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.

 

UFO Photographs -

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:02 AM
link   
What do you want us to say? That they are proof positive of alien craft from Beyond the Moon? They're little dots and some fluffy stuff that look like dark clouds. Do you have a better explanation? Do you have any additional information that might shed even a tiny bit more light on the subject?

Then what do you want from us? Some kind of expert validation that your little dots and smudges are truly anomalous phenomena, and undeniable evidence of aliens, or time rifts, or leprechauns, or whatever? Why would you expect that?

And why get all bent out of shape when you ask us what we think, and we tell you, and it's somehow not what you want to hear? If you already have your own theories that you're going to argue about, why even bother to show us? Just be happy with your yourself and your pure knowledge, unsullied by our uncaring, uninformed ignorance.

I don't understand what you want. Maybe someone else here does.

Dots, smears, whatever. Thanks for sharing.




posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   
(EDIT - SAW LARGER PICTURE)

WHY DIDNT YOU POST THAT PICTURE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

Thats like zooming up to someones eyeball and then asking people to identify who they are - isn't gonna happen.
For all we know we were looking at a deep space object: next time post that picture - and for what its worth - it looks 'interesting'. What magnification where you at (sorry if I missed it in an earlier post - I have been pretty busy).



[edit on 3/9/2007 by kroms33]


[edit on 3/9/2007 by kroms33]

[edit on 3/9/2007 by kroms33]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Why don't you post the original images from the camera? All of these have been processed in one way or another.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   
On edit: I will refrain from comment.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by jbondo]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
It is way too big for an asteroid, and only appears in two shots. It should appear in them all; it does not.

I had considered an asteroid, but it is too big.

If it is an asteroid, great! Mystery solved.

Is it??

[edit on 8-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

There's no way it's an asteroid. No telescope on Earth could resolve an asteroid that well.

We need much more information. Every detail of how the photogrpah was taken, when, how the camera was mounted, exposure time, the RA and Dec, etc.

AND the ENTIRE FRAME. Use Flickr/imageshack/etc. to upload all 5 MP with minimal compression. Why is there no EXIF data in these images? A critical datum is exposure time. with a longish exposure time ( > 0.1 second), then explanation could easily be biological.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Very nice photos. Great work



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
could be wrong but a 5.3mp coolpix wasn't out " a few years ago "



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Mr. Ritzmann weighed in on this in his CM Forum if any one wishes to see his response.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
Mr. Ritzmann weighed in on this in his CM Forum if any one wishes to see his response.


In my view, his analysis is highly plausible. I didn;t notice the "ghost" image - that lends much credence to the lens flare hypothesis.

there is nothing anomallous in these images, unless more data is provided. I suggest moving on.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
...hearing the details of your Friends "Forensic Examination."

I'd also be interested in knowing more about your friends Qualifications to carry out said Forensic Examination.

You were using a Coolpix 5700 to photograph Asteroids? Did you have that duct taped to a telescope? Or did you just have it zoomed all the up to its maximum focal length of a whopping 72mm?

I'm no astronomer, so I could be out of line here. But, could you really hope to get pictures of asteroids with a point_&_shoot camera that has a maximum focal length of 72mm (280mm 35mm equivalent).

I have a 300mm lens on my D50 (450mm 35mm equivalent), and I couldn't see me being able to get pics of asteroids with that.

I wouldn’t mind seeing some of those pictures (with their exif data still intact).



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
1) PhotoBucket edited it. Period. The large image (with the tree) is TOTALLY unedited, EXCEPT for the auto resize that occurred when I uploaded it. If anyone knows how to stop it doing that, please tell me.


2) Yes,the CoolPix 5700 MOST DEFINITELY existed "several years ago"; As I said, this photo was taken in Aug 2003. The 5700 most definitely existed, as I was using one to take the photo!!

3) I'm not wanting anyone to say "yep - that's a UFO!". I want a logical explanation as to what it is, even if it is stray light.

4) It is not zoomed in at all. On the contrary - it is zoomed out at 28mm (I said that earlier, too). It was a general sky shot, but yes, I DO capture asteroids like this. When I find them I'll post the pics for you. Remember, these photos are 4 years old. I've had 3 computers and 1 HD failure since then, and not all of my photos from back then have survived. These two did as I made a particular backup of them.

5) I don't know how in-depth my friend got with it, but he eliminated the source as being the camera itself, based on the reflections as whatever it is came though the lens. He examined the camera and the image to do that, but how, I don't know.

6) Shot data.

Time: Aug 3rd, 2003, at 23:50 UTC.
RA/Dec: No data; it was tripod mounted. Looking EAST.
Focal Length: 28mm
Exposure Time: 30 seconds
ISO: 200
f-stop: 3.8

I was randomly photographing the sky.

You know everything there is. This isn't a hoax. If it is a bit of light coming in from somewhere, then fine! I'm perfectly happy with that; just explain why you think that.

@xHADEEZx - Apology accepted.


[edit on 9-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I'm going to take a long shot at this...

If it was some sort of light... then you might've caught a glimpse of a nearby star going supernova. I'm only taking a guess. I might be wrong.

I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility.

Good luck with discovering what it is.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   
If he caught a super-nova, he would become an instant celebrity.
Dude, call Paris !!!

Joking,
Lex



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join