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.

 

March 20, 1950 - New York City Cylindrical UFO

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 06:05 AM
link   
A lot of pictures from this era, always look like a hub cap or frisbee thrown up in the air, however this is different.

I'm amazed at the clarity of the first picture, you can see a lot of detail.
Surely this would be very hard to hoax in the 50's?

Here's the pictures.
**Picutres on link, i cant link them directly**


And the desription regarding this case is just as interesting.


This cylindrical-appearing UFO was photographed over New York City on March 20, 1950. The photographer's name was deleted from Project Blue Book's files -- as were most names when the material was finally declassified and released. Upon investigating the report, Project Grudge officially labeled it: "the moon"! Some ufologists have speculated that tubular objects of this sort may be "mother ships," purportedly capable of taking on and discharging smaller "craft" in stacks, poker-chip fashion.


From here.





[edit on 22-1-2007 by Denied]




posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Wow. I´ve seen a lot of ufo pictures.

But i never saw that one.

Looks amazing.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Anyone got any info on this?

Is this a hoax?

Its a pretty good picture for its time.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I find it unusual that stars are visible in a photo over New York City. The city lights should override them.

The fact that they are visible makes me think of a long exposure or a multiple exposure. A multiple exposure could explain how the object could be "the moon". Each "slice" of the object would be an exposure of the crescent moon in a slightly different position. That day, the moon was indeed a waxing 4% crescent moon, with moonset at 8:20 pm EST over New York City.

I'll have to check the math and see if it's possible for the stars to appear stationary while the moon moves that far. It seems correct, though.

[edit on 1/24/2007 by eaglewingz]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
it looks like somebody photoshopped some poker chips into the sky.

its not rocket science!!! any ufo picture in the world can be photoshopped.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracymaster
it looks like somebody photoshopped some poker chips into the sky.

its not rocket science!!! any ufo picture in the world can be photoshopped.


Dont think they had Photoshop in 1950.

Thats my point.



By Eaglewingz
I'll have to check the math and see if it's possible for the stars to appear stationary while the moon moves that far. It seems correct, though.


Thanks for your input, greatly appreciated

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Denied]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Denied

Dont think they had Photoshop in 1950.



LMFAO, NAH I CAN'T SAY THEY DID EITHER



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Nice pic.. i've seen it before. i don't know if it's real or not but it looks cool.. wierd enough I think this exact thing was spotted, or reportedly spotted over someplace else at one time or another.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Denied
A lot of pictures from this era, always look like a hub cap or frisbee thrown up in the air, however this is different.

I'm amazed at the clarity of the first picture, you can see a lot of detail.
Surely this would be very hard to hoax in the 50's?

Here's the pictures.
**Picutres on link, i cant link them directly**


And the desription regarding this case is just as interesting.


This cylindrical-appearing UFO was photographed over New York City on March 20, 1950. The photographer's name was deleted from Project Blue Book's files -- as were most names when the material was finally declassified and released. Upon investigating the report, Project Grudge officially labeled it: "the moon"! Some ufologists have speculated that tubular objects of this sort may be "mother ships," purportedly capable of taking on and discharging smaller "craft" in stacks, poker-chip fashion.


From here.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Denied]


That was published in UFOS 1945 to 1995 but it looks nice on the
web. Unless the event had some witnesses its only a photo from
the 50.

The first cylinders were German submarines and then the super
zepilen. Powered by BMW Helium engines.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
I find it unusual that stars are visible in a photo over New York City. The city lights should override them.

The fact that they are visible makes me think of a long exposure or a multiple exposure. A multiple exposure could explain how the object could be "the moon". Each "slice" of the object would be an exposure of the crescent moon in a slightly different position. That day, the moon was indeed a waxing 4% crescent moon, with moonset at 8:20 pm EST over New York City.

I'll have to check the math and see if it's possible for the stars to appear stationary while the moon moves that far. It seems correct, though.

[edit on 1/24/2007 by eaglewingz]


I too supiciously believe that it was a long exposure and that the crescent moon look "dragged out."



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Couple of thoughts..... either it is from 1950 and there is no motion blur (look how clear the stars are, no motion bluring there), or posibility it is not from the 1950's and there was photo editing possibilites. I'd start by verifying the date in question because if the date is legit we can discount a lot of obvious possibilites of fraud. One note from the caption "when the material was finally declassified and released" seems to suggest that the photo was alleged to be taken in 1950 but was not actually released untill a later (undisclosed) date. I don't see any way that a camera could take an extended exposure of the moon without streaking the stars, stars always streak in a circular pattern in time extended exposure from what I've seen.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Yep, looks similar to the one that buzzes over Plano, TX from time to time.
And this one isn't afraid to do it during the day, either.

The one here, runs from the south to the north. The pace can be fast when you catch its shadow. But I've seen it cruise at about 40 mph as it loitered over some neighborhoods. I lost it in the distance behind a tree one time, but I thought, it must have zipped off at incredible speeds. But I saw it later again the same day only higher in the sky, and this time I saw its sneaky little trick. Think of the skin of that thing like a computer screen, and when it wants to hide, it scans a line at a time on itself of the sky behind it until it disappears.

I have yet to be able to catch the thing on camera. The first two times were a freebie. The other times I was indoors, and unable to get outside fast enough.

For whatever reason, it likes this north Texas area enough to buzz around during the day. And it seems to be flying between Custer rd. and 75 central expressway, kind of like a corridor.

My friend also saw it up in Little Elm, which is further north and west of Plano. He saw it about 9 am.

Anybody, who lives in the Dallas area, should try and come catch this thing on camera. It gets low, and a good high quality camera would get some great detail.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   
The second pic of the object looks just like the airship in this one...



I'd wager it's a zeppelin of the 50s.

Cheers!



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
I find it unusual that stars are visible in a photo over New York City. The city lights should override them.

The fact that they are visible makes me think of a long exposure or a multiple exposure. A multiple exposure could explain how the object could be "the moon". Each "slice" of the object would be an exposure of the crescent moon in a slightly different position. That day, the moon was indeed a waxing 4% crescent moon, with moonset at 8:20 pm EST over New York City.

I'll have to check the math and see if it's possible for the stars to appear stationary while the moon moves that far. It seems correct, though.

[edit on 1/24/2007 by eaglewingz]


Awesome thought. I never would have thought of it...but when you mentioned it, I didn't even have to look at it again, that's what it reminded me of.

But one question...wouldn't the multiple long exposure also have the stars moving as well? Just a thought, as I'm not proficient in Astronomy.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I would think that the stars would be streaked, even a bit, if it was long exposure...?

I don't know if anyone is familiar with Sixto Paz - he's a huge ufologist and contactee from Peru who's written seveal books and conducted ship sightings with groups of people but he claimed in an interview that he and many witnesses have seen this very object several times near Lima - here's one account:



A few days afterwards and seeking to understand with certainty what we had experienced, we invited my father and his research friends to a field excursion, so that they could verify by themselves the reality of what had transpired. They were very impressed by what they saw. On that occasion a cylindrical object appeared and it was estimated to be about 150 meters (500 feet) in diameter and positioned at about 1000 meters (0.62 miles) in altitude.
- Interview With Sixto Paz Wells - May 2004

sounds about roughly the size of this thing and what the earlier poster said he witnessed in Texas.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
also, wouldn't the city lights themselves be heavily streaked if it was a long exposure shot that was dragged?

just my 2 cents.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I always have to throw my two cents in on a topic about a UFO picture, and especially so since I'm a born and raised New Yorker lol.

Given that this photo was taken in the 50s, and that it's a night shot, I think there's a fairly good chance that it is indeed the moon. The question about the streaking of the stars is a good point, however, if you look at the "UFO" it's not so much streaked as it is stacked.

The city lights would not be streaked as they are pretty much stationary objects and the camera is likely on a tripod.

This is causing me to lean towards multiple exposures at arbitrary times.

The photo of the "UFO" over the city looks slightly more streaked and given the equipment, film quality, the year in which is was taken and the fact that it is night time, the photo would have to have been taken with along exposure time or with multiple exposures.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could find other photos from that era showing the same effect.

If it is in fact multiple exposures we can track the movement of the object and compare it to the speed with which the moon moves through the night sky. (15 degrees an hour if i remember correctly)



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
Yep, looks similar to the one that buzzes over Plano, TX from time to time.

But I've seen it cruise at about 40 mph as it loitered over some neighborhoods. I lost it in the distance behind a tree one time, but I thought, it must have zipped off at incredible speeds. But I saw it later again the same day only higher in the sky, and this time I saw its sneaky little trick. Think of the skin of that thing like a computer screen, and when it wants to hide, it scans a line at a time on itself of the sky behind it until it disappears.
.


I've seen a huge oval shaped object do this before. I mentioned in earlier thread its quite similar to what was shown in the Chicken Little movie disney put out last year... its a cloaking method. It would be awesome if you get a photo or some video.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Cylinder video posted November 06:



Very similiar to the stack of poker chips or moon seen in the photo?


[edit on 31-1-2007 by kronos11]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
I believe the comment from YouTube nailed it.


stinkweed007
Yup... its ET.. excuse me E.T. more commonly known as the External Tank from our beloved Space Shuttle falling to the earth.. I saw this video. (the image is crappy beacuse they zoomed in to exclude the 'CNN Live' and screen footer from the heavily filmed 'NASA return to space' post Columbia..


You can see from the horizontal interference bars that the video was shot off of a TV screen.

A video from STS-111 is on this page. It is shot from the orbiter, but you can see that the motion as the tank buffets in the atmosphere is just like that of the cylinder in the video.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join