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.

 

UFO Close up!

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
The second photo from the airline pilot does not have any EXIF data whatsoever. This indicates that someone probably stripped it out (intentionally or unintentionally) while getting the image ready for the website.

IMHO, it looks exactly like a lenticular cloud, but the radiant luminosity is perplexing.




posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by closettrekkie
I thought the first photo looked like an upside-down coffee cup on a saucer on top of a gas burner. Look and you can even see the handle poking to the upper right-hand corner.

The 2nd photo looks a little more likely, yet it just doesn't look right for some reason.


Hehe, not so sure about the gas burner thing, you can see skies in the backround and some cloud details. I'm no expert on photography or anything but i think it still hold some merit this picture.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smugallo
I'm no expert on photography or anything but i think it still hold some merit this picture.

I don't want to sound oppositional, but the merit of this image is starting to deteriorate.


Originally posted by damajikninja
Now that I've looked at those EXIF tags a little bit, I have found a glaring problem...

The picture was taken with a Canon PowerShot A700 - which was not around in 1991 when this picture was allegedly taken. Not to mention that the EXIF data says the picture was taken in 2006, which is the same year this camera was released.
HOAX?

This is either a picture of a picture and therefore worthless, or an obvious hoax.

The EXIF data does contain information about zoom, focal length, etc., so we should have a much better idea about what the camera was pointed at soon. We just need the help of someone who knows how to translate that data.

Where are our EXIF experts? Quit Lurking!


You did a good job by finding the image and bringing it to ATS for analysis; it is a very interesting shot!
However, after preliminary investigation, it looks as though this one could end up as debunked. For the record, I should point out that the OP certainly wouldn't be the one responsible it if does turn out to be a hoax.

Let's just see what we can learn from the EXIF data (since its the only data we have besides an eyewitness account).

[edit on 7/27/2007 by damajikninja]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
It's more than likely to be a picture of a picture then because this image has been around for a long time, i'm pretty sure i had seen it before in a paranormal book i had when i was younger and if you check back to the beginning of the thread there are other members who confirm this.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Oh and just so i know, can any one clear up a thing or two for me, i'm not sure what EXIF data is, or anything about it can anyone explain this to me


many thanks



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
If the data says this photo is from 2006 then It must be a photo of a photo. I saw this years ago, probably mid-nineties. I was wondering though, if we were looking at the original photo what more could we tell from it other than what we see in the copy? I imagine it would have been investigated at the time by the "experts" (whoever they were) and I think the photographer would have been checked out too and presumed honest before the story & pic were published.

[edit on 27-7-2007 by wigit]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
It's an extremly well know photograph, it was taken in a town about 4-5 miles away from where i am currently staying and was just about the same time as a boom in UFO activity in another nearby village called 'Bonnybridge'

If anyone wants to try and dig up more information by themselves then looks up 'Grangemouth UFO' and we'll see what we can come up with.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
If you took a picture of an object emitting bright light like that, would you be able to pick up the stars near the object in the background?



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
If you took a picture of an object emitting bright light like that, would you be able to pick up the stars near the object in the background?


It isn't eminating too much light though, it seems to be contained within some sort of structure, and the areas where you can visibly see the stars, there is not a lot of luminosity.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
If you took a picture of an object emitting bright light like that, would you be able to pick up the stars near the object in the background?


No. As we've seen in the moon photos, the light reflected from the ground overwhelms the camera's ability to photograph the relatively dim stars.

Perhaps if the original "witness" had not tried to make the photo more "real" by including "stars", I might be more open to this not being the work of a hoaxer.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smugallo
It isn't eminating too much light though, it seems to be contained within some sort of structure, and the areas where you can visibly see the stars, there is not a lot of luminosity.


I doesn't matter where in the photo the bright light is. The light would overwhelm the lens's ability to detect stars.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I'm no expert not by a long shot but i still do not think there is enough light there to glare over the stars in the backround, you can see that from looking at the photograph, and it was taken at a time when there was no affordable CGI there was only practical way to hoax, and even if it is a 'practical' hoax using material objects then the stars according to you, would still not be visible.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky
Interesting, but as usual, where is the original image, and why is there only one? As usual, the investigators don't seem to understand what evidence is. So that's another potentially good case lost due to a poor investigation.


Sadly, I was going to say the same thing. I hate turning skeptic, but you've always got to be objective with such stories. I hope this would turn out to be real, but 16 years after the picture was taken, the outlook is bleak, at best.

Photoshop was indeed around back in '91, though it was still in it's infancy at verion 1.0 and not nearly as functionable as the latest version, CS2 which is version 10. But a good photographer can do wonders in a darkroom.

Good grab, though. I'd never seen the pic before. Another reason why I can't get enough ATS.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Good grab, though. I'd never seen the pic before. Another reason why I can't get enough ATS.


yup! gotta love the ATS by daily dose of sanity



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
If you took a picture of an object emitting bright light like that, would you be able to pick up the stars near the object in the background?
You probably wouldn't but we're talking alien craft here. We know basically nothing about how they work. We don't know if they're stars but they could be, maybe they're something else entirely. Maybe the light from the craft is contained in it's own "bubble" of sorts. IF it's a genuine UFO (I think it is) then we should expect there are unknown rules regarding how the light should behave. I've heard stories of folk shining torches at UFOs and the light, instead of hitting the object, has bent around it.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Wigit,


Originally posted by Smugallo
I'm no expert not by a long shot but i still do not think there is enough light there to glare over the stars in the backround... even if it is a 'practical' hoax using material objects then the stars according to you, would still not be visible.


The thing is that you Just. Can't. Take. a Picture. of Stars! (Unless that's all you wanna take a picture of.)

Their distant light is too dim. A seemingly equal light source -- such as the reflection of a florescent lightbulb's glow against, say, grains of white rice -- will actually be MORE easily detected by a close camera.

You need very long exposure times to photograph stars. Film is not like our eyes. We can willfully filter out (in moderate circumstances) brighter light from lesser light, but a camera can't do this. A camera can only take a picture of light and it will not care about what's in it's field of vision.

Just as a tape recorder is incapable of picking out a lone voice in a crowded room, a camera is incapable of seperating one light source from another.

The apparant brightness of the ufo would cause the camera to be unable to detect a star. But stars appear to be present on the outskirts of the photo in question.

It's hard enough to see stars when there's NO other light source. Imagine trying to view the starry sky when there's a flashlight in your eyes.

WE can't do it. So, neither can a camera.





[edit on 28-7-2007 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smugallo
Hey folks came across a link with a pretty interesting photograph which if it is genuine is a good close up of UFO, well from the underside anyways, i'll admit it doesnt give away much but it's an interesting piece anyways, it was also taken just a few miles from where i live and was quite a well known photograph in Scotland at the time.


Excellent find!! I think it is absolutely real. Look at the shape of the craft with that notch on the right side where most of the light comes from. It is the same shape as the UFOs shown in all the NASA video footage.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Wigit,


The thing is that you Just. Can't. Take. a Picture. of Stars! (Unless that's all you wanna take a picture of.)

Point taken. I don't know if they're stars. They could be anything at all. However we can't forget we don't exactly know what a UFO is. I had a sighting in 2004. At very first glance it was "half there". It looked like it was being "pasted" onto my reality from another dimension. THEN it was solid. If it was a streetlight in the photo for example, then I believe you, the stars wouldn't/couldn't show up. But with a UFO anything is possible till we know more.A few years ago I met some really freaked out folk who were stopped in their car by a black triangular craft. They described the scene and amongst all the action, said there were many "stars" hanging low in the sky and coming towards them. None of the criticism in this thread towards this picture can rule out the possibility that it's a genuine photo of a UFO in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   
I think we need and expert in to look at this one, because despite tuning sporks arguement, which is valid, it still does not take away from the fact that the image is there and there are stars visible in the backround. Tuning spork is 100% on the fact that it's a fraud photo, and like i said previously if it was faked practically with real objects then the stars would not be visible still.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
He flew to Nefoundland?

He said corona, thats an electrical effect, or aether.

An aether ball surrounding a craft with a dome.

Check what happened in Newfoundland.


Now some razzal dazzle

See how bright light can surround an aircraft.
Note too the a columnar or beam or cylinder effect might be made
from the circular electric field.

Tha a tha a thats all folks.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join