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: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Palasheea
 


If you scroll down in each image, it will tell you what aircraft was photographed. Airliners.net is a PROFFESSIONAL photography site, so any points to discredit these photos are rather moot.

And no, it does not matter if it was a helicopter or an aircraft, they both use the same lights.




posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Jimmy,
We're not going to learn anything about long exposure photographs by posting EXTREME LONG EXPOSURE PHOTO'S. Sure, they're fun to look at but they are 'off topic' to what's being discussed in this thread.

I think we need to switch to calling those S.F. photo's photograph's taken in low light mode instead of calling them LONG EXPOSURE PHOTOGRAPHS because when most people hear "long exposure" -- they think of those snazzy art photo's showing immensely long streaming lights swirling around and incredibly exaggerated motion blurs... stuff like we seen in art posters and prints and magazines -- and stuff like we are seeing in your airport runway photo's.


[edit on 16-11-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
If the person who shot the photos did not see the object when he took the picture as he says, then it sounds like these UFO's are using some type of cloaking technology.
That must be why most folks don't see these things typically... you need a camera to see them when they are cloaked.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Dont know if this will muddy the water any, but THIS link might help in clarifying some of the details about these images.

Please visit the link for this persons comparison photographs from a similar circumstance. There are copyrights on these images so I wont post them here.

Although these are not an exact replication of the photos in question they are a variation on the theme. Demanding exactness as proof or a counter argument in an arena that has as as many variables as photography does is unreasonable.

Persons hell bent on not allowing the most probable explanation for these images to be satisfactory will continue to "see" what they "see". Cant fight that, losing battle IMHO. You can definately try to deny ignorance but it is hardwired in some people.

I offered up my opinion in another thread about a month or so ago about these photos and it hasnt changed since then so I wont toss in any of my thoughts here.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by Lost_Mind]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Thank you for the link Lostmind, to be honest i'm suprised this thread is going as long as it has.

I'm almost definate that this topic was posted in another thread some time ago and put to bed pretty quickly stating the lights to be Aircraft. Of course eveyone is entitled to their own opinion but i seriously see this as one of the simplest to explain compared to other images i have seen. The Washington link just adds further information to back up the fact that this was no UFO. Take it or leave it.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
reply to post by Palasheea
 


Looks to me like a time exposure shot of something in the sky - probably a helicopter. With some sort of searchlight on it. Very much doubt here's anything more to it than that, myself, but doubtless others will think differently!

LW


I helped in the analyzation of a similar photograph years ago taken from a camera near Reagan National Airport, Washington, D.C. I had more reference points in the D.C. Photo, but I concluded that it was a time-lapse of an Aircraft on a Landing Approach to DCA. I thought the forward looking light on this S.F. craft was a little more peculiar, but your explanation is very befitting. Good observation and analysis.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea

Originally posted by bizone
Oh yeah, by the way:

www.wben.com...

The updated story from the website (which was posted about 3 weeks ago). It says that a phone conversation with one of the men there during the photography DID NOTICE A HELICOPTER in the air at the time.



[edit on 16-11-2007 by bizone]


bizone,

In your post above, you gave your own SLANTED paraphrase of that update TO FIT YOUR OWN BIASED OPINION that that object seen is a long exposure of a plane.
(Actually you totally re-worded what Adam said)
Adam, the guy who was with the photographer on that day said that he himself saw a helicopter flying over the bay sometime PRIOR to when those photo's were taken -- NOT DURING the time when those photo's were taken.

All Adam was saying was that a helicopter was seen sometime that day flying over the bay PRIOR to when the photographer started taking photograph's of the bay that day.

Adam did NOT say that there was a helicopter flying over that bay DURING the time the photographer was taking those photo's.





[edit on 16-11-2007 by Palasheea]


This is pathetic. The guy noticed a helicopter. Some photos were taken. The photos show EXACTLY what a helicopter looks like with a long exposure at night. Being that they were using a zoom lens and not taking pictures of the sky, it's possible that neither of them noticed a helicopter while snapping the photos. The photographers focus was on the houses and water, not the sky.

As for accusing me into reading more into the article... The only thing they say is that the helicopter was definitely there "prior" to the photographs. It does not clarify if prior means a few seconds, minutes, hours, etc. There is no mention of the helicopter being seen "earlier in the day".

And have you ever thought of WHY Adam called into the show? Would he call in just to mention he saw a helicopter in the air for no good reason? It's obvious he called in to put the speculation to rest.

I could argue semantics some more, but this is already beyond ridiculous. Even the guys who took the photo are not arguing this.

Let it die.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
This is obviously a long exposure photo, because the buildings show up so brightly, even though the photo was taken at night. So if this WAS a long exposure, then the supposed extraterrestial craft would have needed to be hovering perfectly still to have shown up so clearly.

No, this is obviously a long exposure shot of something (airplane? helicopter?) flying past.

I suppose someone could argue that this could just as easily be and ET instead of a helicopter, but then you could say that about any picture of a light in the sky.

EDIT: typo

[edit on 11/16/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I analyzed those photo's in photoshop and I'm not seeing any indication of a conventional aircraft of any sort.

Because of this and other reasons too, I'm still not convinced that the object in those photo's are the result of a conventional aircraft of some sort flying by.

This is just my own opinion at this point in time. I'm not even on the fence about it. I may change my opinion after we are able to analyze the uncompressed original photo's and talk to the person who captured those photo's.



[edit on 16-11-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by MegaCurious
If the person who shot the photos did not see the object when he took the picture as he says, then it sounds like these UFO's are using some type of cloaking technology.
That must be why most folks don't see these things typically... you need a camera to see them when they are cloaked.


Right... at this point all we can do is accept that the photographer is telling the truth about everything.
I can't see that he would even mention that there was nothing up there at the time when he took those photo's of the bridge and the bay unless it weren't true.
In any case, there are many photo's of UFO where the person who captured the image saw nothing there at the time when the image was captured. This seems to be a very common phenomenon.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
Hmmmm, I'm sorry, I need more information to convince me that this is NOT a UFO.

Both of you are only guessing and it's clear that you think the photographer is lying about everything.

These photo's have not been Debunked as you claim... except by you Kozmo, lol.

Lol... a helicopter??? You guys need to have your vision checked out!






[edit on 15-11-2007 by Palasheea]


You seem to have some sort of misunderstanding of 'UFO'.
It doesn't mean 'Spaceship', it means, Unidentified.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Regguardless if that photo is real or not, if you ever get a chance to see one of these big black rectangular ships, be prepared to be awe stricken beyond words. They are really really cool looking. I think maybe it could be a government ship, but I tend to think we don't have the technology perfected ebnough to power something that huge so effortlessly. Then again, if they have an antigravity drive, then it really wouldn't matter.

A bit off subject, but there was this program about the future of space travel on the Discovery Channel a while back, and they kinda let the cat out of the bag about warp drives. Basically stated that scientists were "working" on the technology. We all know what that translates to in secret govt terms. They HAVE the technology, and scientists are "working" on how the heck they're gunna disclose all of this technology to the public. Sorry off post...

but I was just thinking, there are several different shots of this thing in different locations, and I dunno, seems like a really weird flight pattern, plane or helicopter.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Lostmind,
I viewed the photo's on that link and I'm definitely seeing long exposure aircraft lines in them. Anyone who views them will say, right off the bat, that that's what they are.

But I'm seeing much more ambiguity in those SF photo's, so much so that for me to agree with your point of view on what that object is would be dishonest on my part.

Thanks for your input.. but once again, I truly do believe that the SF photographs are worthy of further investigation and analysis instead of taking the easy route and brushing them off as simple long exposure effects of a conventional aircraft flying by. To me, that's a cop out -- no offense in attended...



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Well of course you don't see any indication of what the object is, there wouldn't be any to begin with!



What's this? Go into photoshop and try to point out to me what this is.



or this! Tell me what they were using to produce those lights, you're obviously going to be able to tell, right?

There's absolutely no reason why you should be able to tell what the object is creating those trails. None. That's the beauty of extended exposure photography. If people don't understand the visual(s) then there's absolutely no way of telling what created the trail.

I'm guessing there was an exposure time of 1.3 - 2.5 seconds in this "UFO" picture. The picture doesn't look too bright (the longer the exposure, the brighter the final picture will be) but it doesn't look like a clean shot.



My gosh! This looks exactly like the OP's UFO picture.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by indierockalien
Regguardless if that photo is real or not, if you ever get a chance to see one of these big black rectangular ships, be prepared to be awe stricken beyond words. They are really really cool looking. I think maybe it could be a government ship, but I tend to think we don't have the technology perfected ebnough to power something that huge so effortlessly. Then again, if they have an antigravity drive, then it really wouldn't matter.

A bit off subject, but there was this program about the future of space travel on the Discovery Channel a while back, and they kinda let the cat out of the bag about warp drives. Basically stated that scientists were "working" on the technology. We all know what that translates to in secret govt terms. They HAVE the technology, and scientists are "working" on how the heck they're gunna disclose all of this technology to the public. Sorry off post...

but I was just thinking, there are several different shots of this thing in different locations, and I dunno, seems like a really weird flight pattern, plane or helicopter.


I definitely think there are private and government covert organizations around the planet that already have this technology at their disposal and myself and those I was with at the time when we saw a large Triangle UFO were convinced that it was an advanced experimental military aircraft.

I think disclosure will be coming up sometime within our lifetime but not without the public demanding it. Even if they only give us untruths on this or that, many will be able to decipher that information to put the pieces of the puzzle together and come up with a clearer understanding of what kinds of advanced technology we actually have now and what they are doing with it.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
#1: LostMind post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

#2: Defunction post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

#3: OP post
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Anyway, IMHO, these are excellent comparisons, and these specific images aren't off topic since their purpose is to provide a possible explanation ... some other images are off topic of course due to their extreme exposure time, IMHO.
At this point it doesn't matter what the photographer states, the only things to which we'd be interested are original images, which besides should have a better resolution than these ones, IMHO;
or we can discuss these pics endlessly with NO CHANCE to reach a final conclusion.
Who can contact them in order to ask for the original ones? I have no clue...


[edit on 16/11/2007 by internos]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Time to post these two pictures together again.
I posted this back on page 3, but I don't think everyone has read the whole thread.


Originally posted by Palasheea



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


Exactly the same.

Let's not ignore the obvious. I know we all want to beleive there is a mystery here, but we gotta move on at some point.
Time to end this one, folks.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by indierockalien
... and I dunno, seems like a really weird flight pattern, plane or helicopter.


With all respects, the flight pattern isn't weird...it appears to have been moving in a (approximately) straight line.

EDIT: typo

[edit on 11/16/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
internos,

The photographer is from Amherst, NY.
Below is the email address of the radio show he was on where he did that interview.
He was interviewed by Tom Bauerle on his show.

www.wben.com...

Oct. 25 is the date of the interview (or the day before or so) -- so I'm sure they must still have the photographer's contact information.

Toll Free: 800.616.WBEN


[edit on 16-11-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Palasheea
 


Well, here there are all the adresses and numbers:
www.wben.com...

If there's someone who helpfully would contact them (i'm in Europe now),
there's even a tool free.
Much better if there's someone from Buffalo ...


[edit on 16/11/2007 by internos]




top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join