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: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Bingo yuefo! Nice summary.
As far as I'm concerned this is a still photo of a blurred object (cough..kite..cough...j/k ). Nothing more. It may be a kite, a plane , or an alien aircraft. We will probably never know. But you people have got to stop slamming others for disagreeing with your opinion. Fact is not a damn one of us knows what it is and we are all playing a game of "Pictionary" with the OP.




posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
If it were a holographic image, would that account for the speckles around the craft?



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
JPEG Compression artifacts are responsible for the speckles around the object and nothing else....When the OP took the shot the camera was set to save a medium sized jpeg file at a resolution of 1024 x 768 pixels It is really, really simple. I can't fathom why that part keeps dragging itself on and on. Sorry but it is frustrating as hell to watch the obvious grt questioned over and over



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   
WTH are we still talking about this? There is no hard evidence to suggest this is the real deal. Now I believe in Roswell and the Hill case, but we don't need to continue to discuss weak crap like this.

(Thinks to self, "please God, don't let this turn into another CARET!!!")

For the love of God, or "reason" if you don't believe in Him
please don't post anymore!!!



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   
two things, and I'm not saying it's fake or real.

1. JPEG indeed compresses, but it is possible to get cameras which don't, and make a huge file, but apparently the OP did not have access to that with his camera.

2. Depending on the conditions, any plane can hover, as long as the airflow over the wings is faster than the stall speed. In fact, a bird can hover, or have you never seen a kestrel hunting near a road?
Not really hovering, but seeming to, is not difficult.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
WTH are we still talking about this? There is no hard evidence to suggest this is the real deal. Now I believe in Roswell and the Hill case, but we don't need to continue to discuss weak crap like this.


Because the Three Amigos are wondering if a banned member has been posting under a different name and is propogating a hoax.

We, at their ATS, don't look too kindly upon deliberate hoaxes. That's WTH.



[edit on 24-7-2007 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Even though my camera is not as good (something like 2.3megapixels or so) it only has two still image sizes -- 1600x1200 or 640x480. Perhaps the picture was resized for Photobucket as I know where I store some pictures I can only use up to a 800x600 resolution picture.

I just took the object as being further away from the house in the picture and also put the tree in and the chimmey also. I changed the colors also, but the tree was a little green and the chimmey was brownish. The only thing that referred me to stating that I thought it was a Harrier was that it could have just gone down also quickly and that was since the house is in the way - not seen if that is what the object is. I will just say that the cockpit looked a little squarish ( pointed - angled) as what I took to be a cockpit. Nothing was real clear but the shadows are also playing a part with the image. If it is 17.07 whatever time and the Sun is on the left side of the picture then the person that took the photo is facing North-W. The Sun is to the S-West then. If it is in the morning then the directions are the opposite.

What looks like the tail of a B2 is to me -- merely shadows from the Sun of the underneath of a normal airplane wing that either has jet engines or something underneath. I took the plane as being far enough away to not have noise.
I have seen a F-117A at an air show, and you can not hear it until it passes you as it is silent as it approaches the airshow. Also about any airplane including a F-18 is almost silent until it is right on top of you almost and passes you.

Well, whatever the picture is, it is not real clear but I took the object as being further away from the house than maybe other people are taking how far the object is away.


[edit on 24-7-2007 by AmoebaSized]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 05:05 AM
link   
OKay,

I have taken the time to use a powerful zooming and resizing program called Genuine Fractals....It looks as though nobody has used this because all I see in other posters images is blocky pixels.



this image is much clearer and you can clearly see the shape of the object.



and compare: Very distorted pixelization



I hope this helps anyone.



[edit on 24-7-2007 by IMAdamnALIEN]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildone106
WHY IS IT ALWAYS A KITE WITH YOU PEOPLE??!?!?!?!?!?!

Damn...along with the balloon conspiracy team the kite's make me laugh the most..


Yes i'am with you on that one. I don't understand this kite theory, it's like people aren't even bothered about the OP's claims, he said the objet left at a high speed (kite's don't do that) and people are bringing up explanations without taking in account the op's claims (posters probably are assuming he is not telling the truth) .
And at the moment there is no reason not to belive the OP's claims as he is open to discustion he answers the questions he as given the original photo so the experts can analyse it.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Well, I checked with "my people". We don't always think it's a kite. We just think it's a kite THIS TIME. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, a tunnel is just a tunnel and a kite is just a kite.

The size of the object in proximity to the house puts it at the size of the kite. It was stationary or almost stationary when the picture was taken so I have no evidence showing even implied speed. It would have been nice if the person took a pic as it was leaving or moving at extreme speed.

I'm not saying anyone is lying. What I am saying is, based on the only available physical evidence....KITE.

If there are other photos, video, please post.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 05:38 AM
link   
If you look clearly at the picture I have blown up, clearly its not a kite!

Kites are almost always symmetrical. Especially in a design like this, a kite would not fly right and would pull off in unpredictable directions. Unless of course your are facing directly underneath the object, you might see a notch just like the side we see here. Which unfortunately, would make it look kite-like. But that would basically be calling the OP an outright liar, and what he said happened that day he made up. IMO this is some sort of craft and what the OP said originally is most likely what happened.
A kite makes no sense at all from this angle.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by IMAdamnALIEN]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 05:55 AM
link   
If it's not a kite, its the exact size a kite would be which means noone is in it making it a remote craft. I never said the OP was a lier, I'm just telling you what the evidence shows:
a small triangular shape.
hovering almost stationary or stationary.
close to the house near the clearly visible tree behind the house.
It's very easy to see from the picture the object is close to the house making it a small object.
You can't get away from the fact that the object is too small to be a manned craft. You can deny it but it would that wouldn't make it something it's not.

I find the object interesting but based on the single photo, I don't think ET is landing behind the house.
Sorry.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   
What do people think of this?




[edit on 24-7-2007 by IMAdamnALIEN]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Just to add a little spice to the mix - Anyone remember this?

Boeing Bird of Prey Technology Demonstrator.



Check out the wings - look familiar?

The Bird of Prey was a demonstrator as far as I know there are none flying, but if its not a B2, or a Kite, maybe the Birdie laid an egg?



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
@ IMAdamnALIEN

I fail to notice the yellow on the image you posted. It also fails to appear when you flip the object over vertical. It seems that you are starting to look for things that aren't there.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   
He stated that the object disappeared. That means that he did not see it anymore and can mean about anything. The object disaapeared from his line of sight or he momentarily lost it and never regained seeing it again. That to me means that if a person ever learned how to look through a telescope, you use peripherical vision and do not move your . to pick up something that is moving instead of weaving and bobbing your . around to pick up anything in your main sight, but instead let the movement from seeing from your peripherical vision to pick up the object first then move your .. I am not saying this person who showed the object did anything wrong or that the person did anything anyone else might or might not do either, just that most people are not (in the heat of the moment) going to respond correctly unless some training by the person seeing the object took place by examining what can be done by the eyeballs. There are many bad drivers on the road because simply put those people do not take the time or want to do anything that involves a little extra work.

I think the person needs to remember exactly in more detail what he actually did, so that other people can communicate back to this person so that we all know what exactly took place. Saying like the person did about the object that it disappeared only means it disappeared from his field of view (narrow or wide) at the time.

Ever since I read a book that stated that females use a wider field of view with their eyesight than the narrow focus that men use made me think of using more of a wider field of view but not all the time of my sight from then on. It took some time to refocus my eyeballs so that I tucked my eyeball sight back in my . instead of focusing out with my eyeballs so that if I ever saw anything I wanted to communciate exactly what happened, then I was using my eyeballs with varying fields of view so that later I could recall exactly what had happened. I do admit that I still walk around in a daze like most people do because I am not weaving or bobbing or moving my . all the time like some other people seem to do, but mainly many people never weave, bob, or move their . while driving or walking. Thus the term dead-.s, and if you are seeing what you think is something extraordinary, then it is your duty to use all the brain activity a person can muster up at the time. This does not take much training by the person just knowing that you can use different modes of seeing to actually communicate the best that you can about an extraordinary event. Most people still will not, or will admit that they do that when they do not actually do that and that will be that.

Eyeballs if a person has sight can be used in many, many, many different ways. And mainly most girls still want to examine how a man is using his eyeballs because most of the time girls will be stating something about it.
Hey, I look at the overall physical form and everywhere because that is what eyeballs are for. It does not mean that I am thinking a certain way at any time as some others may state trying to get the person in trouble in some fashion.

Therefore I am not stating that this person who showed the object in the first place did anything wrong, but I just would like to examine that statement - that the object disappeared. It means exactly that the object vanished which I find hard to believe. Moving out of the line of sight seems to make me feel better than a disappearing act of the object.

All of this may actually be another reason why -- no one seems to actually know anything about UFO's anyway, because all the tools come out and proof is needed also then. The nervous activity is needed to respond quickly to something that wakes a person up for a brief period of time.

I saw variations in color and I did not pixelate the picture but sized the object bigger. Sorry, that is all the program I have unless one can provide a link to that fratual program free.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   




after watching this thread for a while my opinion is that you saw this object.

The killerbee UAV or something very very similar.





killerbee info

The downward tilt of the wing tips make for funny viewing if seen at an angle.




3:43-3:40 secs into vid is the most comparable angle to the photo
maybe noiseless because of the distance away ? this video is a very similar craft



just my humble opinion.




[edit on 24-7-2007 by Quantum_Squirrel]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
We need a Leader here. I know - I know -- it's an Eagle! (getting ready to swoop down on you)

Ah, perhaps I do not know!

dimensionalcitizen.tripod.com...

Modified UFO Photo.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I cant wait for the owner to pop back up with more info...



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   


I cant wait for the owner to pop back up with more info...



Not as much as I do!

And to the poster with the long post about eyeballs and disappearing, etc: In my initial post on here I said it took off so fast it basically disappeared. I do not think it disappeared but I think it moved so fast once it was done hovering that to the naked eye it appeared to disappear. I couldn't tell what direction it went in so that is about as close as something can get I would say to disappearing or vanishing.....

I could have taken my eye off of it for a split second possibly to blink or whatever, but I kept watching it as best as I could while I prepared to take another picture and POOF it was gone before I had a chance.

I appreciate everyone's help on here and hopefully the people that are really disecting the picture will come up with something interesting. I've never seen anything like it and probably never will again.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join