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.

 

Best UFO photo of 2006 from Poland - has this been debunked?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32


That's all fine and well. But has ufoinfo EVER successfully debunked one of their own stories.


This is true... in the end, they seem to be on the fence with it as well but if you look they did go to pains to try and recreate it and were unsuccessful. Though I certainly am with the consensus that these look clearly man made(and hokey at that), there are several holes - if there was anyone that could replicate one of these photos with 2 bowls duct taped i would be 100% satisfied. As I mentioned: Why oh why, in 2006, would anyone, even the Polish, create such a makeshift UFO(2 salad bowls duct-taped) and then provide super clear photos of it, purport it as a UFO and not want any publicity?? Many things still don't seem logical with this case... and the salad bowl bowl theory seems too convenient, especially when it can't be recreated and these two guys did the entire shoot within a half an hour's time(even if they stopped and started the camera).

[edit on 22-1-2007 by kronos11]




posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
However they did it, they did do it.

As I said in the first thread, if you can't recognize 2 stainless steel mixing bowls taped or foiled together then you're probably just not going to ever accept it.

I have used these specific bowls for years and have no doubt whatsoever.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay
Talk is cheap. I wish some of you people who keep saying that it would be easy to fake a photo of a ufo like this one would do it. I have yet to see one person who brags about how easy it is to fake a photo of a ufo actually produce a photo that is anywhere near the quality of this one. I think if any of you people who make such claims actually tried to fake a photo of a ufo such as the one in this photo it would be so obvious that you had faked it that it would be laughable!
It's cheap to make claims that you don't back up.


[edit on 22-1-2007 by SkyWay]




Are you kidding me?


Can't you see it's 2 bowls in metal trown into the air by someone...


I mean cmon man you can even see the reflection of the person trowing it in the air, he's got the arm in a trowing motion.....


I think you need to take a good look at the photo before you insult everyone on this board in one post.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Do debates on ATS usually go this way, nobody can prove its real so its 'debunked' by claiming the incident could have been staged.

The object is an Unidentified Flying Object until someone can prove the incident has been manufactured.

This type of debate could have also have used this line of reasoning.

I've never seen a UFO so they don't exist. I also have never seen New York City so that doesn't exist either.

.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by carslake
Do debates on ATS usually go this way, nobody can prove its real so its 'debunked' by claiming the incident could have been staged.

The object is an Unidentified Flying Object until someone can prove the incident has been manufactured.

This type of debate could have also have used this line of reasoning.

I've never seen a UFO so they don't exist. I also have never seen New York City so that doesn't exist either.

.


you are correct, but sometimes with all the debating going on people in here need to laugh a little.

Anything could be considered as a UFO, and truly no one can proved anything to anyone else. It's all about personal experience and beliefs.

Even people that see a real UFO will pass it off or just ignore it and some people will believe anything they see, so again it is personal experience.

This is only a sounding board for people to reflect.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   



This is only a sounding board for people to reflect.


Here, here! well I, for one, have seen 2 ufo's up close and even one of the incidents I was in the presence of another individual. The craft I witnessed were seamless and much larger... to my eyes, this does look fake as all hell but seriously there are several things that remain odd about the case. I also included ufoinfo's analysis with my post but if you notice they give mention to a several other ufology groups who had also researched and written extensively about the case when it broke. 1. The fact that no one can reproduce even one of the images. and 2. If these photos are so easily written off as duct-taped salad bowls why would these researchers and experts even take the time?

I don't believe or disbelieve it, the case was very odd to me. True there is no way we could prove or disprove this case - I was simpy seeing anyone knew if it had been officially debunked.


[edit on 22-1-2007 by kronos11]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by kronos11


True there is no way we could prove or disprove this case


Yes there is, it's called viewing the obvious. These pics are obvious!

I will even say they are 3 qt bowls.

I don't know their method of getting them airborn but they could have done it in several ways and over several pictures.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Some thoughts about how it could be done.

Ingredients:
some metallic bowls
aluminium tape to join the bowls

Method A
1 - Join bowls in pairs using the aluminium tape, making a "UFO".
2 - Throw first "UFO" in the air.
3 - Walk some steps to make the next "UFO" appear with a different background.
4 - Throw next "UFO" in the air.
5 - Repeat 3 and 4 while we have "UFOs".
6 - If wanted we can start again.

This method has some points in favour:
- its easy to make a sequence of photos showing the "UFO" moving.
- even if the snow is seen on the photos it will be undisturbed because we are not getting back to the "UFOs" until we ran out of "UFOs".
Against:
- we need more bowls.

Method B
1 - Join two bowls using the aluminium tape, making a "UFO".
2 - Throw the "UFO" in the air vertically.
3 - Catch the "UFO" before it hits the ground to avoid damaging the "UFO".
4 - Walk some steps to make the next "UFO" appear with a different background.
5 - Repeat steps 2 and 3 while we want.

Points in favour:
- even cheaper, we just need 2 bowls.
- it's easier to throw the "UFO" higher in the vertical.
- can be repeated quickly, if the thrower can catch the "UFO" every time.

Against:
- it's difficult to take a photo showing the "UFO" at a greater distance, that way it can not be caught and risks being damaged. That photo is easy if it is the last of series.
- it's difficult to throw the "UFO" in a way that it keeps its up side up.


Now some thoughts about the photos.
1 - The photos are cropped. If they were just resized the proportion would be the same as the original, 2048x1536.
2 - The EXIF data shows that the shutter speed was the maximum speed that the camera can use, 1/2000 s. My sister (who is a professional photographer) told me that at 1/1000 s she took some pictures where we could see the drops of water from waves breaking on the rocks and another with a girl throwing her hair back and none of her hairs was blurred by the motion.
3 - My sister also says (I know very little about photography) that the F-number is too high for that shutter speed, with that F-number the photo lost detail and gained even more "speed", being capable of having even less blur on fast moving objects.
4 - Unless there were two airplanes leaving contrails, the photo P1080006 was taken after P1080007, judging by the position of the contrail and the Sun.
5 - It's easy to change the date of the files on a card from a camera.

I thought about posting some things about the analysis, but I have not the time for that now, and I think it's not necessary.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

I thought about posting some things about the analysis, but I have not the time for that now, and I think it's not necessary.


yes, yes. despite your sarcasm I 99% agree with everything you said, and beyond going out and buying 12? 24? 36? metal bowls, some duct tape and heading out to the field... we will never know. However, you and the others who have immediately dismissed this as a hoax are completely denying the eyewitness testimony. That is why I provided two separate accounts of people who had actually met the 60 year old men who had been attending a wedding all day when this happened. That's where it comes in as odd. This thing could be a manmade experiment, government or private. an unmanned drone? and YES, it could simply be some metal bowls. it's really the circumstances and witnesses behind the sighting that i'm stuck on.

I don't deny the possibility that the sighting could have been a dimensional anomaly? they mentioned that this corridor of highway had been home to an inordinate amount of traffic casualties? violent deaths are precursors to supernatural activity? but you would have to believe in the supernatural to follow this road


Originally posted by carslake

Do debates on ATS usually go this way, nobody can prove its real so its 'debunked' by claiming the incident could have been staged.


Just stating that you "think" it's two metal bowls is not enough to debunk something for me. If someone could post a pic of something they just shot in their backyard that looks close to these with some up close and some high up while at the same time making sure that the sequence of images you shot is digitally coded in under ten minutes - and that means your entire shoot will have to be within a 30 and 45 minutes to get the same sun light. oh yeah, and keep in mind: the guys that masterminded all this as well as chucking duct-taped bowls 2-3 stories in the air are over 60. then I'll say it's been debunked. Honestly though, Im new to this forum and I was hoping somebody had already proved it be a fake.



[edit on 22-1-2007 by kronos11]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
sorry double post!


[edit on 22-1-2007 by kronos11]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kronos11
oh yeah, and keep in mind: the guys that masterminded all this as well as chucking duct-taped bowls 2-3 stories in the air are over 60.


IF this is a hoax , the the ` 60 year old men ` you put your entire faith in are known as " front men "

and claiming that a pensioner could not in your opinion chuck bowls arround is an irrelevant red herring

once you accept the possibility that the entire affair is a fabrication , then any required level of external support - accomplices , equipent etc becomes viable .

you were not there - so it is only your belief that the 2 6o year olds were both truthfull and alone , yes ?

the " logic " that it is true because a 60 year old could not chuck a bowl is laughable



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:07 AM
link   
The old men look like they can throw stuff pretty far if it's a hoax.
2 of the pictures look like they can't be faked by throwing the UFO into the air.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   
As far as throwing the bowls, consider the following:

1. Could have used an A-Frame ladder
2. Could have thrown them off a roof
3. Could have launched them from some device such as a modified clay pigeon launcher.
4. Could have done a myriad of things as there are too many possibilities to list.

Regarding keeping the top side up, both sides are the same so it doesn't matter

Regarding identification, I don't think its 2 SS Mixing Bowls duct taped together, I know it is.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

IF
you were not there - so it is only your belief that the 2 6o year olds were both truthfull and alone , yes ?

the " logic " that it is true because a 60 year old could not chuck a bowl is laughable


Actually I don't have any faith that it's real or a hoax... Im merely pointing out that more than one investigative team had gone to interview the old men and they all came back accepting the story simply because the witnesses were so credible. Think about it - IF this is a hoax then we would have to assume that these two men, who have eyewitnesses that place them at a wedding drinking all day, are a part of a lie as well as manaufactured hoax? That's the only place where i stick...



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kronos11
yes, yes. despite your sarcasm I 99% agree with everything you said, and beyond going out and buying 12? 24? 36? metal bowls, some duct tape and heading out to the field... we will never know.

It was not my intention to be sarcastic, and yes, like in all other cases we can never know what really happened.


However, you and the others who have immediately dismissed this as a hoax are completely denying the eyewitness testimony.

I am not denying the eyewitness testimony, the fact that I haven't talked about it it's because this is the "Best UFO photo of 2006 from Poland", not the "Best eyewitness testimony of 2006 from Poland".

Now, some comments about the analysis.

1. The size of the object. It's impossible to know the size of the object not knowing the distance from the camera. The best way we have to try to get some idea of the distance is the photo bellow.



Using the reflection on the car, and knowing that the angle from an object to the reflecting surface is the same as the angle from the reflecting surface to the viewer (in this case the camera) it's possible to have and idea of the distance the "UFO" was from the car.

2. The lack of footprints it's completely irrelevant because there are no two photos taken on the same place showing the ground, and only if the object was thrown vertically the place of the throw would be visible in the same photo as the "UFO".

3. They say that the photo P1080006 shows the object at an altitude of several dozen metres. Comparing the size of the pole near it I don't think it was much higher than the pole. In fact, it looks to be at the same altitude as in most photos.

Unless they are talking about a different photo.

4. They say ". The place of the event (almost noon, with extremely high concentration of traffic) has been very unfortunately selected for any hoax - if we assume that it was indeed a hoax.", but bellow they say:



At approx. 11:30 pm we started our power generator and began our "Lights in Zdany" experiment. Two strobes were directed towards the road. Interestingly, none of the cars stopped even though the whole operation must have been visible to the drivers. The results of the experiment indicate that car drivers show zero interest about what is happening in the field, even if some strange lights are visible.


If the drivers were not interested in some strobe lights at 11:30 pm in an area where there are many accidents, I don't think they would be interested in some people throwing something in the air, at least to the point of interfering.

5. The fact that the reflections, including the road, the cars, the trees and the snowy field are clearly seen in a day with a little haze shows that the object could not be far away. Once more, with the reflection is possible to know the distance to the object.

My general opinion about the analysis is that it was not made with the intention of seeing if this was or not an object that was flying by its own capabilities instead of an object thrown in the air, it was made to prove that these are not photos of two bowls glued to each other and thrown in the air.

The fact that they did not post the photos makes me doubt of their results, if they are really interested to show that this was not possible then they should show it.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I am not denying the eyewitness testimony, the fact that I haven't talked about it it's because this is the "Best UFO photo of 2006 from Poland", not the "Best eyewitness testimony of 2006 from Poland".


You certainly have to take the witness(es) testimony into account when evaluating the credibility of the photos. And yes, this was reported as a UFO and the pictures are super clear that is why some have called it the best photo of 2006. I heard this and I was wondering if it had been debunked because it was highly visible compared to most photographs of ufos.


Originally posted by ArMaP
The lack of footprints it's completely irrelevant because there are no two photos taken on the same place showing the ground, and only if the object was thrown vertically the place of the throw would be visible in the same photo as the "UFO".


This is assuming that with each throw they got the shot exactly right. Even a couple a bad takes and you would either see debris or footprints in the field.


Originally posted by ArMaP
They say that the photo P1080006 shows the object at an altitude of several dozen metres. Comparing the size of the pole near it I don't think it was much higher than the pole. In fact, it looks to be at the same altitude as in most photos.


Even so - that means they would have had to somehow hurled the bowls vertically as opposed to tossing them from say a stepladder or a tree. Even though it is a bilt tilted, the object is more or less horizontal.


Originally posted by ArMaP
The fact that they did not post the photos makes me doubt of their results, if they are really interested to show that this was not possible then they should show it.


I agree. Obviously Im playing the alien's advocate here primarily because most posters here have dismissed this case purely on first sight of the object resembling some household items, yet there are many other factors that make this case a mystery to me.


[edit on 24-1-2007 by kronos11]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
SIMILAR UFO IN POZNAN, POLAND

Hello kronos11. You may be interested to know there was a
similar ufo photographed in Poland some months later
in Poznan on May 26, 2006 by a lady named Paulina.

Check the photo sent to me by researcher Piotr Cielebias from
the Polish UFO Research. They made an investigation at the
sighting site and analyzed the photo. The object is very
similar don't you think ? Coincidence ?

This is the report sent to me by Piotr in 2006.

POLAND: UFO photographed over Poznan [26/05/06]
Poznan [woj.wielkopolskie], May 26th 2006, 17:24.

On May 26th 2006 Mrs. Paulina from Poznan [Posen] took a photo of a chance UFO in Jezyce forest in Poznan. "I went to the forest with my mate and my dog in order to take some photos and we managed to take a strange photo. We were taking photos for fun and we downloaded them on my computer in my house. One of the photos surprised us because we hadn't seen something like it before. I don't know what it is but it looks like a UFO in my opinion. My dad told me that it is just a malfunction of the camera and he ordered me to remove the photo because there isn't anything strange on it. But I decided to send it secretly. I took it on May 26th 2006 at 17:24 in Jezyce forest in Poznan."

Check the photo and make your opinion.

i75.photobucket.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   
wow - identical. haha - just like two metal bowls duct-taped and thrown up in the air. this girl must be in cahoots with two old men! either these Polish are really into making some really hokey fake ufo pics or somebody is flying a bizarre little drone around the Warsaw countryside.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
This one looks like a smaller bowl inside a larger one. The top is definitely a bowl.

Besides, they have the internet in Poland too. If you wanted to prepetuate a hoax, you might try to do something similar.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join