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.

 

Best Ever UFO Picture ?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I guess most people interested in the field may have come across these pictures before but despite my own interest I hadn't seen these until I stumbled across them last week.

Apologies if already discussed, debunked etc but just thought they are worthy of being brought to attention considering some of the other, admittedly more recently taken, pictures being posted.

As the claim goes they are either fake or extraordinary - I know without the negatives blah blah but otherwise quite remarkable.





posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I know it's sad but my one and only post is lonely without any replies so please excuse this one.

One liners not allowed so also to mention that after all of the recent you tube videos and other photos seen I still believe these to be the most remarkable pictures. They also address many of the concerns mentioned with other pics, not blurred, not at night, reference points, not anonymous etc. There are still issues, if they were taken by Billy Maier they would be scoffed at but otherwise anyone seen any better ?



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I recall someone around here debunking these as a smokeless ash tray. Ritzman, I think.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Top ones look like quite poor fake imo, and the bottom one looks very similar to the bottom of a stealth fighter. Not sure tho.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
I recall someone around here debunking these as a smokeless ash tray. Ritzman, I think.


Hi, yes, he did mention in another later thread that he thought these pics had been debunked by someone as an ash tray. I queried him at the time to provide more evidence of that but unfortunately he did not reply.

I have seen the article he refers to and to be honest it is just a cheap shot saying that it looks similar to an ash tray, no evidence at all. I just had a search for the article but can't find it, will post a link if I can.

Obviously there are a number of ways pictures like this could be faked and what is in them may look similar to many mundane objects - the answer to that is it could look exactly like the model it is or even exactly like the UFO that was filmed.

Just in my opinion, with the background story as it stands and the clarity of the pics, it remains a remarkable case, however would love Ritzman's opinion.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ogre14t
Top ones look like quite poor fake imo, and the bottom one looks very similar to the bottom of a stealth fighter. Not sure tho.


Hi,

In what way do they look fake ?

Here is a link to some higher res pictures.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
if it's a flying machine of some sort,it looks man made to me,very 70s feel to it.

They just don't look authentic to me,they look artificial. To angular maybe.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by chunder
 


Chunder I have to agree with you here. I posted this picture before. Ritzmann wrote it off as a flying smokeless ashtray, but failed to provide any photographic comparisons. I really don't understand why he would take that approach if he's such a respected member around here.

Is it a UFO? I have no idea. Skeptics get off way too easy these days. We too easily forget that a debunker must also provide proof/evidence to prove something isn't a UFO as well.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
As the claim goes they are either fake or extraordinary - I know without the negatives blah blah but otherwise quite remarkable.





With regards to the pictures, no they are not fake. These UFO's as with most encounters, know that they are being watched. Distant civilizations also have the ability to communicate telepathically. In the case of Eric Thomasson, as soon as he awoke, provisions were made for him to gather himself and be fully prepared for what was to come. He knew exactly what to bring and where to go, as he was probably instructed what to do.

Otherwise, in ordinary circumstances, he'd have to resort to running back to his house scrambling for his camera, then back to the field and perhaps catch hazy shots of the UFO in a distance, as they were taking off.

These beings aren't looking for lots of attention, but they do want us to know that they're out there.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ogre14t
Top ones look like quite poor fake imo, and the bottom one looks very similar to the bottom of a stealth fighter. Not sure tho.


The bottom one is actually a arrow pointing to where the guy was standing at the time of the photos.

Im interested in the second craft or egg? hehe



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Anyone troubled by the lack of even a hint of motion blur?

These look like close up shots of small posed objects, not distance shots of a large hovering object.

In fact the objects are so clear it appears the camera would have to be on a tripod or be using extremely fast film.

2 cents.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Kind of looks like the Jupiter 2 from "Lost in Space".



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Hmm.... maybe a new version of the Cypher UAV? Or maybe just a photoshopped Cypher pasted onto the background?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrayFox
Hmm.... maybe a new version of the Cypher UAV? Or maybe just a photoshopped Cypher pasted onto the background?

en.wikipedia.org...


Why would a US military UAV be flying over a beach in Australia ?

I'm not saying pictures couldn't be altered when these were taken but I doubt digital manipulation could have been used.

It's too easy to say photoshopped and here is an object that looks similar, we all know any photo can be reproduced, the question is how were these taken originally.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


I'm afraid I disagree.

I'm no photography expert but I used to take pictures of trains when I was a youngster around the time these were taken. I had a cheap camera with cheap film and paid for processing by mail, cheaply.

Even I could manage shots that weren't blurred of fast moving objects whilst holding a camera by hand.

Apart from that where in the background info does it state that the objects were even moving quickly at the time these pics were taken ?

Your comment about the objects being so clear is my point - are these the best UFO pictures ?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Kinesis
 


That's actually a reasonable explanation for why there may be some confusion as to the exact circumstances of what he was doing there with a camera.

I'll look around to see if there are any other cases where photo opportunities may have been prompted.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
the 2nd pic where the ufo has a smily face seemes like its hollowed out.....


CHUNDER... you an aussie??



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
Why would a US military UAV be flying over a beach in Australia ?


Maybe it's not actually the Cypher itself, but something similar. And there's still the possibility that this is just a fake.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrayFox

Originally posted by chunder
Why would a US military UAV be flying over a beach in Australia ?


Maybe it's not actually the Cypher itself, but something similar. And there's still the possibility that this is just a fake.


If it's something similar but not then until identified it's a UFO.

There is always the possibility something is fake, unless there at the time or extremely rigorously investigated how can that be determined ? The negatives were supposedly never returned and no attempt has been made at either financial gain or personal notoriety. You therefore have to take a view on what info is to hand - hence the question mark on the topic title.

Edited to add - ghostryder, I can call myself English or Australian but currently reside down under !

[edit on 25-3-2008 by chunder]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by Badge01
 


I'm afraid I disagree.

I'm no photography expert but I used to take pictures of trains when I was a youngster around the time these were taken. I had a cheap camera with cheap film and paid for processing by mail, cheaply.



You're welcome to disagree.

Ask on the photography forum. Things that are moving, even a little, will show a detectable amount of motion blur. Things on the ground, sitting still and unmoving in relation to the photographer will only show the amount of blur that occurs when the person moves the camera upon clicking the shutter. To getblur free and sharp photos reliably requires a tripod. While it may occur naturally, by coincidence, getting -every- picture without blur, suggests that it was not a real craft.

Now I'm not talking about a blue streak that looks a little like a cartoon roadrunner. I'm talking about a 'blur' which may require zooming in on the picture or a look at the original negative.

Even if something is 'hanging' in space, hovering, it would be rare to be perfectly still compared to the photographer.

Depending on the film speed, and other factors there would be more or less detectable blur. When I see a series of photos with no blur whatsoever of a craft in space or in the air, hovering or what ever you want to call it, I'm suspicious.

OTOH, too much motion blur is also suspicious in photography of things primarily being filmed in the sky.

In normal photography you don't bother to notice it. We all know that birds and planes and jets and balloons fly. But a photo of something unexpected calls for default examination for alteration.

That's all.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join