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.

 

Photos Taken of Mysterious Aurora or TR3B??

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I saw this in Filer's Files earlier in the week and I'm suprised that it hasn't shown up here yet. Fake? Not Fake? I don't know, but the pictures are very clear.

External Link


Description: Have I got 2 photos for you. This triangle object flew over my subdivison and I thought it was a B-3 bomber. (No, it's not!!) There were thunderstorms in Greenville this morning and it was raining and windy. (The clouds did not help in the lighting.) Anyway, I was outside checking on a bird nest that made my front porch its home, when I spotted a triangle shape object heading toward my subdivison. I went inside and grabbed my camera and took 2 pictures of the unknown object. I would of taken more but my battery pack died. (I wonder??) The UFO or aircraft came from the west and headed east. Could this be Lockheeds new toy? It barely made a sound as it flew over. (It sounded like a low humming transformer.) Take Care and Have a Great Weekend.




posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
interesting. if it's fake they at least paid attention to the light levels of the environment. that's how i would expect the craft to look if it were flying on a dim cloudy day. i do wish we had hi-res images to examine. =/



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Funny how it's the same size and the same angle in both photo's. It must have been moving slowly for that to be possible. Also, why would they fly such a top secret aircraft below cloud level in a residential area.. this smells of FAKENESS!



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Interesting that the size and angle of the object are identical in the 2 photos.

Anyone have any idea why such a top secret aircraft would be flying at slow speed over a suburban area on a wet day?


Edit: I was typing my reply before fiftyfifty spotted the same thing
But got called away from the computer before I could post it!

[edit on 25-4-2008 by Essan]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
i assumed the bottom one was a crop for the original...good catch. i overlapped them in photoshop and they are slightly different. one is slightly smaller than the other, the orienation and shape is SLIGHTLY different between the two as well. that doesn't mean it still couldn't be fake, obviously.

this is an image of the ufo from both pictures overlayed. the bottom-left corners were used to line them up (black is overlap, gray is difference):



i tried to shrink the bigger one to make it the same size as the smaller one and toggle between layers to see if i could get a match. i could get close but not a perfect match.


[edit on 25-4-2008 by an0maly33]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Easily debunked, there's no texture like any normal object in a picture, you can see that in the post above.

These're solid colors, not colors that actually tie into the background like what happens when you take a picture of a craft any other time. Good find, another set of pictures resolved at ATS.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
i also should add that there is no exif data on the images. that does seem fishy. =)

if it were painted flat black, would you really see any texture on a dark day? if this were a stealth bomber, i doubt you would be able to make out much. it would just look like a silhouette. you are right though, aside from compression artifacting, it is solid.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by an0maly33]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Wow.


Does anyone have a link to a full size photo? There is no point analyzing such a low rez image.


"Analysis shows that these photos are authentic. Additional analysis does not indicate any fabrication. It is believed that the photos are of a real object in the sky."

Analyzed by whom. How? Maybe they just made sure it was not an obvious copy-paste job. If the "craft" was a black sticker on glass, it would appear slightly out of focus I guess. It doesn't as far as the low rez version lets us see.

Who would have the idea to fake a vertical triangle? I wouldn't.

Hmmm. On second thought I don't know which way the triangle is pointing. Assuming it is symmetric, the angle on the top could be pointing towards the observer and the triangle could be nearly horizontal.

It looks so fake that it might even be real.


[edit on 2008-4-25 by nablator]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by fiftyfifty
 


reply to post by an0maly33
 



2 conflicting reports. So I examined them at 500%. Too similar to be possible
I say fake. They're both photographed at the same angle.
Size difference could be caused by the camera software or the person zooming in slightly. Impossible for someone to move to a different location and photograph it at the exact same angle



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
i thought the same thing actually, but then i also considered that this person might have been stationary and just followed the object as it moved. if you were doing that and didn't pull the camera away you could get close. i don't know if it would be this close though.

convenient that the "witness" said his battery died so he couldn't get more pictures. that's also fishy. if we had some that were in a series it may even help.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by an0maly33]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
This vehicle would not fly at daylight if it was the aurora. And like some people say. Both pictures are 100% exact angle.

I don't believe this.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by abovetech
This vehicle would not fly at daylight if it was the aurora.

Of course it's not the Aurora. This one is hovering, the Aurora is a stratospheric plane. The military are not crazy enough to show their top-secret crafts in daylight over populated areas, are they?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Another problem with this is that by flying it over Greenville, which has a population of a couple hundred thousand in the metro area, you would expect more people to have seen it, especially if it was moving as slowly as it appears to be.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Something else I noticed, where are it's lights? Afterburners? Engines? Where's the curvature that all planes have in the daylight when you take a photo, at this altitude you'd seem some characteristics, not a black triangle with nothing in it.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by fiftyfifty
 


Good call m8... that was the very first thing I noticed seeing those two. In the 2nd image you can just make out the tree top from the tree that is also in image 1.

In image 1 the tree is in the left hand side, in image 2 it's in the middle. In order for that to happen he needs to turn his body (to follow the craft?) but... this would also mean that the craft like you say would shift angles.

Geometric shapes are very unthankful from the slightest change in viewpoint. This object however doesn't seem to be unthankful. So either we're dealing with a guy who only bothered to blur the 2nd object a little or he was very "lucky" with the the craft keeping its angle towards him.

Probably someone gonna say now "so.. he was lucky".. I'll say... so, grasp another straw will ya?

Edit: apparently same conclusing posted a couple of times. Nice to see some rationality here for once


[edit on 25/4/08 by flice]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Another thing is that every "aurora" photo circulated seems to show the plane at high altitude or in a 30-45deg bank for no apparent reason. Well, the reason is to show off the triangle, but why would the plane be doing that? Unless you're taking pictures from nearly directly below the aircraft you're unlikely to get a photo of the "black triangle".



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by flice
 


Very "lucky" indeed.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Nice post!
IMHO more of these are needed on ATS. If nothing else than to keep us away from "MASSIVE FLYOVER" predictions.
I'm no expert on photo analysis and can barely use a computer, (I believe the word is luddite). That being said I am especially interested in the opinions of the real experts here and like to use their take to help develop my own opinion.
Anyway, I like to see photos like these until they are completely outed as fraudulent. S&F



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Didn't any of you scrool down and read everything?

At the bottom it says,

Update April 26, 2008

They say they received comments that the object is a Mugo Evo - a radio controlled plane made by Correx and they show a picture.

So back to square one

[edit on 27-4-2008 by observe50]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by observe50
 


Nobody reads!




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join