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.


Amazing Photo's of S.F UFO Seen Last Summer

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 09:52 AM

I completely agree with you about the no fly zone thing, i think my wording was wrong to imply that NOTHING could fly there.

When the story went live with Baurele, one of the listeners forwarded flight paths for that night and time (she/he found two), neither of those paths were near the bay, which is one reason we ruled out a plane,
another reason we ruled out a plane is by how close it appears to be to the bay and the water as well as the weird angles the thing appears to be at.

What I guess I meant was that in my research there has been no evidence to support an airplane.

This does not discount helicopters, though: and like I said, I may have missed something.

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 10:01 AM
Thanks for the update Springer!

We all know that JRitzman's a busy man and it being the holiday season, we expect that there will be a few delays before JR can tell us anything about them.

But at any rate, I'm very interested in what he finds! Can't wait!

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 10:17 AM
Lauren, I would be surprised if it was a helicopter because I just can't wrap my mind around not finding any kind of evidence in an image editor of that object that indicates this is what it is regardless that it may be an abbreviated long exposure. One would think that something would show up in and around that object when it's embossed or lightened up or whatever... but nothing is there other than what we already see in those photo's.
But I'm learning more now about long exposure photographs and what some of the new cams are capable of but nevertheless, whatever that object is identified as, IMHO, it still may be inconclusive but I'm only basing this on my limited understanding of long exposure photo's at the present time.

This said, it does sound like we can rule out planes.. I think. Just going by what's being said so far about that but JR's a real whiz about analyzing photo's like this so it will be interesting to see what he finds.

Oh, btw... that's hilarious that Grant took 100 photo's of ONE BUTTERFLY!!

Hmmmm, he sounds a little on the obsessive But on the other hand, if this is the way he is, then he would be remembering if he saw that object up there or not when he was taking those photo's.
He definitely must be very intelligent though to master an advanced cam like that so soon... he's a born photographer.. that's very evident. Some people have it in their blood. I know someone like that and it seems like Grant is like that too!

[edit on 20-11-2007 by Palasheea]

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 10:32 AM
Good lord, we're still talking about this?

OK, just to show everyone that this is a plane, please go out with your pro-digital camera and take a 2 second exposure of the area with any aircraft taking off or flying low.

When you get the exact same results, please end this silly thread!! There is no UFO here, this is just a long exposure!

I'll bet my training at DINFOS on it....

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 10:40 AM
I'll post the data in my next post

[edit on 20/11/2007 by internos]

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 10:46 AM
internos: you have it wrong

where you have the photographer stationed is actually where the picture was shot: he was on the opposite pier and where you have the pin mark is actually a pointy thing that is in the picture.


Here are some tips to end the thread:
take a picture like that yourself
use the coordinates to prove that an airplane was taking off in that district at that exact time

I am stil trying to do these things and since others are interested still in the results, I will give my insight into the matter

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by laurenrose

I tend to agree with you on these photos not being of planes as well, alluding to the reasons you have given and also the light pattern is "off" for a plane. If I am not mistaken a GA craft on the left side of the craft usually has a red constant nav with white strobe on the wingtip, then a white strobe with a green constant nav light on the right side. Add the possibility of a inner wing or nose gear mounted white TO/Landing spotlight and a upper tail red flasher, the configurations are varied but there is a general constant with most GA planes and it just dont match up with what is seen here.

It does seem consistent though with the upper and/or lower red strobe and spotlight of most common helicopters I have seen with a front mounted spot for close ground navigation. I guess we will see what the Ritzmann has to say about it.

I dont think it is a hoax as in a fabricated or retouched photo but there is still room from my persective for either a simple misidentification or there is some deception involved here simply because I cant get my head wrapped around the idea of someone photographing an object of this apparent size and brightness using a camera and not seeing it at the same time with the best camera made, the human eye. If the photographer managed to not see this object and its lights, how could he have managed seeing the much dimmer lights across the bay? It just makes no sense, and maybe someone could explain to me how this paradox would work.

If the exposure rate was under 1 sec. I could understand maybe not seeing it because it would mean this thing was hauling bacon out to sea. I mean fast. But if this is an exposure of greater than 1 sec., say 2-4 secs., there is no way he could have not seen it the same time his camera took a picture of it. Well, unless we start wildly speculating about this object and its properties or the visual capabilities or lack thereof of the photographer. He doesnt have any vision problems, does he? Or was he flooded in light at his position when taking the picture? That can really mess with the human eye and could prevent him from seeing light in the short distance I guess.

Just tossing some ideas out there, never know when some may stick.

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:01 AM
I too am awaiting results by JR on the photos. However, in the meantime, I had a thought I wanted to share. One of the tumbling blocks has been how the photographer could fail to see the object and it's reflection on the water while he was looking at the spot he was trying to get a picture of.

IF, and this is just an IF, this were a UFO, then from all of the abduction reports we gather that the occupants can in some way block certain memories. This would account for his framing the "UFO" so well in the shots, as well as not remembering it at all later.

While this thought would be a bit scary, it would fit with other reports of people with missing time. I wonder if Grant and the other person experienced any passing of time as being out of the ordinary? As in did it seem like they were on the dock taking pictures for only a half an hour and later realized they spent an hour and a half?

It is possible, if you consider any of the abduction stories to be based on fact, that whatever we are dealing with has the ability to alter human perception in some fundamental ways.

I'm NOT saying this is what happened, just that it is the only way that seems to fit the expressed facts of the case, and leaving aside any thought that there is chicanery involved. Nothing more on my part than an observation of what is being told here, and an opinion for how the facts could fit the case with the least amount of complications.

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:07 AM
The coordinates of the location of the sighting point:
i think now they are correct:

Or, better, i HOPE they are correct

Google maps link

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by internos

That seems right, and a couple of the shots appear to be to the left of the "lighthouse?", more out over the open bay than inland towards the piers.

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:18 AM

[edit on 20-11-2007 by Palasheea]

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:18 AM
I don't know if I can wrap my finger around the whole abduction idea...

other reasons as to why grant may have not seen it:

the lights on the craft likely were not THAT bright, but exposure time made them brighter.

he is partially near sighted, but does not wear his glasses

he just drove three straight days from NYC, averaging a drive time of 16 hours of driving a day (split between 2 people).

this is within the first two hours they reached their destination: I haven't asked grant if he had been drinking, but it is possible they had a couple drinks at their dinner (he is not a heavy drinker so it is very unlikey he was drunk, possibly buzzed).

His focus was on the skyline way in the distance.

These are thoughts I can think of, it is likely he was tired, excited, not paying full attention to every detail in a large city.

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:21 AM
also i forgot to mention as this is a detail that the anaylst will likely look at:

first photo exposure: 3sec
Last two both: 1.8sec

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by Lost_Mind

Thank you LM:

This would mean that in the case of this photo, the object was into the circled area,IMHO:

@ a distance aproximatively included between 300
and 600 feet, but i could be wrong:

it's to hard to say with a 2d image

[edit on 20/11/2007 by internos]

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:33 AM
Hey internos! Could you be a little more specific?

Only kidding.. great job!

I like the last image with the circle showing exactly where that thing was positioned VERY LOW over the water.

If it's a helicopter, what were they doing, looking for seals??

[edit on 20-11-2007 by Palasheea]

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:39 AM
reply to post by internos

Correct except that I think that the object is further out in the bay than your circle is, beyond the pier that the lighthouse is on maybe by a factor of 3 or so. I could be wrong, thats just how I see it. That would make it higher above the water and a bit more reasonable.

There also is a note on this re: helos over populated areas in SF. There has been some debate over the alloted flight paths for helocopters arriving at and coming from SF General Hospital, which is about 4-5 miles of so to the SSE of the photographers positions. Seems they have had a few fall out of the sky in the past killing people on the ground and there is issues about the noise pollution as well. SF General is a major cause of the helo traffic in the area, somewhat like a little airport unto itself. Some of these flight patterns would be forced out into the bay to the east where a new course north would be set out over the water away from residents and waterfront businesses.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by Lost_Mind]

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:40 AM
The third pic I don't is that far out because it cast a blue light onto the water on the right hand side of the pic that is before that lighthouse.

Can you guys see that light in the low res version?

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:48 AM
It's the second last photo shown in my line-up.

I see that blue light at the tail end of it on the right.

Here's what one member said about that blue light:

in one the "searchlight" beam (I'm calling it that because I don't know what else to call it, not because it definitely is) goes off to the rear of the craft, and in another seems to go straight down. Which actually lends weight to your theory over mine - if it were an exposure I would have thought that wouldn't happen....

So if this object were a long exposure, why wouldn't that blue light be seen 'streaming' along with the white one?

Instead, that blue light is isolated at the end of that object .. where it's shining in outwardly in a diagonal direction. This is so perplexing.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by Palasheea]

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by Lost_Mind

You're right

The water looks enlightened closer to the target:

Maybe something like this ?

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by internos

Is it possible the the lighthouse or maybe barrier marker lights are providing the more intense light reflecting off of the water near the pier and the objects light is more represented by the dim shimmer creeping toward the photographers position on the water in his near foreground? For thes to be 1.8 to 3 sec. exposures the light from this thing would have been pretty dim, IMO. Maybe even hard to see?

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in