It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


#Debunked# civil war ufo image #Debunked#

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:17 PM

Originally posted by pjslug

But how exactly would one guarantee the safety of his photo if he provided them to someone for analysis? What ways are you referring to?

This is important enough that I'd use a third party. A neutral, paid party. There are companies who do things like that for auctions and I'm sure it would be simple to set up.

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:21 PM

Originally posted by pjslug
But how do you know you have never seen the real thing in a photo? I'm pretty sure that if you have seen most of the UFO photos out there you have seen a genuine UFO. They can't all be fakes.

I don't know. I may have seen the real thing. I have not seen anything that would convince the masses though. I have seen a few that left me wondering. I can not prove they are fake so they remain an open book. It is those that keep me looking. That and some things I may post about some day. I have seen two things I can not explain myself.

Edited to say: I'm not a purposeful debunker. I just not gullible.

[edit on 9/15/2007 by Blaine91555]

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Zaargg
Not to mention, because of the resolution of the picture, even if the blur somehow could look "convincing", it's just too blurry.

Take a Look at This

Considering I can cook that up in 10 seconds...

Consider that as well, which I don't think anybody saw.

To say that having seen so many guarantees you have seen the real thing makes a few assumptions...

For one, it assumes there IS a real thing to be seen.

And two, it assumes that you are CERTAIN to have seen it given the amount of pictures you have seen, which in turn makes some assumptions about how often these craft visit the planet and/or make themselves visible to the human eye.

Considering that our "super soldier technology", developed by MIT, is supposedly developing a type of active camouflage for the wearer rendering him/her nearly invisible to the naked eye/other wavelengths, and considering that this knowledge is publicly available... what are the chances a space faring civilization hasn't developed such technology for their vessels?

So many things to consider and assumptions to make and probabilities to weigh unless we cut out the irrational assumption in the first place that there are CERTAINLY alien craft visiting this planet right now. There are REAL UFOs out there, because they are Unidentified Flying Objects, but this does not make them alien spacecraft for certain.

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 08:41 PM
If real, I would have thought an investigation of this photograph would have happened 50 to 100 years ago. What are the chances no one would question the object in the picture across the span of time from the civil war to sometime in the late 20th century.

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 08:43 PM
Oh how I love this place!

Many pages back I said how this would take off, no matter what was, or was not, in the photo.

I quit watching TV because the threads here are so much better than anything my rabbit ears could pull in.

It seems to me that we have now proved that no photo will be without some point of contention. No photo can ever be used as proof for or against UFOs. There is simply too many ways to look at whatever data is provided.

I thank the OP for bringing this point to the glaring light, intentional or not. And though it may be a useless and futile guesture, I will star the original post, and give a flag, as my way of honoring the finding of a truth about the futility of using ANY picture as proof of anything.

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 08:47 PM
Alright, I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed this, and by no means am I trying to say there are no aliens. There is physical proof of their existence and and there purpose here with us on earth. And a reason why every account with aliens for the last 5000 years has all given them the same description.

Look up the Annanuki and the Sumerian's, you'll find your evidence there.

Too my point, if you look at the top of the tree right below the "UFO" you will notice that on the "UFO" version, the top of the tree looks different. In the unedited version you see that the peak of that same tree has a very similar "hump" to that which is found on the "UFO". Stretched a little, and mirrored for that matter. The similar colors and shading fool the eyes into believing it, and the cut is so minimal that the naked eye will not notice. Tell your eyes to put on some clothes and then they can go out.

Sorry I didn't fancy this up and make copies of the pictures for you. In my eyes people remember better if they do it for them selves.

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 10:07 PM
reply to post by jonjon0

Been reading a lot of David Icke?

The Annanuki were a bunch of demi-Gods from Babylonian mythos. There are people who, for whatever reason, offer the explanation for ancient religions that extraterrestrials meddled in ancient human history, and our descriptions of "Gods" are actually descriptions of alien explorers.

There is no PROOF of this, so please don't get into the mindset that there is. In fact there is so little circumstantial evidence for this that you might as well consider the set of theories regarding a seeded earth with ETs meddling in early human history a new sort of religion. Oh wait... New Age?


Photograph analyzation can only occur with originals/negatives. So any examination of blurs and what appears to be editing on either photo is amateur speculation and really proves nothing.

new topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in