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.

 

I have a picture of a UFO flying over my sister's house

page: 13
17
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   
OP... My request for a picture of the house was to see where you came from or where there are other doors to the house. Where you stood, IF you came out of the patio door, does not make sense to me.

I'm not calling you a lier. I'm trying to make sense of this photo. A few "surrounding" photos would be nice to say the least.

What does not make sense to me, is why would you be so far out on the lawn taking pictures if you thought this was a real UFO? I for one would have been yelling at my sis through the door, with one eye on the object, and taking a picture as soon as I had camera in hand. So, if there is a door right where you stood taking the pic, then I'd believe more of your story.

Next, where are the camera phone photos you speak of? If you took any, you would have saved them, so post them up and let us look at them. Quality does not matter.




posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 05:14 AM
link   
looks like a kite to me



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   


What does not make sense to me, is why would you be so far out on the lawn taking pictures if you thought this was a real UFO? I for one would have been yelling at my sis through the door, with one eye on the object, and taking a picture as soon as I had camera in hand. So, if there is a door right where you stood taking the pic, then I'd believe more of your story.

Next, where are the camera phone photos you speak of? If you took any, you would have saved them, so post them up and let us look at them. Quality does not matter.



Unbelievable.

A. Did you read my response to your last inquiry? Whether my actions make sense to you or not isn't really the point. I have experts examining my photograph to determine what the object is. You continue to wonder why I was standing where I was.

B. Did you read through this thread? If you had, you would have noticed that I said at least 3 times that I did NOT save the pictures I attempted to take with my phone. They were useless. My phone has a VGA camera and the images I attempted to take were worthless. If they had any value whatsoever, I would have kept them.




I'm sorry that I find it questionable that his [first] wife spoke armenian and he picked it up. Most Armenians don't even speak armenian anymore, they speak a mixture armenian, russian, or farsi. But armenians living in America? I just have a hard time seeing a bunch of them walking around saying Zabilgy all the time. Give me a break people.



And this. This requires no response at all. One just needs to read it.

[edit on 29-7-2007 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I can't wait until i get a ufo picture and have to deal with all kinds of crap too = D
It'll be fun.

[edit on 29-7-2007 by T0by]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Springer, have we heard anything on that picture yet? Not rushing you, but I would really hate to see the OP get lynched, and then find out the picture was 100% real.

That we bum me right out, not to mention how the OP would feel.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I think your response to a little inquiry speaks volumes.

I'm not on trial, you and your picture is. I don't need an expert to tell me if a picture is real or not. I can spot something fishy just by looking at the whole situation. And your situation has yet to make any sense to me.

Yes, you have a picture of a UFO. Could be bird, plane, kite, or? But a real investigation behind a sighting includes asking where you were, what you were doing, why, and many more details. So, don't get so defensive. If you don't want to answer the questions or provide more details, just say so.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   


So, don't get so defensive. If you don't want to answer the questions or provide more details, just say so.



Not the least bit defensive. I answered your questions and then you ask the same ones again. If you don't like the answers, oh well. But, asking the same questions over and over again isn't going to get you new answers.

If you want new answers, ask new questions.

[edit on 29-7-2007 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by knows_but_doesnt
But a real investigation behind a sighting includes asking where you were, what you were doing, why, and many more details.

A real investigation would also require that you read and understand the entire thread.

EB already stated a few times previous to you asking him - again- that he deleted the phone-camera images, as they were useless.

I don't know how it helps your investigation to ask him the same question - again - when he has already answered it a couple of times.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:29 AM
link   
mystr,
the image was definitely resized, inside of the camera. remember it's a multi-mega-pixel camera but it's resizing the image within the camera when it saves it. this is a feature that pretty much all digital cameras have built in.


anyways, i made two pics using difference overlay of B2 and the object in question... nether of them are conclusive to say the least, because it could be a B2-shaped anything...

approaching


retreating


i used Corel Photo-Paint X3, and for the original object processing i resampled it 10X larger and then decreased the contrast to compensate for the proper lighting. This is what you need to do if you want to prevent loss of dynamic range. You should never need to increase contrast for sources that are already slammed on white or black, cos all that does is ruin the dynamic range.

the white portions of the overlays are where either of the two images doesn't line up, and the dark portions are either the object/B2 or the skys. so this method is good for detecting the difference between solid edges/shapes, as you can see.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by miguelbmx

Originally posted by Evasius
Maybe this craft would look a bit like the object in the photo (at a distance):



However there's obviously sound and motion associated with the object in the video.

Maybe the object in the photograph was on a long, slow gliding approach which would explain its hovering. Once it was closer and banked either left or right it would just seem to fly off from a stationary position. Or it was a kite and the string snapped in a gust of wind (was it windy on the day the pic was taken)?

Also, does anyone know what the object is in the above video?

i dont know what it is but i started a thread on it if you find any thing on it please post there.my thread
thanks. miguel



Did you all skip over this post? I find that video to have a very similar look to the picture ... I was definitely on the side of a B-2 at first, but the video, and the quoted explanation sounds very reasonable.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Did you all skip over this post? I find that video to have a very similar look to the picture ... I was definitely on the side of a B-2 at first, but the video, and the quoted explanation sounds very reasonable.
\

Really? I didn't skip over that post, I dismissed it. In my opinion. the B-2 is much closer to the photo in question than this aircraft. Whatever it is.




Excitable_Boy,

Since the amigos seem to be taking quite a while getting back to you/us, might you entertain the idea of sending the original, unaltered, un-resized, original camera file to me? I'd like to see the full-sized object and see if it's any clearer than the re-sized -- and, thus, possibly somewhat distorted -- PhotoBucket file.

I promise that I wont fold, spindle or mutilate it.


U2U me if yer willing.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   


Since the amigos seem to be taking quite a while getting back to you/us, might you entertain the idea of sending the original, unaltered, un-resized, original camera file to me? I'd like to see the full-sized object and see if it's any clearer than the re-sized -- and, thus, possibly somewhat distorted -- PhotoBucket file.



As they say, too many cooks spoil the soup. I'd rather wait until the experts that have it now come back with some answers. Thanks!



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   
"As they say, too many cooks spoil the soup. I'd rather wait until the experts that have it now come back with some answers. Thanks!"

Mmmmm........
I've been following this thread from the start and have tended to give the OP the benefit of the doubt whilst the jury was still out and have indeed at times admired his restraint and good grace in the face of some unjustified criticism, but his last post has made just a tadge suspicious.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
but his last post has made just a tadge suspicious.


Freeborn, I only asked for the same file that E_b sent to Skeptic Overlord. (Or was it Springer?) If he wants to wait a bit longer for the real experts to report back that's fine with me. I don't see what's "suspicious" about that.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   


I've been following this thread from the start and have tended to give the OP the benefit of the doubt whilst the jury was still out and have indeed at times admired his restraint and good grace in the face of some unjustified criticism, but his last post has made just a tadge suspicious.



Why is it suspicious? Because I decided not to do what you asked? I have known experts reviewing the real photo from my computer. I don't know you and therefore, am not comfortable with providing you with what I provided them. Is this behavior suspicious or does it just annoy you?

Let's all be patient and see what the experts have to say.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   


I've been following this thread from the start and have tended to give the OP the benefit of the doubt whilst the jury was still out and have indeed at times admired his restraint and good grace in the face of some unjustified criticism, but his last post has made just a tadge suspicious.



Why is it suspicious? Because I decided not to do what you asked? I have known experts reviewing the real photo from my computer. I don't know you and therefore, am not comfortable with providing you with what I provided them. Is this behavior suspicious or does it just annoy you?

Let's all be patient and see what the experts have to say.

Sorry EB, I didn't request the original photo, Tuning Spork and I think knows_but_doesnt did.
I wouldn't have a scooby how to look at the photo and even begin to prove anything at all


I have felt genuine sympathy for you after reading some of the responses you have received, I just felt that as it is taking some time to get any feedback from the image you have already forwarded I thought it a reasonable request from other ats'ers to request the same and wondered why you seemed reluctant; no insult intended at all.

If it's ok with those who requested a copy / original, and could actually do something with it, unlike me, then it's certainly ok with.

Apologies if I seemed out of turn.



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Sorry guys, but one photo, from the middle of the yard no less, screams "been there, done this".

When and if we ever see real, verifiable pictures, there will be a better story attached to say the least.

There is an object there, most likely a kite, bird or plane. What never added up to me is why the picture was taken from where it was, and why there was only "one" photo snapped. It's always the same story for UFO pics these days....

1) I don't have/own a camera

2) It was someone elses camera and I didn't know how to (add your favorite line on focusing, turning on, modes, etc. here)

3) I "Only had time to take...(you guessed it!) ONE PICTURE!

I saw through this one on day one. At least be more original next time. And yes, in case you can't read between the lines, I'm saying this is BS.

Have a nice hoax.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 05:00 AM
link   


I saw through this one on day one. At least be more original next time. And yes, in case you can't read between the lines, I'm saying this is BS.

Have a nice hoax.



This is why experts are examining the picture.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
What I think is interesting is that nobody is addressing the fact that the object is small.

Too small to be a plane unless it's an RC type.
Too small to be an occupied craft of any type.
Large enough to be either an RC plane or a kite.

The size is simply the most important thing to look at.

The approximate size can be determined as it falls in line with trees close to the home. Once size is determined, it's easy to determine what it is not.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy


Let's all be patient and see what the experts have to say.


Well, I believe this is sound advice. EB stick to your guns and I hope that all the negative attention doesn't stop you or others from posting their pictures. I have read your post in the past and nothing about them says that you would try to hoax.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join