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.

 

Ufo over cornwall

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
No it is definately a Hot Air Ballon, All UFO are Hot air ballons, they pay me to tell you it is a hot air ballon ;-)

Nah looks like a macro lens at a distance from a bird..




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Small update from a local paper the guys story now says his handheld gps was playing up, and he was high-tech treasure hunting???.

www.thisiscornwall.co.uk... rmname=sidebarsearch




[edit on 3-1-2008 by clio03]




[edit on 3-1-2008 by clio03]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by clio03]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Upon inspection I would say that the concesus is correct that the picture is indeed a seagul. I throw my hat in on this cause I have seen up close and personel on a few occassions the real ufo crafts. One being at night and only across a street from me. I can also understand those that are looking for more convincing evidence and that a lot of what is offered is blurred and such, but there are obviously loads of pictures to be had that indeed are the real deal. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. For me, I can say for fact that UFO's and beings from other worlds do indeed exist. Reality is far more complicated than most will admit. As for my experiences, I know what I saw and I was not in fear when I saw them. But do I know who was flying them...now that I can not clearly say for certain. Off world beings or our own, your guess is as good as mine.

Thanks for sharing the article all the same, but upon inspection it is very obvious the actual features of a seagul are very much present. It just goes to show, that not everything is what we might want to believe.

Jonar



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Seagull or Aurora...hard to tell. It's like looking at the clouds and trying to find a shape in them.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by abovetech
 



Actually that is definitely a seagull flying form left to right. If you can't see that then it's time to hand over the keys and let someone else drive. I know I know... you're fine and can drive... we are concerned.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Its a great pity there isnt something more concrete to argue about...
This Ufo thing gets to be sort of like picking fly crap from pepper....
bergle



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Oh My God!! That is so a Seagull !! I hear em and see them everyday , bloody things!! I come inside to get away from them .. and what do i see? more flippin seagulls !!! aaarrgggghhh !

regards
Git.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
This is rediculous.

1. The guy didn't realize it was there til the picture was viewed.

2. The distance cannot be known.

It's a BIRD.

I remember the same type of incident a year or two ago where people were trying to pass an obvious seagull off as a UFO. I just couldn't believe it because it was so obvious it was a bird. This is almost just as obvious. I don't know.. maybe only an artist can see things so obvious?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   
The image was taken with a Nikon D80 Digital SLR, that's a 10.2 megapixel camera with an image resolution of 3,872 x 2,592 pixels. So my question is, what happened to the full size image? The one in the story is only 682 x 400 pixels.

It's people like this that make the whole UFO movement look like a joke. If the photographer, the sun and "Britain’s foremost UFO experts" believed this was really a UFO then they would have provided the original unedited full size image, but my guess is that would have shown a nice picture of a seagull and that wouldn't make a very good story for the sun now would it?

If the photographer or the "UFO experts" from that story are reading this, I challenge you to provide the raw image, direct from the camera. If you can't do that then you have zero credibility in my eye's.

Why is it that every picture that gets submitted as UFO photo's even when taken with the latest model Digital SLR's are tiny little pics 5 times smaller the the cameras output?


Wig

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
This is just another blurred object. I don't agree with people in the thread who have said it *is* a seagull, they have no more proof of that than the people who say it is an alien craft.

Truth of the matter is, it is blurred it is unidentifiable it is a UFO in the weakest sense of the word.

It is true IMO to say, that on the balance of probability it is a bird, but saying it is definately a bird is wrong.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Wig
 


I can identify it as a bird (in the close-up, that I suppose was made from the original photo) in the same way I can identify those things in the water as ships but I can not identify them as what type of ships they are.

So, to me, that is not a UFO but IFC, an Identified Flying Creature.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Warning: Later parts of this post may contain sarcasm!

Explanation: Seagull? Spacecraft? or UFO? ....Well I 100% contend IT CAN'T be anything except a "possible" UFO, for the following collective of reasons.

1) The "Object" (ah proof of the O in UFO!
) in question is too out of focus to be identified (ah...so its UNIDENTIFIED then....proof of the U in UFO) but it doesn't appear to be a cut and paste job and the area surrounding sure looks like sky (even if you jump you ARE flying if only up and down and for less than a second!). Being "apparently" naturally aerial in nature i consider this to be an overt act of flying (ah finally...the F in UFO).
So we have all three letters of UFO being embodied by the subject in question! Anybody care to refute or endorse this position?

(Warning Sarcasm to follow)...

As to the validity of the whole picture, well I have some serious doubts...I mean COME ON PEOPLE can't you see that since the UFO is blurry and sorta outa focus 100% conclusively proves it is the ONLY REAL thing in the entire picture. Because any picture NOT taken by an 18th Century AD camera obscura is clearly an illusion created by a magical device invented by the Illuminati to mislead us. Therefore the entire rest of the picture being of extremely high quality MUST BE entirely CGI. As to being 2 miles away, well thats complete [Expletive Deleted]
as I measured it with my arm (an empirical test...I suggest you try it
) and guess what! Its exactly my arms length away from my POV (the distance to my monitor) so I don't know where you guys and gals are coming from?


Personal Disclosure: I used to use a tin can phone for my old mobile but some Amish bloke sold me a new wireless version for 100 space credits...
Check it out here....


(End of Sarcasm!).



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join