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.

 

Been on this a site a long time and now I get pics

page: 10
150
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:30 AM
link   
These photos are actually quite impressive.

The Exif data shows that a D-SLR camera was used, one I assume capable of taking RAW, uncompressed image files - many times clearer than compressed JPEG files.

I have studied the photos closely and I can't find any obvious signs of a hoax. However there is one thing which bothers me.
If you raise the brightness and contrast levels the photos look uncanningly like normal daylight photos.

I think it is possible that the photos were originally taken in daylight and darkened to create the look of night. The object/lights could have been added afterwards, we all know how easy it is in Photoshop.

Here's the alleged original. I have raised the brightness and contrast. See the clouds and blue sky? It looks strangely like a normal daylight photograph. I know it is not completely dark in the UK at 11PM, but I still feel that it looks wrong.


Here's my attempt at recreating the effect of darkness. I started out with the original photograph and tweaked the brightness and contrast until the scene looked dark. I have then raised the brightness and contrast, bringing the photo back closer to its original condition - the same technique I used on the alleged UFO photos.



Please note, I am not "attacking" the OP or even calling hoax, I am just investigating the photographs and drawing attention to something that I see as slightly suspicious.

Here's a slightly better example, one of my own pictures. Would you say that this picture was taken during the day or during the night? It was taken during the day. Things are often not what they seem!

[Edit - lots of typos!]

[edit on 28-6-2008 by JH80]




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by Macrotus
 


the only problem with your theory is

most people never look up
they constantly look straight ahead or down

how many airplanes do you take notice of on a daily basis?
furthermore, just because nobody else has posted, here, on ATS, doesnt mean nobody else saw it and is talking about it.

every UFO story reaks of hoax to those who don't want to believe


So very true on all points!






Mod Note - please review, Warnings for one-line or short responses
One Line or less Responses or "me too" atta-boy comments contribute nothing to the discussion. These include rows of smilies, "you're wrong", or other similar short responses.

[edit on 30/6/2008 by Sauron]


+8 more 
posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Hi there. I must say I was impressed with your photos. I made an animated gif of your photos to put it in perspective






posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Maybe it is one of the new vertical takeoff and landing planes built by the US but being purchased by the UK to replace the Harrier.



Here is the full lowdown:

www.popularmechanics.com...

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the RAF could be doing covert test flights and it seems this guy lives in an area where there are plenty of military flights.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Great work



Could you possibly create the same animation but adjusting the brightness levels to mimic the effect of it being daytime...

Very interesting thread.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Pretty impressive pictures.

Nice job!!

I wish someone could edit them to make the body more clear, maybe some negatives or something. I have complete lack of photo editing skills, haha. These skeptics are very...disheartening. I guess 95% are professionals when it comes to photo editing.

It looks VERY real and I fail to see a reason why someone would join and so much later make a photoshop of a UFO.

If this IS a man-made aircraft, why would they fly it in a populated area? The placement of the lights give me the impression that it isn't man-made. My two cents.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Looks like a rotating light engine



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Nerevar
 


Here it is with brightness and contrast adjusted. I probably should have done better
JH80 did make a good point about the brightness/contrast part.





posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Here we again, sceptic bashing aplenty even though people are only displaying ATS's motto of denying ignorance, even though people are only trying to get to the truth by peeling away 'other possibility' layers. Anytime people claim they saw UFO's should people just automatically believe without asking questions? Like little old sheep? Should we?



Anyway, that aside, this photo below, titled 20080614-20080614-_MG_1075-2.jpg, looks to me like a plane, mainly because of the tail on it, I'm sure even the most blind believer can not deny this image is shaped like a plane.

I've outlined the tail.









[edit on 28-6-2008 by Corum]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I went into this thread, saw all the flags and stars already in a 12-hour period, and I expected this thread to be revolutionary.

Now I don't know what to think. It looks like a typical aircraft with lights to me. I'm not saying that I don't believe in flying saucers, since I do, but this just doesn't seem to be "out of this world" to me.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   
good work again deaf alien!


JH80 does make a good point but in all fairness to the OP, it does stay light in the UK till around 22.30 ish during the summer months.

Looking at the data below, the contrast has been increased and not decreased to make it appear as a night time photo. I imagine that this was done in an effort to make the image clearer and not pass off a daytime image as an image taken during night.



Originally posted by Greeneyedleo

Here's the full data:

XMP

Already Applied True

Blue Hue 0

Blue Saturation 0

Brightness +50

Camera Profile ACR 4.2

Camera Profile Digest 163ED9375EFF2B9D5C27CC0C43623AD1

Chromatic Aberration B 0

Chromatic Aberration R 0

Clarity 0

Color Noise Reduction 25

Contrast +25


At this stage it is difficult to say what we are looking at. With regards to the noises that the object was making, how deep was the bass noise that you heard UK Bloke? and could you kindly provide the nearest landmark to your location as London is a big place...



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Hi Theukbloke.

I appreciate your candor with reference to the shots, even more so, given your reception by numerous expert digital shooters intimately familiar with the necessity of post processing canons proprietary raw digital formats.

If i could make a suggestion...

It may be interesting to upload one or two of the CR2's to a common file hosting service like mediafire so the more skeptical of our members can use their expert photoshopping skills to complain that they cannot view the images in their browser and the more sedate of us can run them through our own converters.


P.s.
How are you getting on with that Tamron if i am correct in identifying the lens? I heard it had focus issues and was a tad soft at the open end.
If you intend on getting a lot more images such as these it might be time to save up for a 70-200 2.8L IS and a nice Manfrotto.


Absence.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:20 AM
link   
[img][URL=http://img367.imageshack.us/my.php?image=25945113ej2.jpg]


i played around with the lighting/contrast and im sure that looks like the tail of an aeroplane at the back of it.....

thank you for the pictures UK man, very cool indeed.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by JH80

I think it is possible that the photos were originally taken in daylight and darkened to create the look of night. The object/lights could have been added afterwards, we all know how easy it is in Photoshop.
[/img]
Here's a slightly better example, one of my own pictures. Would you say that this picture was taken during the day or during the night? It was taken during the day. Things are often not what they seem!


Great job. Note how you can clearly see the sunlight on the leaves. You just don't get this in a night time photo. Neither do you get blue skies.

I'm surprised I missed this.

One other thing that makes this seem suspicious. Too many photos.

Think about it. You see a 'UFO', run and grab your camera, and you're likely to get one or two photos off before the item flies away.

But to get ELEVEN photos of something allegedly 'flying' in the sky seems odd. It's not proof, but it is unusual. I can't think of any other 'UFO' photo series (except turning a movie into still frames) that captured this many photos on a single sighting.

This suggests to me that the operator/cameraman was in control of this 'sighting' and not a mere witness to it.

Just a thought. Great job, though, a star for you.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   
slow down there...i live near an airport too...



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Post removed as opinion is not wanted at this stage.
T.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by AGENT_T]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Come on! So they complain for observer NOT getting any photos, and people complain for the obsever getting TOO many photos? So just one photo is better than 11 photos? I would be snaping away if I saw one and IF I happened to have my camera with me( rarely do I do).



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Don`t see anything out of the ordinary - I do agree it is probably the police helicopter.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Sorry but this is a waste of people's time. Do you not have the common sense to place the camera on a solid surface so there is no shaking. Don't mean to come across as aggressive, but blurry ambiguous pictures do more harm than good.

The only reference is the tree limbs in the photographs. In most of the images if you look at a limb it is blurred - meaning there is jitter or movement. Since the sunlight is low, most of the information for us regarding the craft are the running lights on the craft. They are blurred and appear different because they are blurred.

In one photo there appears to be a rear vertical stabilizer (rudder) which could be an aircraft. I'm not saying its not a UFO, its just not great photographs to prove anything. Set the camera on a solid surface next time so there is no jitter.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Not too sure about the "too many photos in short succession" theory. There was a thread a while back where someone posted a sequence of photos he took in Germany. Someone else turned them into an animated gif.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Deaf Alien]




top topics



 
150
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join