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: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoobieDoobieDo
The image is called " NewebaystuffandUFO001.jpg"

Where is the new ebay stuff ? Perhaps the new ebay stuff is that remote control looking airplane which is fairly close to the ground.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by NoobieDoobieDo]



I presume there was ebay pictures or something on the camera as well, and the folder it was in just named all the pics to that. I don't think ebay has anything todo with this picture :p




posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by apex
Considering that he's only just made that photobucket account or never used it before though, gives a bit of credit to the idea of him only just starting that account. And I'd have thought, if he was a previously banned member, that they would have noticed, about 5 days after he got his new account. And anyway, he might not be very good at making up a screen name, I'm terrible at it.


Yeah, I more than likely am barking way up the wrong tree here, I have before (LOL). Just curious more than anything- leave no stone unturned eh?




posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllSeeingI
I believe this is another photo-shopped hoax. I took the image and zoomed in on the target. Then I reduced the brightness and saw speckles surrounding the object which are not present in the surrounding air.


I sometimes think that ATS members are too quick to call a hoax.

This is a common occurance with digital cameras. When the images is recorded, the jpg format tries to reduce the image size as much as possible. It uses a method of encoding which tries to duplicate as many colors as possible. When colors change during recording pixelization often occurs for compression reasons. The only way to avoid pixelization this day and age is to use a film camera and develope the film.

If you do the same thing to another part of the image which changes color drastically, you'll find the same thing occurs. I've posted an example below.



Though, I'm still in the category that beleives this to be a B2. I think the "abnormal" wing on the UFO is simply another blemish created by the pixelization.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Here's another example that was posted earlier in the thread:



Like, I said ... the only way you're going to avaoid pixelization is to buy an film camera, or a professional digital camera.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I have not been able to get the original photo download due to my crummy internet connection. Based on what has been posted.

Seems the Exif is a bit incomplete if it is the original photo. Seems a bit too much if it is not.


Digital Review
Max resolution 2592 x 1944
Low resolution 2048 x 1536, 1600 x 1200, 640 x 480
Sensor size 1/2.5 "
Metering Evaluative, Center Weighted, Spot
Uncompressed format No
Compressed format JPEG (EXIF 2.2)


I don't see a 1024 format or a matrix metering.




[edit on 7/23/2007 by roadgravel]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Well funny how some things in life can be a coincidence then eh? You are not Zabilgy, but both of you are from Massachusetts. And you happen to be a collector of shoes and going to sell some on Ebay. Then a user on Ebay with the name of Zabilgy is selli ng shoes to. Crazy world we life in



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Crazy, indeed!


Zabilgy didn't know how to post pictures either...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Zabilgy
How do I post a picture on here if its not from a URL??


Also, Zabiligy spent time in Sedona, where Excitable Boy now lives...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Zabilgy
I was recently in Sedona, Arizona and read in a local paper that several citizens claimed to have seen Bin Laden at a church built in the rocks in part of the town.


Another reference to Sedona:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Zabilgy
The rock he speaks of in the article reminds me of the Vortexes located in Sedona, Arizona


So many coincidences... :shk:



[edit on 23-7-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Tyranny22

I thought for some reason I had covered this a while back:

I sometimes think that ATS members are too quick to call a hoax.

"This is a common occurance with digital cameras. When the images is recorded, the jpg format tries to reduce the image size as much as possible. It uses a method of encoding which tries to duplicate as many colors as possible. When colors change during recording pixelization often occurs for compression reasons. The only way to avoid pixelization this day and age is to use a film camera and develope the film."

If you used a film camera you would still have to scan the neg or print to upload it to this site and the result would still have pixilation artifacts would it not?

Now...Though I'm guilty of riding the hoax wagon for a while, it would seem to me that we are seeing the birth of a conspiricy in action; the OP posts a pic of what he believes is a ufo and wham! He has photoshopped it, it's his friend in the back yard tossing stuff in the air, he was banned on photobucket two years ago, he omly got one pic and no video....I'm not pointing fingers or trying to be rude, it just looks like a mini version of the whole 9/11 was an inside job. Naybe we are a little to quick to call hoax but then again maybe that's the nature of the forum.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
In my opinion the image has been resized for sure. It shows the typical scaline artifacts on the horizontal lines, look at the house walls and in particular under the scale. So the author lies or he made some mistake transferring the image from the digital camera. It seems to me the image it's 1/2 size.

And why the author still insists that the object was over the house? If the object was over the house it was a toy-size ufo.....

[edit on 23-7-2007 by mystr]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Having seen the B-2 in real life, that shape (in my opinion) does not lend weight to the object being a B-2 bomber.

When the aircraft banks, the trailing edge does not create a visual appearance as seen in that photo. It is far too uneven and distorted, lending weight to a kite, or "other" object.

Here are a few snaps at distance:





Source of images: All credit to www.orbwar.com...

Due to the sheer size of the bomber and taking distance into account, the mass of that distorted wing does not correlate with a B-2.


Originally posted by NoobieDoobieDo
The image is called " NewebaystuffandUFO001.jpg"

Where is the new ebay stuff ? Perhaps the new ebay stuff is that remote control looking airplane which is fairly close to the ground.


Your choice of name for this picture is interesting, considering Zabilgy's interest in eBay...

Also, your comment that is just disappeared could be explained by the sheer shape of the craft becoming lost in glare from the sun.

I really think people should refrain from considering the potential electrogravitic properties of the B-2 as theorised to be a case for VTOL capabilities and the case for this sighting. This again, is a theory, one which I happened to promote heavily back in the 1990s in the early days of ATS, but to this day is still nothing more than a theory.

The weight towards a model aircraft is also quite interesting as the bulky shape of these RC planes could account for the shape of the wing where a motor could be mounted.

Let's see how our OP responds to our queries so far without repeating all our comments.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by SimonGray]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by yuefo
The kite pictures got me to wondering if there was anything with a stronger resemblance. This I believe is radio controlled.



full pic: koti.mbnet.fi...
website: koti.mbnet.fi...


Hey yuefo, I would have to agree with you here, I am a student pilot and I fly model airplanes, the resemblance between the object in the photo and a b-2 is almost unmistacable.. The reason why i think it is an RC model is because they are powered by 2 ducted fans. which would give off no chem trail, also the battery charge last for about 10 minutes which is the amount of time to OP said it was around for, and as far as hovering, it can be easily done with a model rc, just Pitch up at the right agle, adjust your power and point the craft towards the wind. A strong head wind + pitch + proper power setting will make the plane hover like a shopper.

p.s. I have almost sucessfully done a hover at 3000 feet in a real Cessna 172 so it is posible.

Just my 2 cents

30 dollar (ready to fly) RC B2 i might pick one up and recreate the image

edit to add:

could also be one of these rc planes

Admin edit: Tidied up post, no need for double-spacing sentences.


[edit on 23-7-2007 by SimonGray]


sorry about that Simon, old habits die hard, I usually have to double space everything for school.




Originally posted by SimonGray
Due to the sheer size of the bomber and taking distance into account, the mass of that distorted wing does not correlate with a B-2.


I would have to agree with you there, A real B-2 is way to perfectly symmetrical and even banking at a distance will not make it look like it does in the picture. I believe the photo is genuine and we are dealing either with a RC plane, a kite or some new military toy.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by Clandestino]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Good picture . Looks too small to be a large aircraft ..
Maybe a flying model . It's just that it appears to be close but small .

edit -
After looking at it a little closer , it could also be a bird .

[edit on 23-7-2007 by gen.disaray]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by minkmouse
If you used a film camera you would still have to scan the neg or print to upload it to this site and the result would still have pixilation artifacts would it not?


More than likely if you wanted it at a decent downloadable size, but not necessarily. You could save the image at 300 dpi and upload it, but that would eat up a large bandwidth and take quite a long time to download. This is the method I would use were I trying to provide quality pics. Also, this method would require some sort of decent software.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue this is or is not a hoax. Simply stating a fact. I think the members here are great at eliminating bogus info. After all, isn't that what we're all after ... undenyable proof? I applaud you and other members for all the effort you put forth. I've just seen this pixelization excuse used way too many times when there actually was no photographic proof of tampering. But, on the other hand, it's been used to debunk countless threads. In this case though, it's my opinion that the photo, hoax or not, has not been photoshopped. I think it's either a B2, a kite, or some other object.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllSeeingI
Speckles occur naturally when zooming in on photos.


I have a camera of the same generation as his and so I can vouch for the pixelation..

5MP CCD, with that lense and the focal points not being the sky, that part of the sky looks like a highlight, meaning any object that the camera wants to capture there, would have pixelation around it. Paticularly that Canon, (no offense...) Mine has a worse effect, anything with a highlight around it, if it's like, it's edges turn pure white (255,255,255) and have a purple glimmer.

My question is, why weren't you taking a picture of it, why your sister's yard, and if you had a camera on hand and ready to use, why did your sister go look for one?



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimonGray

Originally posted by NoobieDoobieDo
The image is called " NewebaystuffandUFO001.jpg"

Where is the new ebay stuff ? Perhaps the new ebay stuff is that remote control looking airplane which is fairly close to the ground.


Your choice of name for this picture is interesting, considering Zabilgy's interest in eBay...

[edit on 23-7-2007 by SimonGray]


That's a Microsoft Windows photo extractor program thing...mine are all like that. If I have 400 photographs on my camera, I name the folder to extract it to something like "SantaCruzHaightAshburyComputershopping" or something...that was a horrible example but, point is, all of my photos would be names "Santacruzhaightashburycomputershopping001...Santacruzhaightashburycomputershopping002..."

So I would assume that he just had photos for ebay on his camera, as well as the UFO, so when putting it onto his desktop computer, like any other consumer, he would just name it that.

Edit: Shoot...sorry for double post!


[edit on 23-7-2007 by Vinci]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy



Was this what you saw mate? i wrote a reply back up the page but it seems to have been skipped over.



Hi there. I can't open the image from that thread? I didn't see any lights on the object I saw if that helps.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by Excitable_Boy]


Click on the external image link, im quite certain what i saw and what you saw are the same thing. the picture is of a craft that a guy in bosten saw and i linked it off the NUFORC website. i explain about the bar under the craft and he does the same thing some years later.

Guys this thing is real, ive seen it myself and it does move very very fast id put money on this being man made (possible reversed engineering). its the B-2 boomer but changed and updated....i was no more than 100ft away from it and this is what it is. This is NO HAOX!!

Matt



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
3 questions:


  1. Why is there only 1 image? Are there more?
  2. Why 1024 by 768? I don't think this is native resolution of your camera - can we see the full size image?
  3. Can you go into Google Earth (or use a compass) and determine the direction you were looking in at the time?



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
For the time being, I vote B-2 kite or B-2 RC Model Airplane (at least as likely as a hovering B-2 or, less so, A UFO). Both the kite and the RC are actually quite realistic in shape, particularly from a distance - and with no way to determine apparent scale or linear data from the photo it's kind of hard to say.

A B-2 Kite:


A B-2 RC Plane:


No reflection at all on the OP - the person taking the photo may have had no idea, I give him complete benefit of the doubt, and we certainly welcome the opportunity to view any such anomalous observations. Just 'sayin...

Actually, before the enlargement, the original pic kind of looked like the alien ships form the original War of the Worlds flick. Oh well...

Thanks for posting - and keep looking up!



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Well, I do have to say that having been to Sedona I can confirm that it is a UFO hotspot and the locals will tell you that. Either way I hope the the OP is being honest, time will tell. With this last poster claiming to have seen the same thing does make it seem a little strange. Unless the liars are out in full force today.
I hope not



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
well its not the best UFO pic iv seen

it could be a huge bird with a damaged wing

could be a old kite

or it could be a damaged UFO

or you simply faked it

cant tell since its so small in the pic




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join