I've witnessed a boomerang ufo on one occasion and two boomerangs on another. All three looked alike, and didn't look like this. What I saw looked very flat, extremely angular (no rounded edges), dark colored, and very large. It's tough to gauge, but to me, this doesn't look all that big. I'm not saying boomerang ufos have to look like what I saw, just pointing out differences.

This is an excellent example of the advantages of video over stills. A video of this, with this level of clarity, would have been amazing. Then again, we'd all suspect it was cgi I suppose.

Originally posted by zerotime
Maybe it isn't just a Boomerang-shaped object. maybe it is actually a Boomerang that someone is throwing and then photographing.

I'm going to have weigh in with zerotime on this one. That just looks like something that was put in the air by an RC hobbyist. I'm about 72% sure i'm right.

The photo looks real to me. Given the distance, I'd say it was at least 10-15ft in width.

My guess is that it's either a balloon, given the round thickness of the object, or an alien aircraft.

Well, It looks like a mylar ballon to me, but then agin...so the the UFO I saw. And it was joined later by another one at about 10,000 feet. So if the witnesses are being honest then I gonna have to call this one inconlusive and believe the guy until proven otherwise

Originally posted by disownedsky
it is impossible to rule out a hoax.

No not impossible at all once you take a very close look at the three photos in question.

You admited there is no data = Red Flag

There are two tones of blue one light one dark= Red Flag,

Tree tops and edges clipped off with straight flat edges= Red Flag.

In one photo around the object (the middle one as I recall), the sky is bumpy/not flat as the sky is where the tone of blue is darker = red flag.


I mean how many flags do you need?



[edit on 6/25/2007 by shots]

I tried to overlap the three pics in photoshop to get an idea of the path of the object. I used the trees as reference, didn't need to do any scaling, just moved the pics over each other and the size of the trees match perfectly. Which means nothing but that the pics were taken from same position without moving and that the photographer used no zoom. It also means that the three shots were taken quickly one after the other. There is no relative tilt in the pics, which also confirms that he just held the camera and clicked three times fast without moving much.(or he used a tripod?)

So the path is almost horizontal, not rising (as a balloon would do), in fact its coming down a bit (guessing from the image names, the rightmost was taken first). Second, you can see the size of the object changing. (I've painted yellow points just to illustrate the size change). The fact that the size of the trees is constant, implies that the object went further when the second shot was taken and came nearer when the third was taken.

There are no timestamps, unfortunately, nor any exif, to do velocity calculations. The blow-ups he shows are taken from the original images of higher resolution, as blowing these pics does not result in such clear blow-ups. So I guess that the exif got lost during resizing and pasting of blow-ups and re-saving process. In short it was not intensional.

Make anything you wish of the analysis . I did it just for fun. No conclusions......
The closest explanation is that it can be a golden myler balloon. The way it looks rounded/inflated and the way its tumbling during these shots makes it look so.

[edit on 25/6/2007 by rocksolidbrain]

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by disownedsky
it is impossible to rule out a hoax.

No not impossible at all once you take a very close look at the three photos in question.

You admited there is no data = Red Flag

There are two tones of blue one light one dark= Red Flag,

Tree tops and edges clipped off with straight flat edges= Red Flag.

In one photo around the object (the middle one as I recall), the sky is bumpy/not flat as the sky is where the tone of blue is darker = red flag.


I mean how many flags do you need?



[edit on 6/25/2007 by shots]

I'm not sure I understand. the flat trees are because about a 1/2 inch section of the photo, (just around the object in question) was blown up and pasted beside it. which is why there is an arrow drawn from the blown-up portion to where the object actually sits in the photo. In the actual photo I can see no discoloration or hard pixelization around the object or in the sky that differs from the rest of the image. I work in photoshop everyday and am familiar with tricks of the trade. I cannot make a conclusion from the photos posted on the site. I'd like to find a little higher res or the original images, before the portion was enlarged.

edit: to demonstrate my explanation of flat trees/specks/discolorization



[edit on 25-6-2007 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by disownedsky
it is impossible to rule out a hoax.

No not impossible at all once you take a very close look at the three photos in question.

You admited there is no data = Red Flag

There are two tones of blue one light one dark= Red Flag,

Tree tops and edges clipped off with straight flat edges= Red Flag.

In one photo around the object (the middle one as I recall), the sky is bumpy/not flat as the sky is where the tone of blue is darker = red flag.


I mean how many flags do you need?

The Sky itself is many tones of blue.

Tree tops are clipped? where? the only clippings i see is from the zoomed in portion.

I'm not saying it's not a hoax, i'm just simply trying to understand your input, but fail to see what you see.

@ shots

I see no hard evidence of photoshopping either.

The straight lines are caused by the enlarged inlays that were pasted onto the pictures.

Also, I don't see any abnormalities in the pixels around the object either. Quite normal for medium .jpg compression, imo. Especially if it had been compressed more than once. (First by the original owner, then by the website it was posted on)

I am quite certain that this is an actual picture of an object, but whether that object is as it is presented (possible ufo) is another story. Could be a boomerang shaped object suspended or thrown into the air, or somehow an actual object in the air through other means. Still uncertain of whether it is flying under its own control though, although I think it is doubtful.

Interesting none the less.

It looks inflatable. Yellow is a common high-visibility color (Regulations?) for weather balloons. Not necessarily metallic, but shiny, also possibly indicating a kind of inflated plastic. Not a standard, aerodynamic flying wing shape.



Interesting. Hey, it could be aliens from Mars, although I wonder if it might be some kind of experimental high-atmospheric surveillance thing some government contractor is working on.

Such is the value of photographs. Inherently limited.

Originally posted by tyranny22
edit: to demonstrate my explanation of flat trees/specks/discolorization

OK I can see wht you are getting at now. you had me confused but your example explained it better then your wording.

Originally posted by shots

Take a very close look at the photos in question again. They have been Photoschooped. =

FAKED

you can clearly see two tones of blue where they merge.

Middle photo cuts off edge of trees on left wee straight eddges, same with bottom photo. Top photo notice the vast mqajority of the sky is flat but not the area around the object it has what appear to be lumps bumbps where the blue is lighter.

Move on nothing to see here other then fakery that is.

LOL

Shots what did you do, look at the pictures for 10 milliseconds and hit the reply button before you even had a chance to use your mind or rational thinking? This type of blind posting shouldn't be allowed on ATS.

That said, yes the photo actually was edited, but on purpose. They magnified the UFO and pasted it onto the original picture. This is why there is no EXIF data.

Conclusion:
The military themselves said that anything V shaped or boomerang shaped or wing shaped is most probably 99.9% man made. So, this is man made, and I lost interest.

i agree this is completely real, aliens have been flinging 2 frozen hotdogs entwined together with a magnetic propelling system, sending them through the sky since '93 atleast.. by my understanding... i get all my info from my cat, who is an alien grey in disguise, unfortunately he only spills the info when he's been hitting the catnip too much(so sometimes it's a lil... 'out there' ) good to see ones been videotaped!!! i'll tell him about it a.s.a.p.

-meeeooowwww.