It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I havent seen this one before....

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 06:08 PM

Originally posted by JebusSaves
One final note is that the objects are not facing the same way.
The object on the left(from our perspective) is on a dive left motion at around a 45 degree angle(from 90 position), the on the right is in a sharper right dive say around 60 degrees.

First, we do not have information regarding the direction they were flying, or even if they were moving, so we cannot say that they were diving or climbing or just hovering.

Second, the angle of the leftmost object is 16º regarding the horizon, not 45º.

Third, I cannot see enough of the other object to say what inclination it has. The light makes a 45º angle, but I can not see the object.

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by ArMaP
First, we do not have information regarding the direction they were flying, or even if they were moving, so we cannot say that they were diving or climbing or just hovering.

You are indeed correct. Though if you study the close up closely, which i might add, i do believe has not been tampered with as it looks about right, the picture indicates motion. You can see this as the lights are not exactly circular, but instead have what appears to be a faint cone like tail.
As i've already stated I do not believe these to be reflection so the odd shape of the light to me indicates the direction ofmotion. Added to that, the lights are in the air, would have some form of movement anyway, would create the tail.
These are not travelling at great speed as this would have created a larger tail, but for what we see and common sense, there is movement and the lights are obviously facing different ways and moving in different direction.

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 10:41 PM
I am going to assume that the physical density or solidity of the object would have no extrapolative effect on the pixel density in the photograph.

Having said that, being a light gathering system (camera, and a digital one at that), does the amount of light gathered by the camera from the object vs. the light gathered from the sky around it have anything to do with the visible differences in pixel density between the sky and the object? We know that the photo was taken outside near the rail of a cruise ship (photographer statement) in what one could probably be safe to assume is not an area trafficed by any kind of ground vehicles (aka the deep wild of Alaska so no vehicle headlight reflections). To me this seems to indicate that there is an object in the sky either dense enough to reflect more light to the camera than the surrounding sky or the object is internally emitting more light than the sky around it making it stand out more than its background.

This last statement is at minimum partially true due to the center light the object is emitting. I would also think that a reflection would come through on the photo as a bit more obscure or blended in with the background and certainly less defined that what is shown on this photo. This thing has a definately discernable and possibly classical shape to it. I've taken many digital photos with refelections in them and they tend to be a lot more washed out than this one is.

I am going to definately going to stay in the camp of a solid, genuine photo of a object that looks to be a craft of some type yet to be identified. This is probably one of the more convincing photos I have seen in quite a while. Certainly better than the typical shaken but not stirred orbs, seagulls or long exposures off aircraft landing or taking off.....oh, and it doesnt look like a turkey vulture either....

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 11:34 AM
I have invited the photographer of the image to come here and join the discussion about it if he wishes.

If he decides to participate all I ask is to please regard him as a guest at to treat him so.

That doesnt mean to suspend critical thinking or skepticism, just be civil about it....

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 10:54 AM
Hi Guys,

I am the dreaded photographer! Bow down before me!!!
I would like to thank you guys for having me here, and introducing me to this great forum! I would willingly answer any questions that you may have, whether they be sceptical, or wacko. Also, just let me know and I will e-mail you a copy of the original picture.


P.S: If you want to contact me, my e-mail is:

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 03:24 PM
OK, thank you for your time.

1. Why do the photos on that site have different colours? The clouds on the enlargement are grayish when compared with the complete(?) photo.

2. Why do the photos look like they have different JPG compression ratios, were they altered in some way in any program?

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 03:49 PM
Welcome Windlord,

I have three questions for you.

1. Did you hear anything odd when you were taking the pic, and just brush it off as activities on the ship?

2. What was the weather like? (windy/warm/humid/etc.)

3. No one was skeet-shooting on the ship by chance were they?

**EDITED for my horrendus grammar.**

[edit on 18-7-2006 by DropInABucket]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in