It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Western Hebrides sighting

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Dan Tanna


Sorry about that, as i thought the image shack would host the origional and keep the exif data on it.

As for why there were there.

My wife is an avid amature ornothologist, and with two of her friends were out at around 4 am to watch the gannet / puffins along with the dolphins and other marine life around the western hebrides.

Thats better. I still do have the origional thank god!

[edit on 1-6-2008 by Dan Tanna]

First post, but visited site quite a lot. My first bachelors is in photography, and I originally thought this might be a real picture. That was until I read your EXIF data. The shutter speed reads 1/40 of a second. The plane would have to have been FAR off, like 1/2 mile or so to show the amount of blur in the photo. I would imagine that 'said' plane would be flying a couple hundred miles an hour. I don't believe that it would even produce a blur with 1/40 of a second. Also, the lense/zoom setting used states '20mm.' 28mm is wide angle, 20mm would be closing in on "fisheye." Being 20mm, that plane would have had to be almost IN the boat to fill that much of the frame up. If it was that close, 1/40 of a second would not have shown anything at all. If it was a DSLR camer, with good panning technique, it might be possible to get a blurry pic of the plane, but the background would be a smooth blue blur, not showing detail of the water like it is now. If the camera used wasn't a DLSR, just a point and shoot, the the shutter lag, time from pushing button to time pic is taken, would have been to long and the plane would have been out of sight.

Sorry, need more convincing.

edit: Also, ISO setting at 1600? With that aperature and shutter speed, all you would have gotten is a white screen. In bright daylight, as I assume this photo is, you have to use the "Sunny 16" rule. All cameras use a form of it in their program to get the best exposed photo. In bright sunlight, you use ISO 100, shutter of 1/100, and aperature of f/16. With ISO 1600, at your aperature setting, the shutter would have had to have been AT LEAST ~1/2500 of a second to prevent whitewash.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Contagion2012]

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 01:29 PM
theres a picture that proves you wrong. Sorry, i'm not here to argue and be an arse but my wife took the picture with those settings, and got that picture of that aircraft, I posted it and you got the photo straight from the camera memory card...

I'm not worried because at the end of the day i know that the picture is genuine and thats all that matters. I stand by that image 100%.

Look at my other posts and input into threads. Why would I want to get banned for doing some thing so stupid as post fake stuff ? I don't have the need, I dont have the capability and i sure as hell don't have the desire to.

I joined ATS to learn and try to contribute when and where I can, nothing more nothing less.

Just so you know that I take ATS as a priveledge not a right, and enjoy working towards adding good solid contributions to the board.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Dan Tanna]

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 04:41 PM
Contagion is right though.

And I'm curious as to why anyone would use an ISO setting of 1600 to take a daylight picture?

Must admit that the 1/40 shutter speed suggests a slower moving bird than I'd envisaged - perhaps one closer to the camera? I had assumed it was a bird caught in the distance in a shot taken at a faster shutter speed and much slower ISO

I guess we need to see the whole picture?

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:30 AM
Dan Tanna...

Have you considered the possibility that maybe your wife faked the photo?

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Floyd_pinkerton]

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 07:59 AM
-Do we have any idea of size/scale of the plane in question?
-Is this the correct info for the camera used to shoot the image?
Olympus Stylus 710
7.1 megapixels
Optical Zoom:3x
Digital Zoom:5x
-Was the image shot at 6:58 PM or AM?
-Any idea of the distance that this was shot at?
-Is the area this was shot in actually military airspace?

I also feel like I should point out again that the Taranis UAV is not completed yet and is still being built. BAE has only released info on 2 other UAV projects and none of those are jet powered. What do you think this is then Dan? ie best educated guess.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Canada_EH]

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Canada_EH]

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 08:15 AM
The more i look at that picture the more fake it looks, particulary due to the colour difference between the body and wings. Its almost someone has spliced the body of an F-117 onto the wings of a B-2.

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 08:53 AM
reply to post by Floyd_pinkerton

Not a B-2 but a polecat due to the colour difference but. If you look at many of the UAV/UCAV designs that are in the concept art of today thats what they look like or many of them draw visibly from other current stealth aircraft projects. While its a reason to be critical and hunt for any clues or try and find all relevant information just because it looks like something(s) you have seen isn't enough to disprove it. If you can find the root images that would of been used to create a fake then thats different but just because you think something that provides no provable evidence. In fact the facts on this would be in Dans favor. Unless you can prove he isn't married and or the camera is incapable of shooting that image.

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 10:44 AM

That there is my hand. Notice my wedding ring and the band of white flesh where my ring sits. It is pale because i have been wearing my ring for a long time. So - there you have it, I am married thank you very much and I cannot believe that even came into question.

Now - I will be letting this thread die from now on. I cannot say why, but I know in time to come you will all come back to this thread and go 'oh crap, this is the first ever white world pic... and we screwed him over'.

My wife kindly agreed to me using this image to make a thread on ATS as she knew i wouldn't give too much away about us.

That I have to prove that I am married makes me feel very cheapend and annoyed.

As far as I am now concerned this thread is dead of my input.

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by Dan Tanna

Dan please understand that my comment was made in jest to a response from Floyd_pinkerton and the lack of evidence or real reason in his response to the plane in the photo looking like something else. I had already mentioned my thoughts that it had similar look to 2 other aircraft but continued to say that just because one thinks something doesn't prove it.

Again the comment on your being or not being married was to make light of the previous comments.

Sorry if this has insulted you but at the please understand that the net is extremely un-personal and can't provide the same proof of age and status etc that a face to face can. Just like its hard to trust a photo ever since the advent of photoshop. Hence my being skeptical but also trying to be balanced in the comments that I make and jokes to lighten the subject.

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:22 AM
Contagion2012 beat me to it but I will basically back up what he said. At 20mm focal length you would practically have to be within feet of the object to fill the frame as shown in the photo.

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:34 PM
I still thing it's just a bird - and would like to see anything that suggests otherwise

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:48 PM
reply to post by Essan

Can you point out through other photos or reference material how it could be a bird? Again what you say is different then a good explanation or reference material. Are you blaming shutter speed,ISO or f-stop etc for the effect?

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:45 AM

as mentioned above you are taking this way too personally. And if the photo is a real one I would hope you would stand by your guns a bit better and give us more evidence to back it up... such as the whole uncropped image. Thats not too much to ask for, is it?? Any 'black projects enthusiast' would love to get a photo like that and to say that you won't provide any more information about it meerly suggests that you lack 'moral fibre' and cannot back up your story. Is a real pity.... or... the pic actually is a fake and your are annoyed that you have been rumbled so easily and are running away with your tail between your legs.

Go on, give us more info.... if you can.

And, if you read the thread, no one has suggested that you are not married. It was only suggested that if someone was to prove that you were'nt married it might debunk your photo. So wind your neck in.

Oh, and that pic of your hand might be a fake. Perhaps you could provide photos of your wedding day, location, date and time of the wedding and some associated pictures before and after the event... then we may believe you are married

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Floyd_pinkerton]

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Floyd_pinkerton


as mentioned above you are taking this way too personally. And if the photo is a real one I would hope you would stand by your guns a bit better and give us more evidence to back it up... like the whole uncropped image. Any 'black projects enthusiast' would love to get a photo like that and to say that you won't provide any more information about it meerly suggests that you lack 'moral fibre' and cannot back up your story. Is a real pity.... or... the pic actually is a fake and your are annoyed that you have been rumbled so easily and are runnign away with your tail between your legs.

Go on, give us more info.... if you can.

Also, I'm still not convinced you are married. the picture of your hand could be a fake. Maybe you could post pictures of your wedding day, the location and time of the wedding, the type of camera used and any other pictures that were posted around the time... just to back up the story!

(only joking)

Floyd, every one. For the record.

When this is rolled out and public, I expect a full and complete apology from every single one of you in myb U2U box.

No tail between my legs here, just a 100% cast iron knowledge that this is as i say it is - a UCAV project photo.

Read this well. I expect full and total apologies from every single person who has cast doubts. To #### me off about my wife is crossing the line.

Ill add to this thread when i want how i want - and my next post in this thread will be when its rolled out in public and i can 100% guarantee you it will be.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Dan Tanna]

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:01 AM
I'd give you an unreserved apology right now if you were to post some more photos of the event, or even the original uncropped image.

But something tells me you wont

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:19 AM
Some thing tells me my U2U box is going to have your name in it when this is rolled out.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:26 AM
I decided to remove my post.

Too much bitching on this thread to even bother with it.

Take care.


[edit on 6-6-2008 by h3akalee]

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:30 AM
Nope. if i'm going to apologise to you it will be done publicly. But enough of this "i'm right, you're wrong" crap... lets get back to the matter.

Assuming that he pic is real.... Have you thought about sending it to Air Forces Monthly or Aviation Week magazines, cos if it is real then I'm sure they would be interested.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:25 AM
Please Stay on the Topic, Not if someone is married or not,

Keep to the topic at hand and please read the UFO forum rules,

UFO Forum READ BEFORE Posting **02/18/2007 UPDATE***

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:56 AM
reply to post by Canada_EH

From experience (I take an awful lot of skyscapes and landscapes with digital cameras). Unfortunately I tend to ditch any pictures spoilt by an unseen bird crossing the field of view and I can't find any examples of mine to compare with.

And of course, if we see the original uncropped image it may well be that I'm totally wrong anyway. What we need is perspective to determine it's size. Without that, the picture is of little real use. Presumably the full picture will provide that - unless it's just a bland shot looking out to sea?

[edit on 6-6-2008 by Essan]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in