for intersteller travel eh?


i'm not saying it's real, but aerodynamic has nothing to do with space travel since there is no air on space. The general concern is that UFOs use gravitational and/or magnetic fields as propulsion, so again aerodynamics is of no relevance even in the earth's atmosphere.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
that 'tree' behind the tree on the left side is too stright for a tree.
So what is that?
And the sky bright white.. I wonder if it is double lightened.
And yes that 'ufo' has a very strange form for an ufo. Really remember sme of a form to backe cake.


edit to add:
oh and by way the date 05-06-06 is a a very confuseing one. Never get how someone can use month-day-year format all in numbers.


[edit on 24-5-2006 by g210]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join