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

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaimless
 


I'm relaxed. Yes, you are correct.
UFO does not always imply aliens, but when someone posts something like this in the "UFOs/Aleins" thread topic it is kinda implied that someone thinks this is a craft "not of this world".

Look at the pics I posted above. Specifically the first one. I'm only saying that this photo is not of something alien...

Sorry to offend.




posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
LoneWeasel -- Right, I'm learning a lot about 'long exposure' photography that I never knew before and it's my guess that others are too! It's very helpful to know this information when analyzing photographs and movies showing what seem to be UFO's in them. Most UFO's are moving when they are captured by cam where there's always going to be some kind of motion blur effect seen in those images but there's a difference between normal motion blur and long exposure photography... big difference between the two.

Defunction -- You will find out that we all have our different opinions in this forum on where UFO's are from and who's flying them. In fact there are so many different opinions on this here, there's no way one can automatically assume that just because someone starts up a thread such as this one, the OP believes that it's a UFO from 'another world'. So my suggestion to you would be to hold off any opinions on that until you ask the OP directly what their thoughts on this are -- before making any assumptions.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Palasheea
 


Sure. No assumptions. Got it.

So, regardless of who in the forum thinks the "UFO" is whatever from wherever (I'm no longer saying anyone thinks it is an alien craft) the image seen is an over-exposure of a helicopter with a spotlight. Exactly like the picture I posted. IMO

Check it out. I'm interested in everyone's thoughts.

This is me being non-confrontational.
- no sarcasm here.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by defuntion
UFO does not always imply aliens, but when someone posts something like this in the "UFOs/Aleins" thread topic it is kinda implied that someone thinks this is a craft "not of this world".

Not true. Where else are you going to post about UFOs? ATS made this forum up to talk about both, with UFOs in first place. Quite frequently on this forum people discuss UFOs even with the assumption they are terrestrial craft. The triangle UFOs are a good example. In reading through comments about them majority opinion is that they are "ours." And there are some darned good pictures of them, too! The OP has never claimed otherwise and if you paid attention, she specifically disclaimed the alien idea up front.

In fact, I would go so far as to say the statement, "UFOs does not mean aliens" is the second most frequent comment on this board. The first is, "It's arrogant to think we are the only intelligent species yadda yadda." We ought to develop 'meta statements" for these common ones so people don't have to type them all out. Just type "Meta 1" and say your piece.

On another topic, it has been suggested that the photographer was 'lying.' I don't think it is fair to accuse him of that. If you read the interview with him, he's very straightforward in discussing the shots. Also, he says he's just made a three-day cross-country trip. That means he went 3000 miles in 72 hours. Hopefully he didn't drive that all himself, but it does mean 24 hours a day driving. I did it once with two other drivers in 71 hours. That means the guy had to have been dead tired. The fact that he could focus at all is amazing.

To summarize: 1. We all know about Meta 2. 2. Give the photographer a break unless proven otherwise. 3. Pretty cool example shots have been posted!



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


See my post directly above.

Not - confrontating.

It is no longer a UFO if it has been identified.

It is a helicopter.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
On another topic, it has been suggested that the photographer was 'lying.' I don't think it is fair to accuse him of that.


The photographer does not have to be lying for this to be a helicopter.

How often have you taken a scenic photograph and been completely oblivious to an airplane in the sky somewhere in the background.


[edit on 15-11-2007 by defuntion]

[edit on 15-11-2007 by defuntion]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I reported on this in October this thread seems to be going a bit further which it should,

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I gave up on it when the debunkers started i guess i wasnt in the mood that day keep it up because this same UFO was caught on a webcam over washington and a few other places around the world, i have to go do some running around now, but when i get back ill collect links to the other exact same object sightings with pictures,
It is also the same object that was photographed by a passenger on board the plane over the channel islands which the pilots reported and other aircraft also.

BBL with links



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
azzllin,
Can't wait to see those links and thanks for offering to post them here later. I would to look them over!

And Schuyler, thanks for your comments and I'm glad you find those photo's in that article in my first post here as interesting as I do and a few others too!
I agree with you about the photographer and even though there are a lot of hoaxes out there, we still need to give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they are telling the truth - until proven otherwise. So far we have not proven that his photo's are hoaxes or as some say.. long exposures -- and that's great!!



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   
In order to make it easier to compare I guess I'll post them together.


Originally posted by Palasheea



This photo is a long exposure of a helicopter (with spotlight):


Does no one else see the similarities?

I thought the purpose of this forum was to get to the bottom of unexplained phenomena?

I am offering what I think is the best answer to what the object is.
Please feel free to comment on what I've posted.
If I am way off base please let me know why.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Somebody said, sincerely, how easy it is to take a photo of a landscape and be oblivious to the presence of an aircraft, ....emmm well maybe if you were deaf and probably blind as well. To me this is a hoax, contrived by the photographer, let's call a spade a spade. It's either a slow exposure or might even be a double exposure, that looks suspiciously like a common or garden double cased fluoresent tube taken from a good distance and super imposed onto the landscape.
I can't help but giggle.



[edit on 15-11-2007 by willywagga]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I may as well add my two cents as an experienced photographer and graphics person with many years of experience.

I agree fully that it is a long exposure of an aircraft with the red dots being caused by the strobing light. Considering the quality of the photo's the photographer knows what the object is and is being disingenuous. People don't buy equipment of that quality unless they know what they are doing. The camera body is one level below Professional and those new VR Lenses, although not the most expensive, are not cheap. I use them myself on a D200. I can understand how it could fool people who have never thrown a shot away because of one of these little nuisances.

The Station posting this should have had a photographer look at it before they wasted the space.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by azzllin
 


It is not at all surprising others have shot similar photo's. You are aware that long exposure times are sop for nighttime and low light shots? The brightness of the house lights and street lights proves beyond any doubt that these are long exposures. Period end of subject. There is no guessing going on here by those of us familiar with photography. The photographer is either lying or is a rich kid (22 according to the article) who buys toys he does not know how to use.

You are going to be hard pressed to find a Photographer who does not know what that shot is. You might find an beginner or an amateur who is naive about what it is.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Ok, here we have someone who says he's a professional photographer (lol, I believe him) and that that object in those photo's is the result of 'something' flying up there in the sky over the bay that was captured in 'long exposure' mode.

Since I am not a professional photographer, then who am I to disagree with someone who is when it comes to anything about photography?
I'm a Graphic Artist/Designer.. and when I need photo's taken for any given project, I hire a professional photographer to do that ... or I have my client hire one...
If what Blaine is saying is true, which I'm sure it is, then I guess we're back to the 'long exposure theory' in regards to whatever it is that we are seeing in those photo's.


[edit on 15-11-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Nice find Palasheea, but sadly I have to agree with the other posters. I have seem near identical objects in photos before and it does look to me like an overexposed human aircraft.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by fooffstarr
Nice find Palasheea, but sadly I have to agree with the other posters. I have seem near identical objects in photos before and it does look to me like an overexposed human aircraft.




That seems to be the case. I've been waiting for one of the experts to pop in here. I recall Blaine from some of things he was saying in that O'Hare UFO thread...
So I guess it's not a UFO in the sense of that usual usage for that term and it's some kind of aircraft but it's hard to tell what kind it is... But... it does not look like a helicopter.. IMHO.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
For me this ''ufo'' look nothing more than a reflection of a ceiling light
Maybe the photographer was standing behind a glass and wanted to take a picture of the bay...
At the same time his room ceiling light was on and what we see in the sky is the reflection of this light being reflected from the glass to the camera...
This could explain why he was not seing anything in the sky!

edit : spelling

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Jigore]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I will agree at the rest of the skeptics in this post....this could be some long exposure type thing....... but I've seeen identical ships of unknown origins floating in the air..... maybe has something to do with the type of gravity negating device is used.... reminds me maybe of the engine that
Ralph Ring and Otis T Carr were working on?) that this particular set of photo could be a long exposure... BUT I have seen craft like that before. They hang in the air crooked like that ( nt all the time, but for some reason they do whhen they are , and from the side they look kinda like a plane coming in for a landing.... but they are not. They are giant black rectangular ships, size of a football field. I'm not sure if they are ours or theirs, but judjing from my experiences with them, I don't think I would miss seeing them if they were of the gov't.

But one thing is for sure, those pictures look exactly like what I've seen as spaceships of some sort.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by indierockalien]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jigore
For me this ''ufo'' look nothing more than a reflection of a ceiling light
Maybe the photographer was standing behind a glass and wanted to take a picture of the bay...
At the same time his room ceiling light was on and what we see in the sky is the reflection of this light being reflected from the glass to the camera...
This could explain why he was not seing anything in the sky!

edit : spelling

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Jigore]


Jigore,
I can see where you might see that, especially in that one photo in my first post and good observation!
But look again at the photo's on that page.
www.wben.com...
As you can see, that object is traveling across the bay.
I think I know where the photographer was when he took these photo's... in Sausolito down from the Fisherman's Warf along the coast of the bay. My sister and brother in law lived there for years (on the Broadwalk) and most of those houses have large ceiling to floor windows overlooking the bay. So it's not far fetched to think that that object in those photo's are reflections off the windows but not in this case... I don't think.


[edit on 15-11-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Lol... I was just having problems posting here too... odd.

Indierockalien,

Regardless what that object is.. it definitely LOOKS like a UFO!

Thanks for your comments.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
darn laptops.... the keyboards suck ass.... re read my last post, I edited so it makes sense, since a big chunk didnt even get typed like it should've cuz the keys suck.





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join