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.

 

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

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I'm not ruling out that those photo's were taken with a cam in long exposure mode but so far, I'm not seeing enough information on that to convince me that this is the case at all.

I'm more willing to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt and accept that he's telling the truth about those photo's and that he did not see that object up there at the time when he took those photo's.

I also agree with some other members here on those reasons why they do not think that those are long exposure photo's. So far, I agree with what they are saying on this.



[edit on 15-11-2007 by Palasheea]




posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Civil discussion will take place in this thread.

Do not attack the messenger.

Post your information, thoughts, evidence or whatever, but do so without the snide comments.




posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Palasheea
 



One aspect of the photo not mentioned yet that would lead me to believe that this is not a long exposure photo are the waves in the bay. You can distinctly make out of the crests and troughs

I have taken photos that were slightly long exposed of water, and the moving waves smooth out and all you see is a smooth blur. This is not the case with this photo.

As far as the object in the sky, I have no idea what it is.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Okay, first of all, I live here in San Francisco in the Mission district with a clear view of the the piers (this picture is taken near Pier 39, it would seem), and there was NOTHING in the newspapers about any crafts - and I promise you there would have been, this isn't exactly the most conservative city in the world.

Secondly, it's very very suspicious that those three really bright lights below the "craft" are shining up at it (you can see the rays, both in the reflection in the water and shining upwards).

Third, there are always gigantic spotlight thingies waving around downtown for various reasons (usually on the weekends) which makes me think that thats exactly what we're looking at.

How they're creating the effect, I don't really know, but this just screams 'fake' to me.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Nice find, no explanation I can offer.

I can however note that the photographer mentioned they he/she was not aware of anything 'abnormal' in the picture at the time they were taken.

It seems that the 3-4 pictures they posted of the 'craft' were taken at different areas in the Bay, rather than the same spot. IMO

If the craft was un-noticed as the photographer states... why would he have the same 'craft' in all the pictures?



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Cool picture. Not sure what to make of it except where is the reflection in the water?

Here's a thread about a very similar craft in DC.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Take a look at LostMinds post about 1/2 way down the page. Click the link.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Breadfan
How can it be a time exposure if we see those perfect three red dots on the top?
Shouldn't those dots be smudged as well?
That just doesn't make any sense to me.


I guess a light that was permanently on would produce the long streak, and a flashing light would produce the single dots - though I'm no expert.

S



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Well, so far I think we have a pretty balanced discussion going on here about these UFO photo's where some are saying that they are long exposures and think that the photographer is lying about not seeing that UFO when he took those photo's... and others here are looking at some of the very OBVIOUS discrepancies in the 'long exposure theory' because those photo's clearly are not supporting that point of view.

Because of those severe flaws in the 'long exposure theory' for these photo's, the argument that it's not a UFO should instead be focused on if that object was photoshopped into those photo's as it's clear that the long exposure explanation for it has been most definitely debunked (so it seems)

The above is ONLY my viewpoint about these photo's at the present time; I'm sure others will disagree with me on my above statements. I did however analyze those photo's that are on that page in Photoshop and I'm not seeing that that object was inserted into those photo's -- but of course, we would have to have access to the original photo's to be able to say with any near certainty if or if not those objects were added to those photo's - IMHO.


PS... I was still typing the above statement where during that time other view points on those photo's were added to this thread too... great comments and they are worthy of consideration too!


[edit on 15-11-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea

Please copy/paste where I said that that UFO was extraterrestrial. Where do I say that in any of my posts in this thread before this one.

Back a couple of years ago, I and others saw a large Triangle UFO and when I talked about that here in this forum, I said that I believed it was an advanced black budget experimental aircraft -- regardless that it maneuvered in ways that were 'out of this world'. So you've got the wrong person here as far as believing that ALL UFO's are extraterrestrial -- quite the contrary, probably most UFO's are man-made.


Fair enough Palasheea - sorry for misinterpreting you! But my point remains the same - there's no real evidence here (aside from anecdotal) that this is anything particularly out of the ordinary, wherever it came from. All I'm suggesting is that I feel it can be explained easily with a more boring theory than the one you espouse - I can't prove it, and like I said in my first post there will be plenty that disagree with me, I'm sure.

But I do think to suggest that there is no possible explanation is not accurate.

LW



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
How long of an exposure time are we talking here, for this to be a aircraft?

I ask because if you look at the buildings/apartments across the water, some people seem to be in the windows. Since they are not blurred that I can tell, then the exposure time was very fast, or those are crash test dummies.


Maybe no more than a second? The helicopter could have been moving much faster than the waves beneath - also don't be fooled by the cropped image - if you go to the link in the OP you can get a sense of the real perspective of the photo.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

Originally posted by Breadfan
How can it be a time exposure if we see those perfect three red dots on the top?
Shouldn't those dots be smudged as well?
That just doesn't make any sense to me.


I guess a light that was permanently on would produce the long streak, and a flashing light would produce the single dots - though I'm no expert.

S


Oh.. that's interesting! So flashing lights might produce single dots -- learn something new everyday!

Excellent point and maybe we can find out for sure if that's the case but it makes sense to me.

I wondered when looking at those lights on those photo's if they were flashing lights because in some of then we are only one light... or 2...yet in another photo we are seeing 3 lights. So this made wonder if there were flashing lights on that UFO.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea

I wondered when looking at those lights on those photo's if they were flashing lights because in some of then we are only one light... or 2...yet in another photo we are seeing 3 lights. So this made wonder if there were flashing lights on that UFO.



...or helicopter
Don't take my word for it though - it's as much as I can do to avoid my thumb appearing in photos, let alone worrying about the finer details of time exposures...someone who knows more will either back up my theory or tell me I know nothing, I'm sure...

The other problem with the time exposure theory that has been raised is that of the crests in the waves - I would admit this is harder to argue - except to say that if the craft was moving fast enough it could have created that effect in a very short space of time.

One other interesting thing in the photos - 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....

I'm on fire today, with my anomaly spotting...



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Well this is exciting then because we're not sure what we're really looking at here!

Just because I disagreed with you doesn't mean that I didn't respect your point of view but you know how it is sometimes here when people debunk things by simply sounding like they know what they are talking about when in reality, if you take apart what it is that they said, and then look at the anomaly again, one will see some clear things about it that do not support what the debunker is saying. Yet, because the debunker is so good at articulating his point of view, which in your case you are, it was scary for me to disagree with you on these photo's. But now I'm finding this topic even more intrigueing because we really don't know for sure if these photo's are showing a real UFO!!

It will be interesting to see what others will be saying about these photo's but now I'm glad I posted them. Sure, they look too good to be true.. but then again... WHAT IF THEY ARE SHOWING A REAL UFO??
The possibility that this may be so is very exciting!



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
i just see the head of a street lamp with light exiting round the screw holes



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
As an avid amateur astrophotographer, I can tell you that this looks exactly like a plane at night taken with a long exposure (2-3 seconds in my opinion). The streak is from lights that were on the plane, and the pinpoint lights are from a strobe light on the plane. Have seen many pictures that look the same. Here's some examples








posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Not sure if you guys looked at the link above so I'll post this here for a comparison. This is what a slow exposure of a plane looks like. Show the lights(dots) in succession without any smudges.

Credit LostMind in a previous thread for this one.



Here's others.


Hazard of a long exposure - an airplane flies through the frame



Might be possible to take one of these and manipulate it a bit in photoshop?



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by sensfan
 


I must agree with you here. Long Exposure photo...some type of aircraft...attention seeking photographer...

Here's some additional examples of this type of "UFO" claim:




That pesky craft gets around I guess.
Can we drop this one now?



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Cool picture. Not sure what to make of it except where is the reflection in the water?

Here's a thread about a very similar craft in DC.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Take a look at LostMinds post about 1/2 way down the page. Click the link.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Yes they do look a lot a like and are you suggesting that the photographer overlayed that DC UFO into his photographs?

Well, since both look so similar, it can't be ruled out. We've seen such hoaxes before in many so-called UFO photo's but do you really think that this is the case here too?

Or could it be that the UFO seen in the photo's in this thread is just simply the same shape and kind of UFO that's also seen in that DC photo? After all, we already know that UFO's have been categorized into different sizes and shapes. Granted that there's quite a variety of them, the type of UFO seen here and in the DC photo I would think would be classified as common (but still with its own unique features) as opposed to dramatically 'different'.

At any rate, because of the differences in color between the DC and SF UFO, it would be easier for the artist to completely re-create the DC UFO than inserting it directly into those SF photo's because just to blend that DC object into those SF photo's would be the same amt. of work if not more than just re-creating that UFO from scratch.


[edit on 15-11-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Regardless of what it is do all need reminding that UFO's do not imply aliens. That a UFO is simply something unidentified and as long as I can't identity it and it is flying then it is a UFO, isn't it?



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
As an avid amateur astrophotographer, I can tell you that this looks exactly like a plane at night taken with a long exposure (2-3 seconds in my opinion). The streak is from lights that were on the plane, and the pinpoint lights are from a strobe light on the plane. Have seen many pictures that look the same. Here's some examples



You'll see from the beginning of the thread that I'm actually on your side of the fence, however the OP has been extremely courteous and deserves the same back - so I'll play devil's advocate and point out that while the time exposure theory does match up with the appearance of the lights, it doesn't explain why the crests of the waves below are apparently not exposed for any length of time - or they'd be blurry as they are in at least one of the photos you or others have posted. And why is there a single shaft of light beaming out in one direction in one of the OP's images, and in a different direction in another? How can that happen in a long exposure?

It may be that this is nothing out of the ordinary, but I think suggesting we close the trhead here is a little premature - if only because a lot of us might learn something about exposures that we can apply to future images, which is all to the greater good.

LW



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join