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.


Strange UFO photographed in Poland!!!!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 04:56 PM
This is clearly a Terra Cotta pot or planter. The embossed image posted by Torbjon is a dead giveaway. Nice picture Torbjon

I cant believe everyone is making such a huge deal over this. The chinese lantern idea is also a possibility.
I just don't understand why anyone would automatically assume that this is something fantastic and mysterious instead of an everyday object in an unusual orientation.

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 05:38 PM
Ummmm...... how can you not tell that that is not real.

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 05:45 PM

Originally posted by torbjon
"object" is between clothes line and trees... sun appears to be in roughly the eleven o'clock position on both the "object" and the trees (nice). Trees have shadows almost directly beneath them (where you would expect them to be if the sun were almost directly overhead)

"object" dosen't seem to be casting a shadow... odd that.

"object" also seems (to me) to be slightly opaque, emboss seems to bring out tree textures within the object.

my two cents (worthless after taxes): double exposure.

rock on

Excellent job! Thumbs up for that! If only I had a remaining WATS to give you. Probably next month..........


posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 06:14 PM

Originally posted by torbjon

my two cents (worthless after taxes): double exposure.

Nicely spotted! Seeing the trees like that is a dead giveaway

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:54 PM

Originally posted by SIEGE
Did someone throw up an "acorn" , entering the frame as the picture was taken?
Or maybe a pumpkin?

No, it's a piece of carrot.

posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 12:17 AM
now that you say that, it does look like the end of a carrot when the stems turn black. hmmmm

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by the_sentinal
My question is if the object wasnt there when the photo was taken then what was she taking a photo of???

that is always the issue in my mind. A picture of a desolate street with no landmarks and huh, what's this? a ufo in the sky ruining my great snapshot of a crappy street?

same thing here. is this guy a tree and clothesline photographer? why take the picture in the first place?

and why wait ten years to show anyone?

[edit on 17-8-2006 by Crakeur]

yep thats what i always think of when is see a photo that is something incredible but has the real possibility of being fake. i ask myself..why were they taking this photo? its just coincidence they were taking this stupid ass photo and instantly becomes a media item with something unexplained in it? sounds really stupid. i think its fake. ive watched things on tv about these pictures. this guy showed how to make a crop circle and make it look exactly like the ones we always see and he made a fake ufo out of tin-foil and hung it on a screen and it looked real but of course it wasnt. so dont assume its real just cause it looks that way. question why the photo was taken and think of the possibility of there being a string suspending the object.

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 07:24 PM
That is a weird one.looks like a olive!

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 09:11 PM
Could be a glare. It isn't completely opague. The negatives may have been exposed to the light because it is a reddish color like that of a glare. I searched it and it came up with more details.

Yours says the acorn was seen in Poland. I searched "acorn ufo" and I got another one where it is reportedly seen in the states. Pennsylvania in 1965 to be exact:

A fire in the sky, an acorn-shaped object partially buried in the ground, odd hieroglyphic markings, the military restricting access to the site, a possible government cover-up -- all in Westmoreland County and it's all a part of what's known as the UFO incident in Kecksburg.

Friday will mark the 40th anniversary of that incident, when numerous people witnessed a fireball streak across the skies in the late afternoon.

While the fireball reportedly was seen in four states, it landed in a wooded area near the village of Kecksburg, near Mt. Pleasant.

All the witnesses interviewed said that the object in question was large, metallic, acorn-shaped, with hieroglyphic markings, and partially buried in the ground.

Soon after the object fell, the military was on the scene and cordoned off the area, forbidding access to everyone.

Even after a military flat-bed trailer truck was seen rushing out of the area carrying a tarpaulin-covered object, to this day the official story from the government was that nothing was found, that what crashed was a meteorite.

I don't believe it at all. It's so cliche. A government cover-up?? They have the same story all the time. And hieroglyphics?? Again with the predictability. And it says that it has been seen in 4 different states, but was it not moving so fast you couldn't even see it??

And Mrs. Korejwo took the photograph of it in the air in 1995 after it had crashed???

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:12 PM
Thanks Paresthesia, Very interesting piece of information, what does it mean?? is it real ??? government cover-up ??? this is a very odd shape for a craft of any kind and the thought that it's a lense flare seems more logical but the video of two of the same shaped crafts in flight (I think it was on page 2) makes me think maybe it's a genuine UFO.............who's to say.......I'm not sure I'm buying the double exposure post ethier because the article states that the film was examined by professionals and it's not a faked picture, Lets think here people why would a school teacher fake a UFO pic???

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:09 AM
I'm no expert on pictures , video or optics. However, my bet is glare.

It was taken with a film camera , in daylight. There are two distinct circles in the picture that would be consistent with the circular optics of a film camera.

I don't understand where anyone got off assuming this was something traveling at high speed because I just don't see any significant motion blur. The blur that is visible is only present at the brightest point of the glare and not present on other edges, that leads me to think it's caused by light and optics and not caused by motion.

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:20 AM
who cares about 1995? not me

posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 12:24 AM
Hey, if there's a picture of a geniune extraterrestrial craft I'd love to see it, no matter what year it's from!

This ain't the one, though

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:34 PM
Maybe it's some blanket tied at one end or so, and it's being blown.

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:36 PM
Ahh, nevermind. It's double exposure. x]

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in