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.

 

Possibly the most important UFO picture ever captured on film.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
img366.imageshack.us...

Hi everybody. In 1968, a fellow soldier who served in my uncle's squad transferred to the CIA after his tour of duty was over-- he's seen some crazy things. He wishes to remain anonymous for right now, but I am designing a website which he can tell us his story...

In 1999 after he retired he showed me this picture to support his claims--- It was taken somewhere in Nevada. I will try to get him to log on at some point to discuss his story.

He knows a lot of insider information on UFOs-- his branch was known as the "Tuxedo Knights" known to us famously as MIBs. We will call him "Whisper" for time being. I will be sure to post the link to his site when it is finished. I will be on later tonight today and try to answer what I can-- If you have really important questions save them for Whisper himself. I will post more pictures as he provides them.




posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Well in all honest opinion the story sounds fake and so does the picture.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Interesting... was this picture taken while he was in CIA? How old was he when he retired?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I am definatly no expert, infact Im very new here.

But if you check the shadows on the picture in orentation to the landsacpe, the sun is low and inline with the mountains yet the shine from the apparently larger closer craft is toward the photographer, as if the sun is coming from very high above and behind the camera.

The 'craft' look very cartoonish and out of place, but then what would you expect from a ufo..right?

Would love to hear a more experienced opinion.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
That picture looks so fake.
... Nice try



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I hope what he has to say is better then the picture.


d1k

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
When I check the pictures properties in ACDsee it says the file was made in photoshop on 3/5/06. Gives no info on a camera even being used.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   



I was going to comment more, and had a full page of stuff that's wrong in fact, but on further thought, erased it all since I figure, why give this luser more advice on how to do it right?

Hmmm...does this look a bit familiar?

Click for a bigger version.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Nice!! Rand I thought it looked familar



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
You beat me to it rand.These guys dont even bother putting any real effort into it these days.Unlike myself once the less lazy members get their sherlock hats on,he"s toast.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
[edit on 4-6-2006 by jack burton]

Sorry double post.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by jack burton]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by d1k
When I check the pictures properties in ACDsee it says the file was made in photoshop on 3/5/06. Gives no info on a camera even being used.


Don't get me wrong, I think that they're fake too, however, I use Photoshop all the time for image editing, just because a file has been manipulated in Photoshop, does not necessarily mean it's a fake. K? K.




posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Perfect three way spacing of the craft to perfectly frame the shot.
Must have been incrediibly lucky to be standing in that spot, at that time.............



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Well, first of all, if the picture was from the 60s, it wasn't a digital camera, so you won't have that info. I checked it in Photoshop and the file was indeed saved out of Photoshop CS for Windows.

Since the picture was not digital it would most likely be scanned in so it can be digitized. Usually there's a fair amout of dust on a scanned pic. I don't see any. If it was "cleaned up", then I think you have ruined the integrity of the picture, at this point. There's also too many JPEG artifacts to make an analysis.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
that picuture is digital i dont know many people who had digital cameras in 1999. You could have real photos of aliens in your front yard and everyone would say still say its fake



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
area51videoz is correct the government has done such a good job of lumping lagit sitings in with the real crazies that everything we see is suspect. Now if I don't see it for myself, I won't believe and I think that was their whole idea.
Kinda sad they got me



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
can the original poster.... ntropy2006 please post again and respond?


i see a lot of these threads posted by folks who claim something in the first message and leave... to let everyone fight about it.. and they never post anything back in response. its like they are trying to stir crap up. just an observation.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I have a feeling that your that other guy...

That picture looks so fake. The UFOs look just like that UFO from that Area 51 hoax a few days ago. =/



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Who are these dumb f---ers that keep posting obvious fake s--t? The last few weeks on here has mostly been about garbage. Can we please get some real discussions back on this site?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Sky shows massive compression artifacts while the UFO's look untouched.

These guys faking these pictures should really stop using low ress and high compressed images as a base for these fakes.

The trick to making anything work, blend in and look beautifull in an image editing app like photoshop is using a canvas as large as your computer can possibly handle with the highest detail base images you can get your hands on.



new topics




 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join