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

not to be picky but the implication is that the photographed object is indeed of ET origin. How? Well it was sent to UFO magazine which is about ET's.
Thus the implication. If he didn't think of it was an ET craft, he would not have sent it to a magazine dedicated to ET's and the paranormal.

Originally posted by jfj123
not to be picky but the implication is that the photographed object is indeed of ET origin. How? Well it was sent to UFO magazine which is about ET's.

No worries, be as picky as you like. How many other magazines would want to look at the picture? Where else could he send it?

Thus the implication. If he didn't think of it was an ET craft, he would not have sent it to a magazine dedicated to ET's and the paranormal.

So he should have sent it to Women's Weekly Magazine or Better Homes and Gardens Magazine so that there would be no implication that it might be an alien vehicle? Where else is he supposed to send a picture of a UFO, other than to a UFO magazine?

What exactly isyour point?

He never claimed it was an ET space craft. He claimed it was a picture of something that he could not identify. Perhaps, by sending it the UFO magazine, some of the readers or editors might be able to identify it.

how about sending the photo to say...a photographic expert?
or airforce public relations.
or FAA
or local airport/tower controllers
Radar tower operators
or local sheriffs office
or local newspaper
or local small plane operators
or take it around to neighbors to see if they saw it. If the craft were there, some other locals would have seen it.

Did any of this happen?
or did we jump right to UFO magazine?

Originally posted by jfj123
Did any of this happen?
or did we jump right to UFO magazine?

Why shouldn't he? UFO Magazine, despite your opinion to the contrary, is NOT 'about ETs.' It is, strangely enough, about "UFOs" And, yes, ATS members, in my opinion, are more likely to use the term 'UFO' technically. In fact, we are constantly reminded by well-meaning posters that "technically, if you don't know what it is, it is a UFO.' I read that probably a hundred times a month on here. As we also read constantly here, UFOs don't prove aliens. The OP is NOT claiming aliens. He just thinks he's got a hot picture that might be worth money.

I don't think so on both counts, but I support him in trying to get a full analysis.

Why shouldn't he? UFO Magazine, despite your opinion to the contrary, is NOT 'about ETs.

Actually yes the magazine is about ET's and the paranormal.

Here are some tag lines from UFO Magazine COVERS

"Alien graffitti all around the world. What does it mean?"
"Starchild who is the baby daddy?"
"Roswell: Case solved walter haut's deathbed truth"

And on the subscription page you see a space craft with a UFO flag flying through a planetary system.

Unfortunately, sometimes there just isn't enough information in a photo or a description to make a solid identification. We try to squeeze a little bit more out of the witness with our questions, and a little bit more out of the photo with our Photoshop filters. But at the end of a long day, sometimes we just have to shrug and file the whole thing in the "I don't know" cabinet and go home.

suicidevirus,
Sounds reasonable.

Originally posted by jfj123
how about sending the photo to say...a photographic expert?
or...
Did any of this happen?
or did we jump right to UFO magazine?

Well, remember, he did send the pictures to the photographic experts here at ATS. You conveniently left that out of your list of places to send a picture to. He even posted them here for all of us to see, right? What is wrong with Excitable Boy sending the picture to a UFO magazine?
Nothing!

I would say that sending pictures to an ATS expert would be the highest priority on the list. Excitable Boy has done the right thing.

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.

How would it "change the world as we know it?"

Most intelligent people, on here especially, believe that intelligent life exists in other places in the universe and certainly that that life can be eons ahead of us in technology. So, how would a photograph of an extra-terrestrial craft "change the world?"

They ARE out there. A photograph will change nothing. What about Roswell? What about what they call "Mexico's Roswell?" What about the other incidents all over the world that have been covered up? Have these things "changed the world as we know it?" Some of the photographs out there ARE real, whether proven so or not.

The powers that be bury what they don't want the masses to know. If my photograph could change the world, I better get me a new suit!

How would it "change the world as we know it?"

Most intelligent people, on here especially, believe that intelligent life exists in other places in the universe and certainly that that life can be eons ahead of us in technology. So, how would a photograph of an extra-terrestrial craft "change the world?"

Are you kidding me?????

How would FINAL PROOF of existence of Extra Terrestrials change the world???

Well for starters, DEFINITIVE PROOF wood be the the biggest story in recorded history. That we're not alone in the universe FOR SURE.

How can you think it wouldn't change the world.

All those people who have been searching for proof would all of a sudden be validated.

Religions could/would change.

Governments would change.

Peoples core beliefs could/would change.

The SETI project would gain a new resergence.

EVERYTHING WOULD CHANGE.

--------------------------
Mod edit - fixed quote

[edit on 9/8/07 by masqua]

Without reading all the pages.. only half of them or something..

It looks IMO like a man made craft, perhaps the B2 or something similar..

Btw was the original image ever posted, at 1024x768 the picture posted seems to be resized for the web either by the author or automatically by photobucket (I wouldn't know since im not using PB).

I only read the first page too, but it's a B-2 making a left hand turn. The reason the wing looks distorted on that side is because the flaperons are open. That's how it turns. It slows the wing down on one side which pulls it in the direction they want to turn.

They also use the flaperons to slow down on landing. Here's a picture of the first B-2 flight as it lands, and you can see them open on both sides.

To give someone the benefit of the doubt does not necessarily constitute belief in their claim. The only thing it definitively constitutes is, at the very least, neutrality with regard to the validity of their claim. When I say I give someone the benefit of the doubt, I mean that I neither believe nor disbelieve their claim, and that my mind is open to either possibility as being potentially true. It means that I am unwilling to make assumptions either way. To state that giving someone the benefit of the doubt is to be non-skeptical is, in my opinion, an incorrect generalization, and speaking for me personally, is entirely inaccurate. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, yet refrain from embracing a belief in their claims. The two are not mutually exclusive. Allowing for one possibility’s potential validity does not preclude the validity of the other.

Furthermore, it is my opinion that the OP should not be held responsible for what people infer from the use of the term "UFO." Since the OP has stated that their opinion is that the object is most likely of terrestrial origin, but that they are allowing for the possibility that it is not, the OP has therefore not made statements or endorsed positions lending support to the representation of the object as extraterrestrial in nature. I feel that to infer otherwise is the sole responsibility of the reader and/or viewer, as opposed to the OP. One could easily argue that even if another term were used, some might see the image and assume that it was extraterrestrial in origin as well. The OP cannot police people's opinions or inferences and should not be required or expected to in my opinion.

Are you kidding me?????

How would FINAL PROOF of existence of Extra Terrestrials change the world???

Well for starters, DEFINITIVE PROOF wood be the the biggest story in recorded history. That we're not alone in the universe FOR SURE.

How can you think it wouldn't change the world.

The only thing that will change things is if someone finds a body (a real body of a real alien) or a live alien and shares THAT with the world. No matter how incredible ANY photograph is, it will NEVER change the world.

I could show you a photograph of a real alien and you would laugh it off as fake, as would most people. You would ask me why the lighting was lousy or too good, why there weren't more pictures from more angles, why I didn't take one of the wife with the alien, etc. If I brought that alien over your house for tea and crumpets, that would be a different story now wouldn't it?

I could park an alien craft in your driveway and you would probably laugh it off as a hoax, something I put together from a kit, a toy, a radio controlled peice of nonsense, etc. If a real alien came out of the craft and slapped you on the ass, that would be a different story correct??

You seem to put much too much value in photographs friend.

And, BTW: we are not alone in the universe. It just takes common sense to realize that.

I took a pretty good photograph of something strange that I actually saw. I blew it up and have it framed in one of my offices. I have experts checking it out to see what they think. It is quite possible that no one will ever be able to tell me what it is. But, I will always know what I saw and will always have the picture for myself, if nothing else.

DEVELOPEMENT!

jritzman chimes in!!!

Apparantly he emailed a response to Springer but Springer never got back to us.

Check it out here (5th post down):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bottom line: He thinks it's an RC model B2. Some interesting points are made.

Edit: You can click on a short video of an rc B2 in action here: www.paramountzone.com...#


[edit on 10-8-2007 by Tuning Spork]

Posted by Tezza...

"He never claimed it was an ET space craft. He claimed it was a picture of something that he could not identify."

Err, yes he does. The title of the thread is "I have a picture of a UFO flying over my sisters house"

I have asked the op some very simple questions, and he has only responded "it's already been answered".

A) He has not, cannot, or will not answer if he came though the patio door (which is MUCH closer to the object) or if he came from another door. If this has been answered somewhere, I can't find it. My bad if so.

B) If this is his sisters house, why the big deal about providing more photos of the house, lawn and surrounding area to help determine time of day, location, etc.? Is he only willing to work with "the experts"? Then why the public post, just send a U2U right?

Situations like this can easily be debunked without even looking at a photo. When people get defensive early on in a thread, to simple questions from members, and give responses like "Let the "experts" decide, that is our first clue things are not right.

I'm sorry, but I for one am of the mind set that if a person comes forth on a public site, claiming to have photographed a UFO, then sticks around and answers questions, then they should be willing to provide additional information, photos, and such to help determine what the object was. Unfortunately, for the OP, I must be asking things that may be hard, if not impossible for him to provide and still keep his story straight??

I respect the fact that ATS is a place that anyone can come and share ANYTHING. A few of you have responded in defense of the OP, which is your right to do so. It is also my right to ASK QUESTIONS. In this case, I guess I'm asking some questions that the OP is not willing to address? Instead of telling me I'm in the wrong, why don't you ask yourself why a good honest person would avoid questions regarding a UFO sighting. Then, and only then, will we filter out some of the stuff that has been a big sore on the serious UFO community.

OP, you do not need to address my post. I asked simple questions, you have done nothing but try to make ME the bad guy for asking. Case closed for me.

Originally posted by knows_but_doesnt
Posted by Tezza...

"He never claimed it was an ET space craft. He claimed it was a picture of something that he could not identify."

Err, yes he does. The title of the thread is "I have a picture of a UFO flying over my sisters house"

UFO = unidentified flying object. Excitable_Boy never claimed that it was ET, only that he could not identify it.

I have asked the op some very simple questions, and he has only responded "it's already been answered".

k_b_d, While I am a skeptic and am reasonable certain in my own mind that this is a hoax photo posted by a previously banned member, I gotta tell ya that you're questions have already been answered. Truthfully? Can't say. But they have been answered.

A) He has not, cannot, or will not answer if he came though the patio door (which is MUCH closer to the object) or if he came from another door. If this has been answered somewhere, I can't find it. My bad if so.

He said that he was in the yard taking pictures with his cellphone. His sister went into the house to fetch her camera and brought it to him. He did not enter or exit any doors during that time. Is that the truth? Can't say. But that's his story and he's stickin' to it.

B) If this is his sisters house, why the big deal about providing more photos of the house, lawn and surrounding area to help determine time of day, location, etc.? Is he only willing to work with "the experts"? Then why the public post, just send a U2U right?

The data on the photo showed that it wa snapped sometime between 5 and 6pm, EDT. He says it was on Cape Cod. He wants "the experts" to look at it because he either a) wants to know what it might have been or, b) wants to know if he can get away with claiming it was a Klingon Bird of Prey... or something.

Situations like this can easily be debunked without even looking at a photo. When people get defensive early on in a thread, to simple questions from members, and give responses like "Let the "experts" decide, that is our first clue things are not right.

I disagree. When faced with an obstinant challenger who wont read the thread and then insist that his answers have not already been addressed, I'm surprised that Excitable_Boy has given you the courtesy of any response at all in the face of your vitriol.

k_b_d, Like I said, I think that Excitable_Boy is a hoaxter, same as you think. But that doesn't mean that you or I may vociferously chastize him for not doing something that he has obviously done: Answered your questions.

Did he answer them truthfully? I dunno.


edit: html gremlin strikes again.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Tuning Spork]

jritzman chimes in!!!


Bottom line: He thinks it's an RC model B2. Some interesting points are made.

I can assure you all that that was no radio controlled model. Goes to show that even the experts can get it wrong.
1. There is no way it would be silent
2. There is no way to make it hover for 10 minutes
3. There is no way to make it take off so fast that it basically disappears

And again, I believe the object was further away in the distance than some seem to think.

I have to say thank you to Mr. Ritzman for his time, but it appears to be a quick guess at what it possibly could be (I don't think much time could have been spent really examining the image to come up with the conclusion that he did). As I said in my last post, I know what I saw and I have a picture of it. If the only thing that comes from this is my having an interesting conversation piece on my wall, then I can live with that!

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Excitable_Boy]

It's either a B-2 or an X-47 UCAV. Without seeing a bigger picture of it I can't tell for certain, but I will almost guarantee it's one or the other. Most likely a B-2, but the X-47 looks a lot like a B-2 from certain angles.

B-2:



X-47B:



The X-47B was scheduled to make its first flight in October of 2006.

I might not be an expert but one thing that I pride myself on is the ability to identify planes at long distances. I'd love to see the bigger version of this picture though, and see if I can figure out which it is.

I don't know about the X-47, but a B-2 is incredibly quiet, especially from the distance it appears to be in this picture. The head on approach could make it appear to hover, and then as it turned since it's moving away from you it would appear to take off very fast as opposed to the slow approach from the head on perspective.

[edit on 8/10/2007 by Zaphod58]

The X-47B was scheduled to make its first flight in October of 2006.

I might not be an expert but one thing that I pride myself on is the ability to identify planes at long distances. I'd love to see the bigger version of this picture though, and see if I can figure out which it is.

This plane in your picture, the X-47B, though it is a model, is the closest thing I have seen so far that looks like what I saw. I would love to see what it looks like from the front.

The picture I posted in PhotoBucket is the best I can do. Some think the image was shrunk by the camera (whatever setting it was on).

Everyone does understand that there is a tab to click on in PhotBucket to enlarge the image, correct?