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.


January 2007 photo too good to be true?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:56 AM
I hope there are other people who understand that in photographs, light tends to have a glare effect when there is slight motion, or dim lighting. Have you ever seen high beems in your rear view?

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:59 AM

you got it, if it was a frisbee the LED lights that were stuck to the bottom would be spinning with the object. There would be trails, or some evidence of motion.

Unless the shutter speed was really high. The pictures also have differences in brightness.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Wizard_1988]

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Flyer
It looks good but Im always sceptical of a UFO that isnt parallel to the ground. This, to me, indicates that the thing has been thrown up in the air for the photo. This is the case with all 3 pictures.

Many people including Bob Lazar claim that disc shaped UFO's do not fly parallel to the ground and are always pitched as these pics show.

I knew I recognized them from the earlier pics and they are quite impressive but I will hold my verdict until they can be examined by experts.

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:02 AM

Originally posted by hiii_98
the plot thickens... another incredibly clear ufo picture , with the same "investigator's" name tied to it, supposedly in wisconsin as well....

[Jack Nethering]

i would really like to think those saucer shaped ships are real, if a hoax its damn realistic to me, but that last air balloon like picture... i dont know about and I dont like one man in one location claiming to have several clear pictures of different shaped ufos...seems fishy. Hope its real!

[edit on 21-1-2007 by hiii_98]

these are neat cause they remind me of E.T.'s ship! anyway, in the first one the sunlight is coming from the right and then on the last two it's on the left? does that seem weird?

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
*raises hand*

Err, anyone notice that the "lights" overlap the branches in pictures 2 and 3?

*sits back down*

apex already ansvered this:

Originally posted by apex
Yes but if you have a bright enough light behind a branch, then it diffracts noticeably around the branch and it will appear like that, particularly if the branch isn't in focus.

How else is "coming out of the sun" useful?

This is the typical too good to believe-scenario though... Clear images of UFO's are rare, and since we don't know the source we can't get any more information to back up or debunk this case. To be honest it pisses me off to think that someone would have this kind of CONCLUSIVE evidence of flying saucer technology (might be ours...reverse engineering) and then just send it off anonymously to a UFO site never to be heard of again. Why not take this to the biggest newspaper in the country? Don't know if this makes the case any more or less credible though. She (?) might not want any attention, but then again if these are genuine pictures it's something the world needs to know. So in conclusion we know nothing more now than when we started.

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Wizard_1988
Unless the shutter speed was really high. The pictures also have differences in brightness.

Even if the shutter speed was really high, there would be some trail behind each light.

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:12 AM
I am no expert but as I did say there is a difference of brightness between the two pictures. This in most cases means that the shutter speed was faster in the darker one.

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:28 AM
I am no expert here but I am wondering why a large number of people are saying that "oh, it is behind the tree so that would be difficult to CGI or do in photoshop".

Someone using CGI could do it with no problem (especially a CGI artist with time and experience in the field)...and hell, I can do it in photoshop.

I am horrible with photoshop but a simple layering of the tree over the craft, if the tree was cut out well with the pen tool -something that is not hard to do at all- would get those results easily.

I am not here saying that the image is fake. I am here saying that, because the craft is behind a tree, does not mean that it is at all difficult for a CGI or photoshop artist to accomplish. It is actually quite easy.

Carry on.

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:35 AM
The one thing we always forget, we will never know the truth. We can bicker and fling theories left and right, but it wont get us anywhere.

Me, I believe it's a real photo of a UFO, probably the best one I've seen in fact.

Now let's try to be civil about this okay? I'd hate to see another thread die out due to conflicting beliefs.

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:41 AM
The problem is, Z, that this is as far as it will ever go. Hey, look at this pic. I think it's real, but he thinks it's fake. There's no way to tell, and the government lies about UFOs, as does the news media. What does that mean? It means that any time a pic is brought up, the only thing we can do is agree to disagree, and let the thread die out, as many others have. It seems like the only UFO pic threads that last are the ones that are obvious fakes, with one guy insisting on their validity. And even then, the threads only last because so many people love to debunk pictures.

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:43 AM
why does it have uniform aviation lights ie red on one side green on the other.....

That would be my first clue that is not "alien".

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:46 AM
Exactly, it can get really annoying at times, a great picture surfaces and the believers and non-believers refuse to leave their court, instead they want to rip apart whatever evidence the opposite party puts forward.

Even if conclusive proof is put forward that either confirms or disproves the photograph, the game will still go on.

But, as you said, it's something we have to except.

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:10 AM
I have always been intrigued with the older photo's from Wisconson showing the object and I got a chill down my spine from seeing the new ones. I would love to somehow get these analysed properly but it sounds that it ain't going to happen.

If they are all faked the hoaxer has waited 4 years to do these new ones. Very frustrating that the person responsible just sent them to our friend and said her hubby took it, end of story. I'm not really sure at the moment but the poster on the UFO Evidence website must know a lot more than he is letting on. He could have of course faked it or he is keeping things to himself.


posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:02 AM
Well - im an expert

I say "that's freakin UFO" end of story

It could be real - If it's a fake then bla bla know the drill.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Ram]

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:18 AM

why does it have uniform aviation lights ie red on one side green on the other.....

if thats true then i think it adds alot of credence to the ufo being real.... a real military saucer. I mean evena hoaxer or cgi expert is much more concerned about pixels than about accuracy especially if it is a ALIEN ship he or she is trying to create. The fact that the lights conform to normal HUMAN aviation standards means alot in my book as to the authenticity of the photo. Also i am unable to find anything in the newspapers past or present regarding this photo... if it truely is one of the best pictures taken why wouldn't it have made the papers somewhere here?

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:50 AM
IMHO we can all sit & look at pretty pictures of UFO's until the cows come home ( or are mutilated
It will change NOTHING.
Sure... I dig looking UFO pictures...the same as anybody but, as I've still wont change a thing.
Even if some renowned "expert" here eventually does pipe up & say "hey yeah.. gee we can't explain that one"- which I might add has already happened many times over in many other places.

I really think people tend to waste far too much time chasing the truth about whether or not some of these images are real or not real.

To me...I've seen far to many images, talked to far too many people and read far too many books on the subject for me to deny that they are indeed fact.
You'd have to be pretty narrow minded to deny it ALL IMHO.

What I believe is really important nowadays are, the testimonies of the many thousands of people whom claim to have been abducted.
This is where the meat of the matter really lyes I believe.

Sure...there are craft but, more to the point, what are they really doing here!?
For ME...that is the real question my dear Horatio's.

/end rant.

Cheers all.

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:50 AM
I'm loading this into Photoshop now, I'll post my evedence why these photos are real,

Somthing you all seem to have missed.

Stay tuned

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:59 AM
I dont know wether they are real or fake.. but here is a good link for those of you who think this might be hard to do in photoshop.. and no need for a pen tool, any half wit could follow this tutorial and do the same...

Media Player-


posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:09 PM
1. The Object was not Fabricated onto the Picture,
note the curved direction of Motion blur on both tree branch(left) and ET craft (right) ;-)

2. the object was not Thrown up in the air and snapped, if it were the amount of motion blur would be different to that of the trees,

3. A high shutter speed was not used to counteract note "2", otherwise No motion blur would have occured, a setting og 100 or higher would have to be used and it clearly wasent,
any less shutter speed than that and you would have seen a Circular motion (however tiny) of the lights on UFO from throwing up into air.

As a user of a Professional D-SLR camera I have a lot of Knowlege of Camera capabilities.


[edit on 22-1-2007 by TrentReznor]

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Flyer
It looks good but Im always sceptical of a UFO that isnt parallel to the ground. This, to me, indicates that the thing has been thrown up in the air for the photo. This is the case with all 3 pictures.

Bob Lazar claims that the discs act funny when they have to maneuver at a slower rate. He also sais that they will "take off" at an angle. Just food for thought

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in