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: 9
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Just a thought,
Has anyone contacted Air Traffic Control for the Bay Area?
It is a bit expensive to phone them from New Zealand.

We have the date and time of the sighting, Sunday July 1st, 2007 at 11:01pm, what traffic was in the area at the time, planes or helicopters, search and rescue, coastguard, military. I am assuming that they are logged in and out of the area.

What ever it was it was certainly low for a commercial aircraft.
Is that place on the flight patch/approach to the SF airport?

Just something to ponder!



[edit on 18-11-2007 by Havalon]




posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Havalon,
Excellent suggestion and yes that object in those photo's is flying too low ... very odd.
I'll call SF's Air Traffic Control tomorrow to see if I can get that information.

At any rate, that object is probably (but I'm still not completely sold on that) an abbreviated long exposure of 'something'. A helicopter? Well, some of you are saying that that's what it probably is based on those lights we are seeing on it. All I can say is for someone who just bought that expensive cam only a few days before going out to SF to take photo's with it -- it seems to me that he's already taking photo's like a real pro if he can effect that kind of abbreviated long exposure shot of that object like he did... In my book, some pretty fancy calibrations are going on here. A fast moving object that one would expect to see a looooong light stream like what we see in most long exposure shots of fast moving objects. It would be a light stream we would expect to see continuing from where it starts stretching to the end of the photo... but we are not seeing that at all in any of those images of that object.
It's truly amazing that somehow this person learned how to abbreviate those long exposures and at the same time capture extensive detail in those photo's too in his first photo session using the cam! This to me is pretty incredible. Lol, I will be looking into buying a cam like this myself if it's so easy to use where one can get sophisticated photographic results like a pro on first use! Amazing! Might be worth the money for it if it's that kind of a cam. National Geographic.. here I come!


But the above is not even taking into consideration that this person did not see that object up there at the time when he was taking those photo's. So this even makes it even more amazing that those objects are showing up as abbv. long exposures of them...
Even a pro would have to spend some amount of time making those calibrations on his cam to effect such shots. He definitely would have remembered doing that if he saw that obect up there and capture some photo's of it as it was flying across the bay like that.
There are too many unanswered questions having to do with these photo's and I do hope that the photographer or even the person who interviewed him comes by here to tell us more about them.

[edit on 18-11-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
First thing i noticed is that the object is very bright and close to the water, but there is no reflection of the lights or the object on the water below. You can clearly see the lights from the bayside shops and stores on the water, and it stands to reason you would see the lights from the object as well, but you can't. This points to manipulated photo. I'd have to say It's a fake.

[edit on 18-11-2007 by Osyris]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Well, just like one member said here, we all will each be seeing these photo's differently. Is that thing reflecting off the water? I guess it depends on who you ask!





The photographer said that not only did he not see that object up there at the time when he captured those photo's, but he also said that the water was not lit up in those area's some of us are seeing lit up in those photo's at the time when he took those photo's either.

In my view, if we are to believe the photographer's story that he did not see that UFO when taking those photo's, because that object only is seen in the photo's and was not seen at the time when they were taken, I'm surprised that that the water under that object in these photo's is reflecting the light illuminating down from that object. In other words, because the light from that object is reflecting off the water like that, to me, it weakens the argument (the photographer's account) that that object was not seen at the time when it was photographed.

But if the object was seen when it was photographed... if it was visible to the naked eye, then it would make sense to me that regardless if it's a UFO or not, it would be reflecting off the water as what's being shown in those photo's that only some of us here are able to see for some reason.


[edit on 18-11-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Hey everyone. Tom Baurele just forwarded me this thread (the radio reporter who did the story on these UFOS), so I thought I should chime in.

My boyfriend, Grant, took these photos. I will tell you what I know before he decides to chime in.

I know many won't believe me or him, but the original photographs have NOT been photoshopped in anyway whatsoever. The only addition to the photos you have seen are that the watermark was added as well as they have been sized down.

Why bother with the watermark you ask? Well, we are not people who would make up something like this. Grant came home from his roadtrip and had taken about 2,000 photographs on his camera on three different memory cards. About 1 week and 3 days after he returned home we were both at work (a small family run antique shop) where we have access to a computer. He brought one of his memory cards which he had not looked at yet.

I came back from helping a customer and Grant looked white as a ghost. He then showed me the pictures where I had the same reaction. This is truly genuine and the first time we have seen the photos.

Grant became very paranoid. The photos were so convincing to us and close family that we kept them on lockdown (we had no prior experience with UFOs or ANYTHING like it). We had no idea what to do.

We contacted MUFON, I personally talked to a head investigator there because Grant wanted to remain anoynmous and did not want to talk about it as it just freaked him out. At this time we had no knowledge of time exposure and that specific debunking. I personally WANTED badly to debunk them.

Chuck told us what we had encounted was a definate "unknown". For about a month we took no action and told him to keep the photos underwraps. That is until we came in contact with Mr. Baurele who does radio programs on UFOs. When this happened, I recontacted Chuck and told him to send the photos to his head photo anaylst (the photos are still being analyzed to this day, and I'd be happy to share their findings when they come). Much time had passed and we were now a little desensitized to the situation.

When the story went live, there were many people saying Grant was lying or that he "enhanced" the time exposure. Grant didn't listen to any of this, he actually didn't tune in to the show at all. He was adamant and still is about not seeing ANYTHING. He is a very nit-picky photographer (though not professional), and he said if there were any craft in my eye sight I would not have taken the picture because what he wanted was a clear and unobstructed series of the skyline.

I will have him get to this site if possible (because they are very high res) the original works.

For a long time, we have kept these underwraps to due the criticism we knew we would bare, but know that I myself am not entirely convinced that it is a UFO: it MAY be time exposure? I am not an expert in photography and neither is grant.

What I can tell you as a fact though is that he did not alter these photos in any way and neither did anyone else. They come as they are: and he claims he DID NOT see anything. That doesn't mean something wasn't there, but to this day he insists that nothing was in his view. This pictures were not taken intentionally, but rather accidentally.

The time exposure deal still poses some problems: even in my little recent research. One of the most brilliant things about the photos when I first saw them was the water. How can someone produce that or even fake that? Was one of the first things I said as to why these were so magnificent. The lights in the back of the skyline are all in focus. The water grant claims was completely black.

Feel free to discuss more and ask any further questions I may be able to answer.

Thanks everyone for your general kindness toward our photos,
Lauren

ALSO: Anyone have any suggestion as how to get such large photos up here for viewing?



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
One last note before I wait for others to reply:

Grant is NOT a rich kid know-it-all. He loves photography and worked very hard to be able to buy this model before his trip. He had no prior training, but wanted to and still wants to learn.

He also is not stupid, and is very honest which hundreds of people can account for.

My brother called in the show (Adam) to say he DID see a helicopter but it was NOT in the view of where the shot was taken, it was behind it and it was about 3 minutes before the shot was taken. A way with words by the host of the show manipulated the whole situation to say that the helicopter Adam saw was the one Grant look a picture of. Adam just let it go as he realized he could not win.

What he was trying to say was though he himself was aware of a craft in the sky that night, it was not over that particular place. This is because alot of people were claiming they were both blind. I'd love to find out if you can see what exactly was in the air that night; that was something I wanted to do but never did.

Everyone has to remember too that they had just spent three days prior driving all the way across the country. This is the first night they spent in SF: if the whole Time Exposure thing is legit (which I'm not sure of yet), it is possible the craft went in all honesty unnoticed.

Hmmm...



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by laurenrose

I came back from helping a customer and Grant looked white as a ghost. He then showed me the pictures where I had the same reaction. This is truly genuine and the first time we have seen the photos.



no offense, but i think your overdramatizing things.

its not like he was looking at a photo of the boggie man.

also, by the sound of it, your partner is a pretty clued up photographer, yet when he looks at a photo that looks very, very similar (if not the same) to a time exposure photograph - he goes, as you put, "white as a ghost"?
can you explain this

thanks & welcome



[edit on 19/11/07 by lbennie]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I was explaining the course of events, and that is pretty much what happened. He may have shrugged "WTF?".

Grant is not a professional photographer; he had no prior knowledge of time exposure nor had he seen all the other supposed UFO time exposure shots.

he had never seen or dealt with any type of UFO, just a normal person seeing something like that for the first time would get freaked out... every person we showed in person had the same reaction to the shots: all of which who had never seen or believed in UFOS, all of which had no time exposure knowledge.

I would like to get the originals up here and let them speak for themselves, as I'm sure everyone can pick apart my every word and claim it fake.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by laurenrose


I would like to get the originals up here and let them speak for themselves, as I'm sure everyone can pick apart my every word and claim it fake.


laurenrose, thank you for joining ATS:

you could send only ONE photo to one of the admins in order to allow them to extract exif data. That's the only thing that we need, and it requires half a minute.
What do you think about?
.


[edit on 19/11/2007 by internos]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Yea, that is fine. Where do I send them?



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I think that some mod will answer as soon as possible



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Hi Lauren,

If you will click the little button on the upper row of the page that reads "U2U" you will find my email address in a message.

You can email me the image and I will forward it to one of our resident experts Jeff Ritzmann.

I want to welcome you to ATS and let you know we appreciate your joining the discussion.


Springer...



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Hi laurenrose! internos just notified (by U2U) me to check this thread and I'm so happy you stopped by to clarify a few things for us!

I too contacted that radio station hoping someone would notify you that a discussion was currently in progress on those very intriguing UFO photo's -- and I'm so happy to see that they did that!

One thing we all want to find out is if they are long exposure's and what were the approx. calibrations for those exposures to effect the very interesting results we are seeing in these photo's.

I personally have been flip-flopping back and forth on if they are long exposures in the extreme or just a tad bit. If it's only a tad bit... could this mean it's a legit UFO?? This is what I want to find out. But whatever the case may be, I know that the only way we are going to get some idea on that at this point in time is to have our resident photographic expert JRitzman analyze those photo's. So that's WONDERFUL that Springer stepped in to suggest for you to go ahead and send those photo's to us! Internos mentioned just one is needed so that would be great if you could send one!

I also agree with ZG that whatever the case may be, it seems quite clear that we are not dealing with a hoax here -- nor are we dealing with someone who's intentionally trying to pull the wool over our eyes on anything.. Grant just told his story AS HE KNOWS IT (thanks for verifying that for us Laurenrose!) and that's all that matters but on the other hand, we here have not proven them to be simple long exposures... at least not yet. IMHO. Let's see what JR says about them!
Thanks Springer!

PS -- Also, thanks Tom Baurele of WBEN for contacting Lauren and Grant to tell them about this ATS discussion on Grants' photo's!

[edit on 19-11-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Thanks guys for your welcoming responses, as we have nothing to gain from these photos except piece of mind. Had Baurele not shown interest in them, they would have never hit the web at all as we had no plans of pursuing any media.

I have sent the photo to the email address and am looking forward to the response, as well as those we are awaiting from MUFON.

This has been an interesting ride as of late and opened Grant and my eyes to a whole other world of UFO phenomenon: even if these photos turn out to be 100% terrestrial.

Thanks!



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Could be a Blue Beam experiment.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by laurenrose
Thanks guys for your welcoming responses, as we have nothing to gain from these photos except peace of mind. Had Baurele not shown interest in them, they would have never hit the web at all as we had no plans of pursuing any media.

I have sent the photo to the email address and am looking forward to the response, as well as those we are awaiting from MUFON.

This has been an interesting ride as of late and opened Grant and my eyes to a whole other world of UFO phenomenon: even if these photos turn out to be 100% terrestrial.

Thanks!


Hi Lauren and Grant! Thanks so much for sending those photo's to us and don't be so hard on yourself. Many of us here have not only seen UFOs ourselves but we've also viewed countless number of UFO photo's online and elsewhere yet, we still can't tell if Grant's photo's are the real thing or not.

Granted, those who started right off the bat saying it's a long exposure thing, even those here who are experienced photographers admitted that there are so many variables one has to consider in making those definative determinations on what's showing up in any given photo -- the only way we can approach some kind of near certainty on anything is by analyzing the original photo's -- so thanks again for sending them to us!








[edit on 19-11-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 04:16 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.


Well, strobe lights like those on aircraft flash very short, like a flashlight. Aircraft typically carry lights that are illuminated constantly (like headlights on a car) and strobing colored navigation lights that flash rapidly all around, a bit like a lighthouse but much faster. You don't need a very long exposure to get a light streak against the black sky as a low-flying aircraft will still be moving at up to 100 metres/second (360 km/h); a helicopter going at full speed may be at half that, still 50 m/sec, so even with a half-second or 1/4 second shot (handheld, mild wide-angle or standard lens, camera with image stabilisation so quite possible without a tripod) you would see a substantial streak of tens of metres in apparent length, but with the coloured strobes showing as brightly coloured points, as they flashed for maybe 1/1000th of a second (towards the camera) or even shorter.
It's also quite possible for the photographer not to have seen or heard a plane or chopper due to the noisy weather, or simply because an aircraft taking off or a chopper flying over a harbour is a normal sight in an urban environment and it was 'mentally filtered out'. If it was a plane taking off, it could have been further away than one would think (as there is no reflection of it in the water below, it might in fact be much further from the camera than the building on the opposite shore). The shallow angle of the light streak would suggest an aircraft taking off or landing (probably the latter).

It is very difficult to estimate distances in a twodimensional image.

My vote goes to the aircraft with navigational strobe lights. If the photographer can point out where he was standing on a map, it's a good bet that there will be an airstrip not far away on the opposite shore, a bit to the right of the image.

Then again, it's much more exciting to say 'Hey, maybe I captured a flying saucer when I was not looking' than to say 'Look, there was an aircraft landing and it screwed up an otherwise fair photo of a harbour by night'...




posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Palasheea
 



Hi again,
Did you get chance to see if the airport flight path is over that part of the bay, or whether the Air traffic control has any record of flights in the area that night?



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   
If someone provides the coordinates of the docks, we'll be able to start making a MAP of the area, and to make the first hypothesis about the aprox. distances.

I've no idea of their exact location ...



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Havalon
reply to post by Palasheea
 



Hi again,
Did you get chance to see if the airport flight path is over that part of the bay, or whether the Air traffic control has any record of flights in the area that night?


Lol... er, no not yet. I was too busy yesterday to make that call but will try doing that sometime today. Now I'm glad I held off on that because if I had called yesterday, I would not have inquired if an airport flightpath is over that part of the bay. But didn't someone here say that that area is restricted airspace? If that's the case then we are looking at some limitations on what kinds of planes and crafts are permitted to fly over the bay in that area -- as you can see, it's near the bridge.
I'm still stumped on how low that object is flying over the water like that.




top topics



 
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join