Debate Stirs over UFO Photograph, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 06:39 AM by internos

reply to post by hohoo

Thanks, hohoo

So we have some more shots

Google translation:

Are mixed on the altar, I hope we can see, to a face, you can say that I am this is a fake, but do not say that other Feng Lianghua, I have not sure this is true, I would like to sent to, everyone Discussion. These photos is the first time I published the Internet, and announced this to me bring happiness, anger, to see human Baitai the forum, I do not seek profits were not seeking, since my camera in this altar On the buying, it announced in this altar, to say whether true or false, but at least as worthy of this forum has. Only hope that before I can remember people on this trip, after dealing with me when I make a Fold it.
The first is to see a UFO is the rising spiral

www.ccqit.com...

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 01:30 AM by Scramjet76

Before I forget.... *bump*

Can anyone read Chinese or know someone who can???

Calling all linguists with specific expertise in translation!

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 01:57 AM by blackcube

I have a strange feeling.. this look like a reflection of a lamp. I suspect he took the photo from inside a building.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:50 AM by Scramjet76

reply to post by blackcube

Good guess, but I don't think so. Check out this link of the same spot during the day. Seems to be some open public viewing area. I can't imagine a building right there..

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 03:51 AM by nablator

Originally posted by NGC2736
While respecting your opinion about the lens flare, I'm a bit confused why it would seem to be behind the beams of laser light. To me, since the camera is taking the picture from this side, it would seem reasonable that any "flaring" would overshadow the beams themselves.

The UFO is always symmetric to the brightest light in the picture: objectively there is no doubt it is a lens flare. I do not understand "behind the beams" or "overshadow". A lens flare casts no shadows, it adds light.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 03:58 AM by skywatch

lensflare..................................

come on guys
lensflare dont have windows/doors and dont get behind another lightbeem..

same color........

yeah thats properly why its visible at all.. the ufo must have reacted to the green laser and somehow its cloaking got #ed.

really nice post the chineese you saw it, must be scared as turkeys, filling out an area of several football fields...
hmm invasion is coming thats my first thought

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 04:11 AM by skywatch

whats the round green sphere....

quite an irregular lensflare...

sorry to say it was several football fields.. i correct myself after reading the chinesse tranlation.. "only" half a field

whats the green ball doing there?

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 09:53 AM by nablator

Originally posted by skywatch
lensflare dont have windows/doors and dont get behind another lightbeem..

Windows? they are simple optical artifacts, nothing mysterious. When you add pale green to already saturated green (the beams) what you get is green. It doesn't get greener.

Lens flares are often irregular, with unpredictable shapes. This is because of the combination of multiple reflections/refractions in the lens assembly, diffraction and the shape of the aperture. Crappy phone cameras make all sort of interesting lens flares when high end cameras make more geometric circles or hexagons. A water droplet on the lens can create weird shapes.

This is unmistakably a lens flare because it is tracking with the bright light position and fading as the camera points away from the bright light.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 01:24 PM by GorehoundLarry

People really think this is real ?

Mod Note: One liner. Read here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 26-6-2008 by NGC2736]

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 01:45 PM by NGC2736

reply to post by nablator

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. And please understand that I'm not saying it isn't a lensflare, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning.

But a lensflare, from what I understand, should be an artifact produced on the lens of the camera. If that's so, then it should wash out the other light in the area of the flaring. I do not obseve this in the photo. As a matter of fact, it seems just the opposit, the "beams" of laser light wash out the form you say is a lens flare.

Look at oncoming vehicle lights when they are distorted and "flaring" on your windshield at night. They wash out any dimmer objects such as streetlights, which are not "aimed" at your windshield.

I fail to yet grasp how the "rays" of the laser light are brighter than the supposed lensflare, as intuitively, it seems it should be just the opposit.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 02:08 PM by observe50

I think it is interesting but we need the pro's. No one liners so la, la, la, la, la, la, and la, la.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 03:20 PM by Willbert

I was pondering if it was flare also, until someone pointed out that the laser overshadowed the "object".

If this object was cloaked, then what would uncloak it or allow it to be seen?

Perhaps this can shed some light, no pun intended..

At the top of South Baldy Peak in New Mexico during two passing thunderstorms, the researchers used laser pulses to create plasma filaments that could conduct electricity akin to Benjamin Franklin's silk kite string. No air-to-ground lightning was triggered because the filaments were too short-lived, but the laser pulses generated discharges in the thunderclouds themselves.

"This was an important first step toward triggering lightning strikes with laser beams,"

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Laser triggers electrical activity in thunderstorm for the first time

From my understanding.. some believe that these "objects" may have a propulsion system that generates artificial gravity fields. These "gravity fields" are similar to what we would refer to as "magnetism with electric currents ".

An approximation -probably oversimplified- of overall UFO behaviour is via accepting such a (hypothetical, or at least not known to or acknowledged by "white-world" Physics) gravity-like repulsive force-field. The luminescence in various colours around the UFO (apparently shape depends on UFO's shape as well as its current maneuver, so the UFO's outline as seen by external observer can change), is thought to be due to ionization of surrounding air (much like what happens in neon-lamps), referred to as "UFO plasma sheath".

Resources about possible UFO physics / propulsion / technology

So I did a search to see if "Lasers" would affect the atmosphere and then hence affect anything that may be shielded/cloaked that would be affected. The above post seems to back up this theory.

Therefore I'm leaning on the "object" decloaking due to the added "ionized" charge which was produced from the laser to not only tamper with it's "gravity fields" but also blanket it with "green ionized light" from the laser.

Does this "objects" propulsion system, artificial gravity field, work in tandem with its cloaking ability? I'm guessing yes or the laser would not have affected it.

or....

This laser did not interfere with the gravitational field but in fact may have altered the air around the ship which the laser light may have "charged" to blanket the object in a green light?

Someone mentioned that this object seemed "transparent". Is it really far fetched to believe we do not have the know how or the technology to manufacture what we read in fantasy or SIFI books?

This seems perfectly believable when you're reading about a fictional world filled with witches, wizards and centuries-old magic; but in the real world, such a garment would be impossible, right? Not so fast. With optical-camouflage technology developed by scientists at the University of Tokyo, the invisibility cloak is already a reality.

How Invisibility Cloaks Work

Is this product commercialized yet? Yes it is.. and this product is already available to other countries for their own use...

Race To Develop Harry's Invisibility Cloak

Researchers develop 2-D invisibility cloak

So we have a possible lens flare... anti grav being ionized or the lasers blanketed the object.

Since cloaks bends, white, light.. can it also bend other lights?

“The design does, however, have a major limitation: It works only for any single wavelength, and not for the entire frequency range of the visible spectrum. But this is a first design step toward creating an optical cloaking device that might work for all wavelengths of visible light," he said.

Researchers have employed nanotechnology

Well.. there we have it...

We are just starting to realize what forces are around us and how to manipulate it to what we want it to do or how we can use it in everyday aplications...

I put it to you.. would others be able to use these forces and would the lasers have accidentally revealed something that would not have been revealed if the lasers were never activated?

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Willbert]

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 05:08 AM by nablator

reply to post by NGC2736

I fail to yet grasp how the "rays" of the laser light are brighter than the supposed lensflare, as intuitively, it seems it should be just the opposit.

The lens flare is dim. All lens flares are much dimmer than the light they originate from. There is only one light much brighter than the others in these images, or else we would see other lens flares created by them. It is not obvious that this light is much brighter because of saturation.

Some more analysis for the doubters. Why I am sure this UFO a lens flare:
1) All lens flare-light source segments intersect at the optical center of the lens field.
2) The distance ratio (lens flare-optical center) to (optical center-light source) is constant.
Note that the center of the image is not always the optical center, very often the sensor is not perfectly centered. In this case, however, they match pretty well.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 09:48 AM by NGC2736

reply to post by nablator

I now better understand your take on this, and due to a wee bit of homework, I have gained some knowledge as well. Now I make no claim to being anywhere near an expert on these matters, as it seems you are. However, my lack of knowledge can be corrected. Nor has lack of foreknowledge on a subject detered me from looking closer. (I question my doctor, though I doubt I'll ever be joining the AMA.

)

Let's start easy here, with wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

Note the first two pictures on the right hand side of the page. In both, the flare washes out the image, toning down the view. This is also true of photos 4 and 6. (Photos 3 and 5 are discounted on the basis of being an animation in one instance and the subject matter in the other.) In no picture here is the flare itself less visable than the object of the photo.

But let's turn to a few more pictures from another source:

pcin.net... Here are four photos, three of a bridge and one of some woods. Again the light source washes out the object of the picture in theare it effects. The flare becomes dominant in the area where it interacts.

As further homework, I looked into non-image forming light sources, where the bright light causing the flare is not included in the shot. (Even though you pointed to a source within the frame, I wanted to follow as many possibilities as I could.)

www.luminous-landscape.com...

The single photo here is of a wedding, and shows a remarkably beautiful flare. Again, when viewing the photo, the flare appears as a foreground item, and not secondary to either the people or the band instruments.

Without comment, I'll show a few more:

www.photocritic.org...

www.digital-photography-school.com...

www.tzplanet.com/words/understanding-lens-flare/52

And now for a night shot:

darkphotography.org/2008/06/22/reducing-lens-flare-from-steetlights/

Now a special one. Here we have a very simular sitting to the photo in this thread. Note the multiple light sources from the front of the camera, and all in frame, just as the China photo. In this image, all the bright lights are reflected as lens flares, creating a distinct "ghost image" effect. (Yet the China image under discussion here, though having multiple bright points in frame, only created a single flare????)

www.vanwalree.com...

Now I grant that there is no teacher like experience, and I certainly don't claim to be a photographer. But I'm unable to find any photos where a lens flare behaves in the manner you indicate. Nor am I able to find a single flare that "desolves" without distortion, or changing shape, as the one in the China photo seems to do.

P.S., Here are some six other pages of videos I viewed in my search:

www.fotosearch.com...

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 09:55 AM by Soylent Green Is People

To me, it seems to great a coincidence that the UFO just happened to be the same color as the laser lights.

I'm not saying it was an intentional laser effect, but I am saying that it could be some kind of opitical effect caused by the lasers, that bight yellow light shining right into the camera lens, and the camera's optics.

If there are yellow and green laser lights being cast everywhere, and an image appears that shows a ghostly yellow and green object, my first impression would be that it has something to do with optics, and it really wasn't an "object" per se.

[edit on 6/27/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 10:11 AM by NGC2736

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

I agree that this is a possibility. I'm simply looking for some corroberating evidence that this could be the case. Opinions that it's a lens flare are no more proof than opinions that it's ET came to see the show.

IF it were a craft, the color could very well be a property of something to do with it and the light spectrum it fails to absorb. If it's a lens flare, then out of the many photos taken around the world, we ought to be able to find some examples where matching characteristics provide a greater than likely "proof".

I haven't bought this one as "real", whatever that word means. But I also haven't bought the lens flare idea yet. I think in too many instances we blindly accept the "easy" answer. Truth has to be tracked and hunted down, then mounted and displayed on the wall, else it's just another "the one that got away" story for evenings around the campfire.

I think what UFOlogy has gotten away from is really digging. The believers accept things on faith with a blind eye to anything except the foundation of their faith, as do the debunkers. (And please, I'm not casting stones here, because to some degree, I fit in both camps.)

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 10:30 AM by nablator

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
To me, it seems to great a coincidence that the UFO just happened to be the same color as the laser lights.

Yes, I think it is a coincidence. I don't think the lens flare is caused by the laser lights. None of the green laser beams are pointed towards the camera, and the brightest light is yellow. This seems to be a problem with the lens flare theory, but I remember seeing purple-blue lens flares created by the Sun, probably because of an optical filter. Even my glasses have a greenish reflection (anti glare surface) in strong light while they appear perfectly transparent. So I think maybe the same filter has been applied on the camera optics to reduce lens flares artifacts.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 10:41 AM by sherpa

I find these images a little reminescent of the London UFO Photo.

It was discussed on This Thread and I wonder if there is a similar effect to that speculated there, ie was the photographer in a car perhaps.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 11:04 AM by NGC2736

reply to post by sherpa

From purusing some of the Chinese sites about this, it seems to have been taken from a terrace or patio type area.

I can't get google earth here, but it could possibly be determined from there.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 11:56 AM by grey580

Some people are saying lens flare. However usually lens flares come out at an angle from the lightsource. I don't think I've seen a vertical lens flare like that before.

However to me it almost looks like either a hologram of some sort. or as if whatever is there is maybe cloaked and is picking up on the laser light.

In all likelyhood it's some photohop'd pic.

Either way it's an interesting picture.
If it's real.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^