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.

 

Lawwalk's amazing photos

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
There’s a person who goes by the name of Lawwalk over at the UFO casebook forums that regularly post some absolutely amazing pictures of objects in the sky.

If you haven’t seen them yet then head over to the link provided to check them out, by the way I did a search which came up with 1 result so I’m a bit surprised that Lawwalk’s pics haven’t been discussed more regularly, or they have and I haven’t searched properly?

ufocasebook.conforums.com...

In pic 18, there’s a strange helicopter craft that I’ve never seen before, does anyone recognize it? and that's only one of an actual identifiable craft, apart from the big plane as well.

Lawwalk quotes about the strange helicopter,


I don't think this is a ufo but I thought I would post it to see if anyone else has seen one like it.It was very loud and appeared to come straight to my house and hover and then took off,I haven't seen it since.



I think there are plenty of more photos that are posted elsewhere and not in that specific thread but that’s a start.




posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Some of those pics are pretty amazing, as are some of the contrails/clouds in a few others.

I'm looking forward to hearing what the ATS Skeptics (AKA The Peanut Gallery) has to say about them.
My bet goes on 'It's Lanterns'


Good find



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Pretty mixed bag of birds, bugs, optical artifacts, astronomical objects, and such.

The twin-boom 'copter looks similar to a CarterCopter.





posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dagar

I'm looking forward to hearing what the ATS Skeptics (AKA The Peanut Gallery) has to say about them.
My bet goes on 'It's Lanterns'




instead of waiting, why don't you add your thoughts as to exactly what are in those pics, rather than just posting something that adds nothing to the discussion?

Now that being said, I didn't go view the pictures in question, as I've spent a lot time on that sight and I think that most of those are not UFO's as in the "ET" sense... there are a couple that are interesting though.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Well I know this is a B-52 Flying Fortress. Thats all the input I can give.

[edit on 8/5/2007 by Kacen]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
While i Agree a lot of those Aren't UFOs I do think they're very interesting none the less. Some of his stuff is just really pretty.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Some pretty interesting ictures, i'm actually mostly intruiged by the helicopter, can anyone say for definate what model this is?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Some of the pics are really interesting.

Too bad that he says that the Apollo 16 pic is an UFO, because it has been proven that it was a part of the ship itself.

Maybe this says that he doesn´t do the homework too well sometimes.

Sorry for my english.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
IAttackPeople thanks! Great find, there's also this website about that particular helicopter that I got another response from another forum today,

www.cartercopters.com...

They do look very similar although the black ones nose seems a bit bigger?


Black one
usera.imagecave.com...


As for the rest of the pictures I find them quite fascinating regardless if they are alien, human or natural, even the 2-page response about contrails/chemtrails from the airforce is interesting. Do the last 2 paragraphs contradict each other? hmm I'm not sure....



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dagar
I'm looking forward to hearing what the ATS Skeptics (AKA The Peanut Gallery) has to say about them.
My bet goes on 'It's Lanterns'



It's lanterns. Does that make you happy and laugh? Good for you.

What do you think some of these things are? Chemtrails? Alien spacecraft? Ghosts?

Let's hear your genius theories, backed up by your unassailable evidence and faultless logic.




posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I believe that helicopter could be a water landing capable type model, I know I've seen something similar on the net, I'll do more research when I get a chance.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
this is quite an unusual helicopter ive had my share of seeing weird air planes and helicopters but i havent really seen much of those (picture wise)
well there must have been a good reason you never saw it again it was piloted by humans because if it was alien then wouldn't they be using anti gravity? or have you checked traffic control? you could find out what it is by that



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dagar
I'm looking forward to hearing what the ATS Skeptics (AKA The Peanut Gallery) has to say about them.
My bet goes on 'It's Lanterns'

Good find


I think, IF you give it time and look around the site a bit, you may retract that statement or perhaps change "Peanut Gallery" to "Intellectual Gallery". As much as it seems people get "shot down" when they post pics or "proof" there is GOOD reason for skepticism. The main reason is #1 - Deny Ignorance, #2 - double check, #3 Do some extra work to debunk your OWN theories/ideas as to what it is/could be.

You will find that, given a chance, what seems like a debunk attack is really, from MOST of the regulars, constructive criticism. Also, if the OP, in general, does some homework on their own part there would be a feasible answer/explanation to many posts.

my $0.02


I believe whole heartedly that most of the members are very supportive and will not usually blast a poster because of their beliefs but they will try and steer the person toward the right track. Whether the poster is open minded enough to see the possibilities of what an object may be is up to the OP of said threads.

ok that was $0.05


[edit on 6/8/2007 by shearder]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   
@ shearder... Good post


My previous post on this thread was by way of partly thanking the OP for going to the effort of posting the link to pics, partly commenting on how interesting I thought some of the pics were, and partly having having a gentle (and hopefully slightly humorous) jibe at those whose immediate reaction is to scream 'fake, balloons, helicopters, lanterns, my granny's underwear caught in a gust of wind'.

I believe there is a difference between skepticism and debunking. Skepticism brings careful criticism to a situation, AFTER spending sometime analysing the situation, witnesses, evidence (material or circumstantial) and either coming to a definite conclusion based on your findings OR (in the ansence of conclusive evidence) acknowledging that, while there are other possibilities, the original premise (in this case 'I saw a UFO') remains as valid as any touted explanation.

Anything can be explained away as anything else... Just because I might say 'That looks like a bird, or a lantern, etc' does not make it so. Without actually being there there is no way that anyone can say with any certainty that their explanation is the right one.

My understanding of 'debunking' is very different to healthy skepticism. The debunker will take one look at a picture, movie, witness statement, etc, and come to an immediate decision as to an explanation (often compltely ignoring aspects of the sighting that don't fit into their pet theory). They will then shout loudly (sometimes with a scornful undertone) 'THIS IS THE EXPLANATION, CASE DISMISSED!'... All with an air of authority that implies they've been investigating the matter, out in the field, for the last 3 weeks.. lol

While I'm all for healthy and balanced skepticism, debunking (IMO) is as bad, if not worse, than those idiots who try to propagate deliberate hoaxes.

I do think this place is chock-a-block full of highly intelligent and insightful people, one reason I joined and WHY I tend to leave off on trying to explain pictures like the ones in the OP links. Others can do it so much better.


To get this post back On Topic, and in reference to the OP's pics... Quite frankly, I don't have a CLUE what most of them could be of. One of them looked remarkebly saucer-shaped, others looked like small whispy clouds, the greenlights in other pics could be ANYTHING. Without actually being there and witnessing first hand, it's almost impossible to comment. Some of the contrail pics are spectacular. What made them, and why?... Who knows! The helicopter? Before IAttackPeople posted his pic I would have said 'I don't know'. Now I would say @I don't know, but it could be a CarterCopter... maybe.

Ultimately most of them could be anything, hence the 'UFO' tag ... Notice I haven't ONCE mentioned aliens.


Anyway shearder, thanks for your nice post and for taking my previous post in the spirit in which it was meant.


[edit on 6-8-2007 by Dagar]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Lmfao.

He stated that an Chemsprayer had a white fuselage and bluewings even though it was CLEARLY a American Airlines MD-80. Another sopposed 'Chemsprayer' was a Southwest 737...

I think someone would have something else to do...

Anyway, the UFO's, a few of them looked exactly like sun glinting of aircraft, though some were really weird. Thanks for posting.



I'm looking forward to hearing what the ATS Skeptics (AKA The Peanut Gallery) has to say about them.

If I'm not mistaken the purpose of this website is to deny ignorance not create it. We NEED Skeptics and researchers, or else I'm willing to bet MANY, people will be led down a path beleiving what is NOT true.

I COULD photoshop some photos, and without some debunkers, I bet a few people will beleive they're real.

[edit on 6-8-2007 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
If I'm not mistaken the purpose of this website is to deny ignorance not create it. We NEED Skeptics and researchers, or else I'm willing to bet MANY, people will be led down a path beleiving what is NOT true.



I agree, ignorance SHOULD be denied... and situations ashould be approached skeptically, and thoroughly investigated. Read my post above yours.


Debunking in no way does this, though.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
You will find that, given a chance, what seems like a debunk attack is really, from MOST of the regulars, constructive criticism. Also, if the OP, in general, does some homework on their own part there would be a feasible answer/explanation to many posts.

my $0.02



I presume you mean there would be a feasible answer/explanation to many of the photos that Lawwalk took himself? Or just generally every single post? Because yes I would agree, of course there would be, bird, plane, balloon, Venus, secret government craft, the list goes on. The point of my post was to show these amazing photos, well I think they’re amazing, which contain many explained objects along with many unexplained objects (unexplained being the key here) of the photos Lawwalk took himself.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Before I even check these out let me guess......blurry lights in the sky, blurry shapes in the sky, everyday objects, camera artifacts, lighting problems....the normal stuff that makes UFO nuts think "they're here" lol.

O.K. Going to check it out now....back in a moment.......


Yup, total crap.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Before I even check these out let me guess......blurry lights in the sky, blurry shapes in the sky, everyday objects, camera artifacts, lighting problems....the normal stuff that makes UFO nuts think "they're here" lol.

O.K. Going to check it out now....back in a moment.......


Yup, total crap.

Total crap? Compared to what? the normal stuff that makes UFO nuts think "they're here"?

Or would you like a nice clean photo of a disc shaped object that may or may not be alien, with the clarity of the photo being as nice as the CarterCopter photo posted above?

Would you even believe it? probably not, but hey while you’re looking down I’m looking up, even if it is just to catch a glimpse of the stars.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dagar
I believe there is a difference between skepticism and debunking. Skepticism brings careful criticism to a situation, AFTER spending sometime analysing the situation, witnesses, evidence (material or circumstantial) and either coming to a definite conclusion based on your findings OR (in the ansence of conclusive evidence) acknowledging that, while there are other possibilities, the original premise (in this case 'I saw a UFO') remains as valid as any touted explanation.

Anything can be explained away as anything else... Just because I might say 'That looks like a bird, or a lantern, etc' does not make it so. Without actually being there there is no way that anyone can say with any certainty that their explanation is the right one.

My understanding of 'debunking' is very different to healthy skepticism. The debunker will take one look at a picture, movie, witness statement, etc, and come to an immediate decision as to an explanation (often compltely ignoring aspects of the sighting that don't fit into their pet theory). They will then shout loudly (sometimes with a scornful undertone) 'THIS IS THE EXPLANATION, CASE DISMISSED!'... All with an air of authority that implies they've been investigating the matter, out in the field, for the last 3 weeks.. lol


[edit on 6-8-2007 by Dagar]


I strongly disagree with this burden-shifting. The OPs first have to show that they have something really anomalous. There aren't enough hours in the day to undertake an in-depth investigation of every photograph of the sky with a fuzzy blob in it. What I most often find is that the posters themselves have made no real effort to explain the 6 pixel smudge on their focal plane, and not one in 50 provides complete information. So someone is supposed to drop what they're doing, and go and investigate? I think not.

You have to have filters, and there are many of these available, and taken together they are very reliable. For example, when the witness makes statements for which there can be no evidential support, you know we are dealing with highly subjective memories and perceptions that would require quite a lot of untangling and would never amount to anything like real evidence.

Who wants to fall into a tangled web of delusion every time someone sees or takes a picture of something that they can't explain? Not me.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join