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.

 

A clear UFO in picture.

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Guess I'll have to check mufon.

The picture say

Date/Time Original : 2003:11:02 02:43:41
Create Date : 2003:11:02 02:43:41

Doesn't the OP say it was in 2007.




posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel

Yes, i noticed it too...


There's someting strange with the claimed dates....
MUFON SAYS Sighting 2007-09-05
Withess says last week
EXIF says November 2, 2003


roadgravel, i'm interested to your opinion, too. I've noticed that you have a good knowledge on birds in the thread of Parma



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Internos, I realized you had already posted it right after I posted. Missed it somehow.

Here is some reference material. The big picture (use the link) is from about 100 to 150 feet distance.

The inline is resized down. Many birds in flight to compare with.




Full size but cropped for birds only

A couple do resemble the OP picture a bit.

Edit: to add

The camera was optical zoomed.

Exif: Focal Length : 36.0mm (35mm equivalent: 140.0mm)

[edit on 9/11/2007 by roadgravel]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
is it just me or are many just writing "CGI, CGI!!11" OMG..
i hate those acronyms. i do not know what CGI means, but i know for sure it came up when some guys were spreading this hawaii ufo and used blender or some easier usable prog that had already ufos in it.
like a rootkit for skript kiddies it was just a stupid hoax that discredited many other serious people.
but CGI is just now the worst word at ATS.
why dont we make up a thread where everyone can post what the worst word of the month is?
or even the worst number?

there is 11 - special number
!!11 - cool exaggeration (NOT)
its CGI, isn't it? - (please think twice)
HOAX [NTI]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
Internos, I realized you had already posted it right after I posted. Missed it somehow.

Here is some reference material. The big picture (use the link) is from about 100 to 150 feet distance.

The inline is resized down. Many birds in flight to compare with.




Full size but cropped for birds only

A couple do resemble the OP picture a bit.

roadgravel, i think that the pic you provided shows clearly that is possible for a bird tho be shaped as the one of the sighting, during the flight.
And we can even compare it, now.
Nice find!




IMHO, maybe we miss only the third corner of the triangle


the one inside the circle...

Updated the chords:

41°35'34.48"N 1°50'13.37"E

Edit: code syntax


[edit on 11/9/2007 by internos]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
If a pigeon:

It looks like the bird is flying toward the right. The tip of a wing is just above the tail. The tail is the bottom left, the wing tip, upper left. The head is center level on the right. The middle area is the body and the near wing (actually the underside of the wing). The wing is almost flat, inline with our view.

The pictures I posted were at 1/200 second exposure.

I would not say bird for sure but I think some detail is being lost making it look odd shaped.

edit: had wing right not left

[edit on 9/11/2007 by roadgravel]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Here's a link in which you should retrieve exif data of the pic # 2


EXIF pic # 2



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloakndagger
If you use the mans head in the lower left corner as a guide to scale then that bird would have to be real close to the camera. The lighting makes the bird look farther out to me. If there are photo experts here then please explain how you could figure this scale thing out.


I'm no photo expert, but the image's distances cannot be determined by the photos we have to work with. We have to have a picture of the spot from which the picture was taken in regards to another object in that photo.

Personally, I was hoping to get an overhead photo using Google Earth, but that location isn't high resolution, so no image can be taken from there. If it did have a high res photo, I could determine the distance from the oringinal spot to the tower in the background, or even a cliff, or any other item in the photo. After this distance is determined you can compare nearly any other item in the photo in scale terms of distance.

EDIT: photo's posted didn't load before this post. I'm going to work on some distance calculations now.

Thanks Internos. Good work!


[edit on 11-9-2007 by tyranny22]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tyranny22
 

Thank you!


You're right, the def of that area is soooo poor..


Moreover, i'm still having hard time to understand which one of the two is the house that we can see in the original pic ....


?



[edit on 11/9/2007 by internos]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
Thanks. I have Exiftool on the pc. Those are my birds flying. It is interesting to watch as they fly.

I would guess if it is a pigeon it would be no more than 500 to 600 feet from the camera.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by internos
Thanks. I have Exiftool on the pc. Those are my birds flying. It is interesting to watch as they fly.

I would guess if it is a pigeon it would be no more than 500 to 600 feet from the camera.

Ok, i posted it just in case


The closest house (1) is distant around 300 feet.
The farest one (2) is distant around 600 feet.
(distances between closest points)







Edit to add:


It should be a pigeon distant approx. 500 feet



Anyway, Blaine91555 was right about MUFON: it seems that they collect material without making assessment: at least, we're sure that they din't
a check on EXIF data before publishing, which should, IMHO, one of the first thing to do; but i can be wrong, of course...
Now i'm going to star his first post


[edit on 11/9/2007 by internos]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Her is another comparison. Imagine tilting and rotating the top bird a bit and it's wings downward a bit more.




[edit on 9/11/2007 by roadgravel]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Definately a bird, IMHO.


I was, since the start, watching at it as if it was flying in direction right-left, but it was the opposite...



[edit on 11/9/2007 by internos]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
You can't call it a UFO till you've ruled out the usual things that fly in the sky i.e. BIRDS. They can look kinda strange depending on how you capture them but it's a bird.Bird
Bird
Light hitting camera at an angle.
Light hitting a plane
Now I don't think this is a bird. Anyone have a clue? Bumbee in winter? Or UFO?



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
The picture is beautiful (and the 'penis' rocks are interesting
)
But the objects in questions are most definitely birds. We have seen too many of them. It reminds me of this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see how it was shown as birds. Here are more examples of 'bird ufo' from the same thread:
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufoevidence.org...

Moreover the witness says, he saw them only in pics. Three big ufos flying around are hard to miss, so he must have seen nothing or must have ignored the birds while admiring the scene.
Remember the golden rule:
If you have not seen it with naked eyes, its not worth however interesting and ambiguous the picture comes out. Simple.
A camera always lies and if not substantiated by other evidence, the pic is useless.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
You've got dust or a tiny bit of moisture or a water droplet on your lens. That is all I see here. Look to the lower left of the picture, there are two more of them there, smaller in size. Definitely a dirty lens.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I have personally seen 5 just like it. To me the photo looks legit... good photo!



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Isn't it funny how when people take a photo they didn't see the object in the sky at the time they took the photo.

Isn't it funny how when you go and get a remote control and press the button the IR that is emitted is visible on the display of most cameras.

Ooohhhh so the camera can see things that the human eye can't....

Yeah it is a bird......not....

Wake up people. If you want to blow this disclosure thing out of the water go and modify your camera to view IR only.

Advanced craft are flying all around us every day and they can only be seen in wavelengths that are invisible to the human eye.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER
I have personally seen 5 just like it.
I see hundreds like it everyday, I call them birds.


The date and time on the EXIF data means nothing if they forgot to change the date after changing batteries, some cameras do not store the date with a different battery, or if they store it with the power from a different battery that battery can run out as well. My old Epson PhotoPC 650 only had 4 AA batteries that would power also the clock, so each time we took the batteries we had to put the right date and time again.

It's not possible to know the distance to any unknown object just with a photo. If we had two photos taken at the same time from different points we could try to see where it was in that space, but with only that photo it is impossible. If we know the size of the object we can get an approximate distance, but that is not the case.

The zoom "compresses" the distances, it does not make distant objects look closer, it makes close objects look closer, so the depth of field is "compressed", we get bigger images but we loose the perception of depth of the image.

Birds in flight can assume very different positions, as you can see in pigeons from the photos bellow.

At a distance of 50 metres.

At a distance of 100 metres.

At a distance of 220 metres.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER
The zoom "compresses" the distances, it does not make distant objects look closer, it makes close objects look closer, so the depth of field is "compressed", we get bigger images but we loose the perception of depth of the image.


I guess you are not talking about 'zoom' meaning long focal length, which does make distant object look larger. (telephoto lens).

That first bird picture is not at 50 meters unless it is being enlarged by the lens system. In real life it would not appear that large at that distance. I suppose that is what you are pointing out.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join