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.

 

Now what the heck is this, the cambuquira's ufo

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by sherpa
 


I do not have enough reasons to consider it a hoax, but the image itself has a look that I can not understand. Also, why do they say that the photo was taken by José Eduardo Zappi when he was the person who appears on the photo, to give it more credibility?


Here ya go..


The photo was taken by the wife of the Sao Paulo Anti-kidnapping Special Forces Commissioner's, Jose Eduardo Zappi, who appears in the photo flying his paraglider. A digital camera was used (Fuji Finepix S-7000).




posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


I saw that, but I also saw the the beggining of the page says:


As he participated in a free-flight championship in the mineral-waters resort of Cambuquira, in the South of Minas Gerais State (Brasil), the Sao Paulos´s Police Force Anti-Sequester UNIT Sheriff, José Eduardo Zappi, registered an unidentified flying object that appeared in the skies of the region.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


So are you saying it is a strange coincidence that he saw it and his wife happened to take a picture at the same time.

Perhaps they were in radio contact at the time, I don't know much about paragliding but in gliding competitions the pilot is in contact with whoever the ground crew is.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


No, what I am trying to say is that the person who wrote that text starts by writing that it was José Eduardo Zappi who registered the UFO, when in fact it was his wife.

My understanding is that the person who wrote it made one of two things, he/she made a mistake or it was made on purpose to give more credibility to the photo, many people give more credibility to UFO photos taken by people related to the authorities than to photos taken by common people.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
In the book The Hunt for The Skinwalker Mr. Goreman explains how differen't ufos and such would come out of portals. These portals were usually of an orange color. I feel that the orange blob in that picture is infact, a portal to somewhere else. Maybe that would explain how it appeared and disappeared in the same spot, without the use of a cloak.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by sherpa
 


No, what I am trying to say is that the person who wrote that text starts by writing that it was José Eduardo Zappi who registered the UFO, when in fact it was his wife.

My understanding is that the person who wrote it made one of two things, he/she made a mistake or it was made on purpose to give more credibility to the photo, many people give more credibility to UFO photos taken by people related to the authorities than to photos taken by common people.


Ah..now I understand what you are saying, true, figures of authority lend credibility but to me the association still stands whether it was him or his wife, of course I base this on the assumption that the submission was made with his consent.

Actually the "where's ArMaP" comment was made with the suggestion of emailing the source as the original tongue appears to be in Portugese.

Any ideas on what it could be ?, a camera artifact perhaps, I am afraid I am not very good with photographic techniques.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
sherpa,

another good thread, thumbs up as always !

Regarding who took the photo, perhaps we should take into account that wives of prominent figures in some community (in countries outside Western World) usually play an important role in that community and/or are kept in high regard (Mayor's wife, Police Chief's wife, or in this case Sheriff's wife).

Next, I ran this photo through a copymove tool which I linked to in another thread. This small piece of code uses an algorithm to detect possible image alterations using copy/paste or tools like Photoshop's Clone tool.

Here's a resulting image;



I just used arbitrary settings of 0.75 quality and threshold of 5 and the image does not appear to have been altered around the unknown objects (those other red and blue blocks are I believe false positives).

This is by no means a true forensic analysis but it is one step towards it. Perhaps we can develop a set of rules and software tools to use to analyze photos as one way of determining their authenticity.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I read some of the replies to the OP, ok. But my opinion is that said anomaly looks unrealistically superimposed. It looks like, at weirdest, another skydiver.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
pink = horse head
lavender = a being sitting crosslegged or with their feet hanging down.
yellow = a human face (its out of focus)
purple = ??????






posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I maybe be getting confused here, but his wife took the picture, and the husband registered the photo/sighting...I can't see a problem there, but I may have missed something.

A possible explanation I read for why this UFO, and many others, may 'blink' in and out of sight is due to current military tech. I'll try and find the link, it was in another recent post, but its from an ex-employee (civilian) of the military, working in electrical engineering. He states that for the past 20 years, a device has been created that 'distorts' the signals of these spy drones (assuming thats what it is), sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally. Don't know the science, but it could explain why it just appeared and disappeared.

(If it was only there for 30 seconds, in the same position, how could it be a skydiver?)

thanks. EMM



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by amigo
 



another good thread, thumbs up as always !


Thanks amigo I appreciate the thought.



Next, I ran this photo through a copymove tool which I linked to in another thread. This small piece of code uses an algorithm to detect possible image alterations using copy/paste or tools like Photoshop's Clone tool.


Great work the appliance of science, I was waiting for someone to actually do a bit of processing on this one, I am going to have to purloin a copy of that particular piece of magic.


Perhaps we can develop a set of rules and software tools to use to analyze photos as one way of determining their authenticity.


Now that sounds like a plan, the kind of stock in store every researcher should have in their toolbox.

So looking less likely there has been any tampering.

Thanks for your efforts amigo, have a star



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I found the link, It's the article after the snazzy UFO and 'alien artifact' pictures, just keep going down, blue writing just as the images end, great images by the way, love to hear what people have to say.

sesto.setilo.blog.com.mk...

(most of website is in Russian i think it is, Alex Collier interview in English, aswell as a few others)


[edit on 21-3-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 


Are you talking about the article that includes this text ?


The reason they're suddenly visible, however, is another matter entirely. These crafts, assuming they're anything like the hardware I worked with in the 80's (assuming they're better, in fact), are equipped with technology that enables invisibility. That ability can be controlled both on board the craft, and remotely. However, what's important in this case is that this invisibility can also be disrupted by other technology. Think of it like radar jamming. I would bet my life savings (since I know this has happened before) that these craft are becoming visible and then returning to invisibility arbitrarily, probably unintentionally, and undoubtedly for only short periods, due to the activity of a kind of disrupting technology being set off elsewhere, but nearby. I'm especially sure of this in the case of the Big Basin sightings, were the witnesses themselves reported seeing the craft just appear and disappear. This is especially likely because of the way the witness described one of the appearances being only a momentary flicker, which is consistent with the unintentional, intermittent triggering of such a device.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
Actually the "where's ArMaP" comment was made with the suggestion of emailing the source as the original tongue appears to be in Portugese.
I understood it and I have already sent an e-mail to that site.

It has gone through an anti-spam filter (after manual confirmation) and I am awaiting for an answer.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   
i was a para too.

i don't see a chute here. nor a discernible jumper.

also, it's hard to judge the altitude, but from this view it also looks lower than where i'd expect someone to normally deploy.

i'd like to know where the person taking the photo was at. are they in the air or on some elevated ground?

anyway, just my .02

odd picture.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thank you ArMaP I really appreciate your help with this, and if you had said no I would have quite understood.

It is a pleasure to have you on the thread



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 


It may be because of the translation. The expression "registrou um objeto voador não identificado" is commonly used in the sense of "he made a photographic or video record". It may have been used in a different way (that is one of the differences between Iberian Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese), but this was my interpretation.

As there are some Brazilian ATS members, maybe they can help clear this up.

I finally understood what I see as wrong with the light in the photo. The light on the paraglider comes all from the top and right, while the light on the UFO appears to come only from the right side and none from the top. As this was taken at 15:30h according to witnesses or 12:47:01h according to EXIF data on November (in the southern hemisphere), at that time the Sun was high in the sky, making the light on the paraglider the correct one and the light on the UFO wrong or at least strange.



PS: I do not think that translating "Delegado do Grupamento Especial Anti-Seqüestro de São Paulo" to " Sao Paulos´s Police Force Anti-Sequester UNIT Sheriff" conveys the real meaning of the original expression, but maybe someone that really speaks Brazilian Portuguese can clear that up also.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by thesaint
 


"jumper literally deploying their chute".
That is exactly what it is, that is why I was a picking at you.
Just a teasing.


Vance



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SecretGoldfish
 


They are on elevated ground.

This was taken from Pico do Piripau (Piripau’s Peak), a 1,372 meters high peak where the Clube de Vôo Livre de Cambuquira (Cambuquira's Free Flight Club) has a natural ramp from where people can jump on hang-gliders or paragliders.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


Yea, thats it, i think he mentions it briefly before aswell, but thats the bulk of it. Although by know means conclusive, it is interesting, and I for one think the images are incredible,

thanks. EMM



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join