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.


Pretty neat looking UFO photos recently taken in MA

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:11 PM
Hard to verify source's credability or pics authenticity, but they are pretty cool looking photos regardless...

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:18 PM
Nice find! I sure wish the photographer could have got some video footage
Yet another picture for the UFO scrap book.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:18 PM
Nice photo, but first we would have to rule out photoshop, or some kind of remote controlled helicopter like toy.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:26 PM
I have never seen anything like that before, weird shape with the neon, think we need more info on this. There is nothing really describing EXACTLY what happened apart from the normal "Hey look at these pic man!"

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:28 PM
I'm not sure. Something about these pictures doesn't seem right.

At first it seemed to be that the UFO was very level or close to the tree, which may cause some to believe that it's something like a remote control toy, or something that light up and was thrown into the air.

The blown up image doesn't really do any justice. It's not hard for someone to create a pixeled looking image like the one shown.

Like originally said by the second poster, some video footage would be nice.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 02:36 PM
The last photo is what makes me question the authenticity. If you look at it it appears to be a neon light attached to something that is spinning...which makes me think some sort of toy.

I only say this because I do not think that a rotating blade type cehicle would be ideal for the type of travel that a UFO would have to make.

That is all for now. I will try to take a picture of a neon light attached to a fan to demonstrate my point tonight.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:00 PM
Nice pics, but they dont look fully beliveble, I think they could be somekind of remote controlled Helicopter/Airplane, or maybe something tossed up in the sky with lights attached, but they dont look totally fake either, so i dunno im kinda in the middle about these

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:16 PM
Hey all - I've been a long time browser of these forums but never registered until now. I'd like to share my thoughts on this one!

I've got a fair bit of experiance using Photoshop, i'm no expert by any means but in my opinion something strikes me as odd here (aside from the UFO

What gets me is that there's no absolutely colour in these images, aside from the blue neon glow of the lights on the UFO the image is greyscale. This says to me that the original image was altered to give the effect of low light conditions. Desaturating an image and reducing the brightness & contrast controls is a good way to give this effect.

I could be wrong but it seems really odd that these images are entirely greyscale apart from the UFO, in general you would have some colour on a low light photograph up until it's pretty much pitch black and at that point you wouldnt have anywhere near the detail this photo has.

But like I said I could be wrong!

[Edit] Just had a quick read another thread about skepticism - honestly I do believe in the existence of Intelligent alien life! I have seen things that I cannot explain and have been interested in this subject for years!

[edit on 13-12-2006 by FirstContact85]

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:10 PM
When people claim that the photographs they present are “ un altered “ would they please have the basic curtsey to deliver truly unaltered image files

Is that too bloody much to ask ?

The catalyst for this rant is the claim in the rense story that :

The pictures are from a digital camera and not re-touched at all, other than brightness and contrast and false color.

A cursory glance indicates that the “ unedited “ images :

Photo one [ top ]

And ,

Photo two [ 4th one down ]

Are not even the same size

And lo and behold , properties reveals that

Photo one is : 453 * 323

And ,

Photo two is : 478 * 360

Both pictures have lost data from their exfil tags .

So much for “ un edited “

It may be a minor point , and seem like pedantry gone wild .

But when people say “ original “ the picture should be as it came from the camera , in its native size , with its exfil tags intact

I do not believe I am making unreasonable demands when I expect unedited to mean unedited

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:31 PM
Never seen a UFO like that before.

It looks different from most UFO pics...its clearer than normal...

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:35 PM
my real ire with this story , and similar pictures i suspect to be fake , is explored in this thread

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:49 PM
Actually the pixelation could be due to whatever compression was used, imo.

But there is a striking lack of color in the background of the image.

I am undecided, so far.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:55 PM
I noticed some sort of pixeling effect on the top right edge of the craft. It is the same in all the pics which suggests they have been copied and pasted fom the same image.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:01 PM
Here is what I have come up with.

I took the original top image (# 1), and the false color applied image, layered them together with 50 percent transparency, and making one image negative.

The contrast is not what it should be, between the object and the background of the photograph. It just doesn't look "right"

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
Actually the pixelation could be due to whatever compression was used, imo.

so why is it confined to a distinct rectangular block , arround the " craft "

the compression artefacts in a randomly selected clice of sky are totally different

anf there is no pixelation bordering the tree [ picture one ] or the house [ picture two ] do mundane objects behave differentky

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:14 PM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
so why is it confined to a distinct rectangular block , arround the " craft "

I stated that, before I had a better look at it.

imo, nothing "alien" about the object.

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:24 PM
The distortion is down the jpeg compression used.

The reason you get compression artifacts around the grey to blue is due to going between two very differant colours, elswhere on the image there are various shades of the same colour, the noise that you see is the compression software interpreting the transition between the two colours.

If you look closely at other areas of the image, you can see that the compression is still present but is no where near as apparent because the colours used are very similar to each other.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by FirstContact85]

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:42 PM
I'm not concerned about the Compression artifacts, they Would apear on a genuine photo like thit with a high contrast Object,

What does concern me is the Exposure Compared to the BCK

Taken at night? Being a Professional Photographer and user of High end SLR Cameras this is far away from What I would expect.

a High ISO from 800-1600 was used With a fairly fast Shutter speed.

That Object If real with those lights and Amount of High Exposure on Night time BCK as observed, the Object would have come out as an Over Exposed White BLOB. in the REAL WORLD

This Picture is a Fabrication of some kind.

I'm not blaming anyone on this Board of fraudulant Posting but Sombody had been Taken for a ride.

So for that Reason, I'm out.


posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:50 PM
Could be a football kicked up in the air - and a photo being taken of it.

Then later the blue thing added on top of it..

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:09 PM
Nice pics...but the ufo could be something trown from the near balcony...or something else.

It looks just too small compared to the tree.

Sorry for me english.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in