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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 05:30 PM
Wow ZG, I didn't know you lived in that area and it's nice to know that you do! A real UFO hotspot just like my area on Lake Erie!

Lol... will most certainly contact you if there's an overflow.. you know how it is... feast or famine..... lol

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Palasheea
Check out this news site!
It shows photographs of a UFO seen over S.F back in July of this year and the images are STUNNING!

The UFO should call whoever did his paint job, it looks pretty cheap.

Someone could have easily done this in Microsoft Paint.

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 05:44 PM

Lol, why don't you try reproducing this UFO in Microsoft Paint for us.

I would really like to see that!

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 05:45 PM
Before I sign off for the day, I need to bring up some points I was waiting for in the thread or in the originals.

Usually a red light is on all the time and in the image demarking the larger area from the underside there is a hint of a solid red light stretched across the length. Really need the reference of the originals.

Here is a good diagram to keep handy for all who need to know. Especially for threads like this and our own reporting.

Happy hunting!


posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 05:55 PM

Originally posted by defuntion
It is no longer a UFO if it has been identified.

It is a helicopter.

Really? For sure, then? I wasn't aware that it had been positively identified as a helicopter. In any case, my point still stands. You post issues on UFOs in the UFO forum. If they are identified later on, you don't move the whole thing to the helicopter forum. The UFO forum is together with information on aliens. One doesn't imply the other. Most people are aware with that and okay with that. Meta 2. That's my point. My poiint is NOT whether or not it has subsequently been identified.

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

That, sir, is certainly a logical statement, but not the point. Whether or not the photographer is lying has no relation at all to what the object is. The point is that SOME people on this thread have accused or suggested that the photographer is lying. I'm suggesting that might be premature, particularly since as I read his statement, he's not claiming anything in particular.

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by Uniceft17

Yea, I got clients that would hire such talents (after me and Palasheea)

Nice guess, but we have decades of experience with applications light years beyond Paint. And, No, sorry, cannot be done with MP.


Oh, the last image I posted was FAA graphic. I am toying with doing it in 3D animated for MUFON and ATS. Anyone pay????

Have a Nice Planetary Rotational Unit!


posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Uniceft17

The UFO should call whoever did his paint job, it looks pretty cheap.

Someone could have easily done this in Microsoft Paint.

perhaps you wouldnt mind reproducing this effect in paint for us?

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 06:09 PM

Originally posted by schuyler
The UFO forum is together with information on aliens. One doesn't imply the other. Most people are aware with that and okay with that. Meta 2. That's my point. My poiint is NOT whether or not it has subsequently been identified.

Please read all my posts. I've apologised for my initial assumption (which was by no means an irrational leap).

While I have been trying to discuss the "UFO" you only show up to throw semantics at me. Try to get over the UFO vs Alien thing and look at my posts.

Do you have any comments related to the thread?

What is your take on the image?
Alien? Secret Military plane? Ghost? Nothing?

I' not trying to kill this thread, I just want some other answers offered up besides "Yep, definitly looks like a UFO"
(This does not give anyone any insight in to what it could be)

Just give me your opinion.

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 06:15 PM
I'd say that's what this forum is for. Sharing information and learning. Palasheea is learning about long exposures, as I am as well.

It also seems to be that that these short UFO cigar shaped craft with lights are in the high minority of "long-exposure" pictures." At least the dozen or so that have been posted.

Imo. Only one shown so far, has even come close to the one originally posted by Palasheea, so I'm not ready to pass this off as long exposure, and thus debunked. Needs further investigation.

A more likely scenario to me was this object isn't as nearly as big as it apears to be. Maybe a lit ip balloon tetther down over the restaurant to attract customers. I believe it was on page 2, someone pointed out there are 3 spotlight aiming up at this object to make it even more visible.

But then how does this explain for the photographer saying he did not see this object when he took the pictures? Either he's is straight lying, or just a prankster, or genuinly did not see them who knows.

But again if this image was due to long exposure why is evything so clear, the water, the people in the dockside restaurant?

Again theres just that one other pic that looks almost idetical to this posted by defuntion on page three. Why not assume that this is a craft and 2 people have caught it on film at 2 seperate occassions?

Again there's just too many if's on this one to close it, or write it off as long exposure, imo.

Either way it is pretty interesting. But there's alot of different possiblities as to what could be occuring here.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Nola213]

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Nola213]

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Palasheea
Check out this news site!
It shows photographs of a UFO seen over S.F back in July of this year and the images are STUNNING!

All I see is a long exposure. Its possible that the light was too faint to "clearly" see the aircraft that passed by when the shutter was open.

Try it again on an aircraft you can see and compare the two.

The light that flashes on the left side of most aircraft is red. There are other configurations, but I'm positive that's what I'm looking at. The center landing light is also on, thus the white blur as well.

I'll bet my time on an Aircraft Carrier on it.

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 06:23 PM
Now first off I agree with most people saying that its long exposure of some aircraft, a plane perhaps....but the pictures being used to compare don't look anything like that....maybe if you want to prove a point you should use a long exposure picture that matches it exactly, not something that streaks across the sky for miles and looks absolutely nothing like it.

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 06:45 PM
Thanks for all of your insights and comments posted in the last half-hour or so.
I've been looking at these photo's in photoshop and for the life of me -- embossed, lightened up ... you name it, nothing else is showing up other than exactly what being seen in these photo's. So that's perplexing to me because if it's a plane, for example, one would think that some kind of vague outline of something -- anything would show up somewhere on or around this thing to give that away... but so far, NOTHING.

I'm glad that some here are not ready to write it off as simply a long exposure thing because even if we are seeing that effect here... so far I can honestly say that it seems negligible. But I'm no expert at photographic analysis and I'm just pitching in my .02 worth -- that's all it is.

I'm more than willing to concede that this is just a mundane aircraft of some sort but so far.. no matter how hard I try to convince myself that this is what it is.. I just can't go there yet.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Palasheea]

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by ZeroGhost

I don't have time to read all the pages so forgive if someone else noticed.

If you read the article you will notice that it was mentioned the camera was placed on top of a pier or a post and it was a VR Lens from Nikon. A VR lens is the same as three stops difference in addition to being on a rock solid surface. I use one for Wildlife Shots as I'm getting up in age and my hand is not to steady. With a VR lens I can shoot with a 300mm in fairly low light and get sharp images. Without the VR Lens I could never do that. They also have a setting for Tripods (the newest ones) and for shots where you are following an object in motion. Nikon Rules, no matter what Cannon says
I'll assume if he is buying VR lenses he also used a remote shutter switch like I would. You will also note how bright the building lights are. You can not do that with a short exposure after dark without major, easily visible grain and noise even with a digital camera. At a 3200 ISO equivalent the grain would be huge. Those are very clear shots which means under 600 ISO on that camera I believe. I'm basing this on the performance of a D200 so it may be more like under the 250 ISO setting Nikon's have to get that little color noise.

Actually Digital Cameras are far better at low light than film. In particular the new Nikon's. More than a couple of Northern Lights Photographers, who never appologize, owe me one over that issue. They now all use digital for their shots I've seen in recent years.

Note: The Bear in my Avitar is shot with a VR 300 mm Lens in the late afternoon while in a fight with another juvenile Brown Bear in the water. Notice even though the light was low I was able to stop the Bear and the water drops without problems. Try that with a normal lens.

[edit on 11/15/2007 by Blaine91555]

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 07:31 PM
Blaine, thanks for your input and I honor and respect your opinions and insights on those photo's and the equipment used and so on...

But your information is too technical for me to even attempt to comment on and I'm sure ZG or someone else here will do that some time later.

I love that bear photograph!! I can't imagine what it's even like to be near a bear that's snarling like that and still manage to take a photo of it without totally freaking out! Lol... Awesome photo and I'm sure it's much more awesome to view such a photograph in person as opposed to seeing a compressed version of it on the internet.

At any rate, my comments on those UFO photo's are of course purely subjective. But this does not mean that I do not appreciate the validity of your assessment of them by any means.

I would love to see some more of your photographs sometime! I'm a big fan of Ansel Adams and I have a friend who has some of his photo's from a few of his limited editions .. some are worth thousands and thousands of dollars. But because you are in Alaska I can only imagine what your own collection must be comprised of .. wow! Thanks for commenting!

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 07:31 PM
OK, after looking at all of the pictures on the site, I definately agreed it was motion blur, due to the inconsitancies in the pictures.

However.... He stated that; "If there was any noise it would have been drounded out by the wind" or something like that, stating it was very windy. This would have made the water appear 'blurry' as the waves went up and down. I don't see that as the case here.

So, how do you get motion blur in the sky, but not on the ground? The thing in the sky would have to be going a long at a pretty good for it to be streaked THAT much, while the water remains fairly crisp.
Strange to me. If anyone can explain that to me, I'd be happy.

Edit: Blaine, I agree about the VR Lense, they are very nice. However, I have a D20, and I can't come up with a good enough excuse to buy a Nikon
. My old camera was a Nikon (film) and I loved it. Course, I had good lenses, so it took pretty good pictures anyway.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Ecidemon]

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:07 PM
Very fascinating photos. If this is real then its the best close up of a UFO so far. The UFO looks like a white hanging florescent light like those that you would see hanging in a warehouse.

I hope that ATS gets more into the mainstream soon because people posting their UFO sightings and pictures on C2C or any random source like this guy did is just plain retarded. They all need to come to ATS so that we can tell them how to properly post the original pictures at the original resolution and not modified at all. Until that happens UFO sightings like this are just going to be hair pulling frustrating.

[edit on 11/15/07 by housegroove23]

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:43 PM
As i said in my first post, without the original image
any statement cannot be conclusive, imho: only after extracting EXIF data we would be able to obtain answers to some questions that still are unanswered.
Anyway, i noticed that the object has never the same shape;

I've used these three photos:

In the first series, we can see that the small lights in the top of the object are never on the same line:
in the second one, we can see that its curvature is never the same:
this would mean that if it's an actual object not long exposed would be a flexible one, and with mobile lights, IMHO.

That being said, we still don't know if the photographer would helpfully share the original shots: imho,
if he is, we'll be able to make further investigation based on actual data instead of an interview, and that would mean a sign of genuinity
if he isn't, it's an hoax or he wants somehow speculate on the pictures, and in both cases we shouldn't be interested at all to his stuff.
My humble opinion is that this is a long exposure photo of something which actually was in flight there, maybe an helicopter, maybe not, but of course its actual shape is not the one that we see in the photos, imho;
but since i can't prove it, this is only an opinion

I wonder how is possible to take several shots of such an object without noticing it, that's odd to say the least.
Anyway, i have no evidence here, and i'll consider it an UFO till it will be proved otherwise
thanks again to palashea for sharing this find.

[edit on 15/11/2007 by internos]

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:44 PM
Hey peeps,

Not sure if someone made mention of this point yet, but if this was in fact a motion
blur, would'nt the small red lights on what appear to be the side of the object be
blurred as well as the large white light at the bottom?
I think that both the red and white lights would have the same streeaking effect if
this object was moving rapidly accross the camera len's point of view.

Just my thoughts. Yours???



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:52 PM
It is a motion blur of an aircraft. Take a closer look at the street light they are not perfectly round but 'star' shaped, meaning that the lens was set at small aperture maybe couple stops down max, but the water wave is sharp, so I would say this shot was taken at high ISO say 800, and the 'craft' was a fast moving one but too small to be noted in this cropped wide angle shot. I wonder if someone could provide the EXIF data to verify my finding, and I still think it is a 'human craft'.

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by MadSigntist

I gotta ask, is a MadSigntist someone who writes curse words on billboards?

If nothing else, we're learning a lot about exposure. I never knew that it could be so incremental that only something like a plane would blur, and yet almost nothing else seem odd.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in