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: 15
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:41 AM
link   
To answer your question, I'm here, and keep coming back, because I want to flush out all the bs.

Let's try this again, and see if you can bs your way out of this.

1) From where did you come out of the house to snap the pic?

2) Is the house in the pic your sisters house?

3) Can you provide another pic of the house, specifically your exit point just before you snapped your pic?

IF you can provide a pic of your exit point, and it's anywhere close to where you snapped your pic, then I'll eat my words. Until then, you are nothing more than a below average hoaxer. Put your money where your mouth is, I dare you.

You see, what you cannot address, is the fact that you have a pic of a UFO, with you out in the middle of the back yard. Anyone here would have been snapping pictures the very second the object was in view. You have one pic, and took your time to go out in the yard, further away from the object, and are only able to take one pic. That may work for some crappy TV program, but you chose to bring it here. So, back it up, or just admit you've been busted.




posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by andyzero1234

That is exactly what I thought when I saw this: "reminds me of that seagull picture." The first thing that pops into my head when I see this picture is that this is simply a small bird swooping down past the camera.
.....I just don't understand why people feel the need to waste 14 pages on this crappy picture.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by andyzero1234]


lol, I was just thinking the same thing. Personaly I think this photo looks like a military aircraft and it makes me think a lot when the person posting it keeps worrying about getting money for it or getting all the credit for the pic.

-fm



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by RygelUK
Is the original image still on the memory card of the camera?

Would you be willing to provide that to a researcher as irrefutable proof, something that would carry much more weight than an image stored on a computer and emailed?

This, in my opinion would cut out the arguments of whether it is a modified image or not.


I asked about this issue of the credibility of a photo being enhanced by being able to produce the memory card. I think it was Psyop that explained images can be uploaded into the camera, so it doesn't prove much.

I always like to take the opportunity in instances like this to remind people hoping to capture images of ufos that videos are superior to stills.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   


1) From where did you come out of the house to snap the pic?



This question has already been answered.



2) Is the house in the pic your sisters house?



This question has already been answered. In fact, IT'S PART OF THE TITLE OF THE THREAD!



3) Can you provide another pic of the house, specifically your exit point just before you snapped your pic?



This question has already been answered.




IF you can provide a pic of your exit point, and it's anywhere close to where you snapped your pic, then I'll eat my words. Until then, you are nothing more than a below average hoaxer. Put your money where your mouth is, I dare you.



Are you purposely trying to be redundant or do you have some sort of affliction? There was no exit point as I WAS ALREADY OUTSIDE WHEN I FIRST SAW THE CRAFT! Did you read this thread? Did you read the answers to the same questions you keep asking over and over and over and over again?

Put my money where my mouth is?
You dare me? Are we on a playground here? Why don't you double dare me? Actually, why don't you try this (as I have already suggested twice): ASK NEW QUSTIONS!!

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
In my opinion, there is no proof that this is a hoax. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt unless there is strong evidence that proves their guilt. I have no belief one way or another with respect to the object in the photograph, however I cannot leap to the conclusion that someone is perpetrating a hoax.

I have seen other photographs and video recordings criticized for not being stable or for being too dark. This one is being criticized for not being taken in a haphazard, hurried fashion, and at times for being too bright. I suspect that if someone were to post a stable, high resolution, tripod photograph of an object that was taken under perfect lighting conditions, some would criticize it based on how unlikely such an ideal photographic capture seems to them. People are making assumptions based on what they feel they would do in someone's shoes. Someone stated that (even though the OP stated they were already outside when the object appeared) they would not run outside to get a better, more stable shot of the object; that they would take the shot from a doorway as soon as they could. I respect that decision, but that isn’t what I would do. I would go outside, place a good camera on a tripod or other stable surface, and hope that the object remained stationary long enough to get a quality photograph. Not everyone acts the same way in the same situation, nor can they be expected to.

To clarify, I am not defending the OP's claims. Nor am I saying that the OP has presented a photograph of an exotic craft or phenomenon of some kind. If I'm defending anything, it is the present neutrality and unknown quantity that is the truth. No one here can say with certainty that this is a hoax except the OP, or, perhaps, those analyzing the photographic evidence for the OP. Until one of them does so, it is premature to label this a hoax - even if that's what it turns out to be - in my humble opinion.

I saw someone say that they refuse to trust such claims or give them the benefit of the doubt, because they are determined not to be a sucker. While I respect that and find it a worthy goal, no one should feel like a "sucker" for giving this person the benefit of the doubt in my opinion, because doing so isn't the same as saying "I believed this person." It simply amounts to saying, "I believed that this person might have been telling the truth, while also allowing for the possibility that this was a hoax." That's what I choose to do, because that is all I feel the evidence warrants. The evidence suggests two possibilities, and proves neither at this juncture in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by knows_but_doesnt
To answer your question, I'm here, and keep coming back, because I want to flush out all the bs.

Let's try this again, and see if you can bs your way out of this.



Actually, you are in violation to the T&C of this board. To say to the poster that you want them to "try and bs their way out of this" is insulting to the poster and the people that read this board for facts. You don't know that this is BS. In fact you haven't read his previous responses. Which leads me to ask you this----Why are you really here? Instigating and insulting is the only answer that fits. Your "bs" shouldn't be tolerated so much by the MODS and the poster shouldn't feel obligated to answer another one of your redundant questions. You are posting clutter when you repeat questions that are already answered. You can do better.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by yuefo

I asked about this issue of the credibility of a photo being enhanced by being able to produce the memory card. I think it was Psyop that explained images can be uploaded into the camera, so it doesn't prove much.

I always like to take the opportunity in instances like this to remind people hoping to capture images of ufos that videos are superior to stills.


Thanks for that reply, I didn't think about the uploading issue, I guess the only way round this is to use a film camera. I suppose video could, in theory, be doctored the same way - get a really good High Def monitor/tv in as large a screen as possible, make a small CGI movie, then film it from the comfort of your armchair. Just a thought, it might not work due to refresh rates and stuff, maybe someone can give it a go....


I'm still of the opinion that the OP has photographed some form of stealth aircraft, and no, not one with alien antigrav tech in it. But then again, isn't a machine capable of flight using antigravity in the first place? Also known as a wing lifting surface?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Has this been forgotten by the experts or how long will it take to get the results back? I believe the poster has done his best to maintain a good attitude toward his fellow ATSers that attack him and repeat questions. I believe we all deserve a review of the finding by the experts as well. When will this happen?



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   


Has this been forgotten by the experts or how long will it take to get the results back


Hey CW. We will have to wait as long as it takes. These people are very busy. I thought it would be quicker, but it is what it is.

Peace!



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I honestly don't think we should give anyone "the benefit of the doubt". I'm not trying to be rude but by giving them the benefit of the doubt, you're automatically leaning toward the object as being a UFO and real. If you're already leaning in that direction, your opinion has already been skewed.

Everyone should be skeptical so ONLY the truth is found out. Eye witness testimonies are notoriously inaccurate with even the most well meaning of individuals so it's very hard to give that type of testimony in general, much weight.

The photograph, although interesting, could be anything. So at best the photo will be inconclusive or a terrestrial craft, no matter who analyzes it. Nobody with any respectable credentials is going to say, "based on this photo, I believe ET flew this ship over your house".

My point is, no matter what, it's not going to be classified as an alien craft.

I myself have used a few different programs to analyze the photo and believe one of 2 things:
1. It's an overlay insert into the background.
2. A small object close to the house.

I do find the pixelation around the craft to be anomalous when compared with pixelation around other objects but found nothing conclusive about the different type of pixelation.

Anyway, I think at this point, the "experts" aren't impressed enough to take time and look at the photo. If at first glance the "experts" thought there was something significant, they would give it priority.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The photograph, although interesting, could be anything.

That's right and until it can be identified, then technically, it is a UFO.



I myself have used a few different programs to analyze the photo and believe one of 2 things:
1. It's an overlay insert into the background.
2. A small object close to the house.

So, after your analysis, you still can't identify it, therefore, it is technically a UFO.



Anyway, I think at this point, the "experts" aren't impressed enough to take time and look at the photo. If at first glance the "experts" thought there was something significant, they would give it priority.

You know this, how? Why don't you email the 'experts' before you make this statement and see if that's what they are really thinking.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Yes,
The object is technically unidentified however, EVERYONE knows when you say UFO most people are thinking ET craft not some unidentified RC hobby flyer.

Again, if the experts thought they had an actual ET craft, do you really think they would set it aside. Of course they wouldn't. It would be the most monumental discovery of our time. They wouldn't set it aside to go get a HOT POCKET. This is just logical.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Tezzajw..thanks for your input.




The object is technically unidentified however, EVERYONE knows when you say UFO most people are thinking ET craft not some unidentified RC hobby flyer.

Again, if the experts thought they had an actual ET craft, do you really think they would set it aside. Of course they wouldn't. It would be the most monumental discovery of our time. They wouldn't set it aside to go get a HOT POCKET. This is just logical.



If the object is flying and is not identified, then it is a UFO by definition. Most people on this site understand the difference between a UFO and a true alien space craft (an alien craft is a UFO, but a UFO is not necessarily an alien space craft...that is logic). I don't think you even need to explain this to 99% of the people on here. It could be one of ours, but if not identified, it's a UFO.

If this is truly a photo of an ET craft, would it be that monumental? There are many more out there. This wouldn't be the first. And I understand that it certainly isn't the best picture ever taken of one either.

I don't think the experts on this site asked me for what they did so they could look at it again and then blow it off. I certainly don't think they are eating Hot Pockets. I think their work deserves much more respect than this!

[edit on 8-8-2007 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
even when we have a CLEAR and high res pic we still cant find a proof that its an ALIEN craft....its true....and sick
but i give this
60% alein craft
30% expermental human aircraft
10% other psobilities



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

If the object is flying and is not identified, then it is a UFO by definition.

Yes, I already said that.


Most people on this site understand the difference between a UFO and a true alien space craft (an alien craft is a UFO, but a UFO is not necessarily an alien space craft...that is logic). I don't think you even need to explain this to 99% of the people on here. It could one of ours, but if not identified, it's a UFO.

Again, the term UFO gives the implication of extra terrestrial origin and you know it.



If this is truly a photo of an ET craft, would it be that monumental? There are many more out there. This wouldn't be the first. And I understand that it certainly isn't the best picture ever taken of one either.

So you're saying there are photos of PROVEN ET crafts. Where? Why isn't it all over the news of PROVEN ET crafts. They may be UFO but not proven ET crafts. And this photo is DEFINITELY NOT AN ET CRAFT.


I don't think the experts on this site asked me for what they did so they could look at it again and then blow it off. I certainly don't think they are eating Hot Pockets. I think their work deserves much more respect than th

I in NO WAY have disrespected ANYONE. Whats wrong with eating a HOT POCKET?? They're good !
Why would you imply that the "experts" wouldn't want to eat hot pockets???

And again, if they KNEW they had a PROVEN photo of an ET craft, yes it would be monumental as definitive proof of an ET has NEVER happened ANYWHERE. It would change the world as we know it.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
And just so you know, I do believe ET's exist so don't tell me, "I'm one of those" who doesn't believe.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes, the object is technically unidentified however, EVERYONE knows when you say UFO most people are thinking ET craft not some unidentified RC hobby flyer.

Excitable Boy posted that he has a picture of a UFO. Where did he write that he has a picture of an ET craft? He wanted to know what the object in the picture could be, what's wrong with that?



Again, if the experts thought they had an actual ET craft, do you really think they would set it aside. Of course they wouldn't. It would be the most monumental discovery of our time. They wouldn't set it aside to go get a HOT POCKET. This is just logical.

Do you know how the experts operate? Have you sent them a U2U to ask for a progress report? You presume far too much. How would the experts know that they have an ET craft unless they perform their analysis on the picture?

You're tripping over your own argument, jfj123. It's a picture of a UFO. If it was an ET craft, then it would be an IFO, as we would be able to identify it as being an ET craft. While no one can yet positively identify it, it will still be a picture of a UFO.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   


Again, the term UFO gives the implication of extra terrestrial origin and you know it.


Perhaps to the average human being, but certainly not to the average person on this site! I have never implied or stated that this craft was an extra-terrestrial craft. I am of the opinion that it is more likely one of our own. But, I do not know for sure. This is why I brought it here and this is why it is in the hands of experts both here and at UFO Magazine.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
[qoute]Perhaps to the average human being, but certainly not to the average person on this site! I have never implied or stated that this craft was an extra-terrestrial craft. I am of the opinion that it is more likely one of our own. But, I do not know for sure. This is why I brought it here and this is why it is in the hands of experts both here and at UFO Magazine.

So are you implying that people on this site are??? smarter then average people?? I don't quite understand the statement so I was looking for clarification.

So, what to they investigate at UFO magazine? EXTRA TERRESTRIALS, paranormal...

So if you sent in your photo of a UFO to UFO magazine, the implication is that UFO means ET in this case.

You yourself don't think it's of ET origin so why send it to a magazine that deals with ET's??



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Again, the term UFO gives the implication of extra terrestrial origin and you know it.

You have to put this in to context.

The average person out on the street would associate the term 'UFO' with the term 'alien' or 'ET', as the average person on the street has no real carefactor for the subject.

However, the ATS membership are more educated with regards to what constitutes a UFO, as opposed to what constitutes an alien vehicle, or aliens themselves.

So, in this forum, it is not implied that a UFO has to be of ET origin.

There are many pictures of UFOs that will always be UFOs. If they can ever be identified as ET craft, then they will no longer be UFOs, they'll be IFOs.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join