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: 11
150
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

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


Sorry mate. I can tell its a fake because I am a professor of cryptzoology.




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


Sorry mate. I can tell its a fake because I am a professor of cryptzoology.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
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.


Thanks for the link, but the .zip file is no longer available.

First, several of those seem like zooms of originals.

Second, I merely said that getting too many photos of an up close object allegedly flying in the air seems odd. I didn't say it proves the case.

When you take it in context with the other questions of excessive sharpness, a daylight photo darkened to look like night, evidence (just posted by Agent_T) that one of the lights looks cut and pasted, the movement of the photographer, and other things, it just adds to the oddity.

Though you might be able to find a few cases with many photographs, they are rare.

Take it for what it's worth. Thanks again for doing the animated .gifs.

(There are some other clues that I don't yet want to post out on the open forum.)



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01


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.




I respectfully disagree
If I saw that in the sky, I would be a picture taking fool, lol.


But I understand your point- if the UFO was quick moving it wouldn't be possible. However, there have been tons of slow moving UFO reports out there. Maybe this was one of those?



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Ive seen something like this before, coming from the secret base in north yorkshire. It looks very similar to what i saw, its a new type of military craft which can move from side to side, forwards and backwards with extreme speed. It is out of the ordinary and nice one for capturing it! I had it on video but until i can find it i won't be able to post it! It uses jet propultion from each side of the craft, which gives it the ability to glide from side to side very easily. Most UFO's nowadays are military crafts, and not actually alien life. I am not a skeptic as i believe there is life out there but in many forms, such as plant life, animals, but maybe we are the first intelligent species out there, because it has to start somewhere!

Cheers

Ryan x



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alora

Originally posted by Badge01One other thing that makes this seem suspicious. Too many photos.
...
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.
I respectfully disagree
If I saw that in the sky, I would be a picture taking fool, lol.


I understand your point. That's why we are here to communicate point and counter-point.

Think for a moment, though, how professional still photographers take pictures.

Typically, they take a series of three shots, called bracketing, then lower the camera to continue to look at the object then take three more. In fact it's so common for beginners to just take one photo that photography books caution that bracketing is needed in case something goes wrong with the single exposure.

Now, people with modern cameras, or those with auto-winders can just fire off several photos in succession. That's why I merely said it seems 'odd' for an amateur photographer, particularly one, presumably, under stress.

Six pics, I find no oddity. But ten or eleven pics, considering that those are all of them, I find...er...unusual.
(Correction: there appear to be ten originals)


But I understand your point- if the UFO was quick moving it wouldn't be possible. However, there have been tons of slow moving UFO reports out there. Maybe this was one of those?


Again, ask yourself how rare it is to get several shots of a relatively close field 'UFO'. At most, we find two or three shots.

If you don't think the 'too many photos' is probative, then that's your option.

Thanks for your comments; appreciated.


[edit on 28-6-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Any cattle in the area go missing or mutilated? Any high power lines on poles or underground in the area? When the Grand Gulf Nuclear plant in Mississippi was being loaded with the fuel rods, UFOs were seen flying over it. Any nukes in the area or spent fuel storage areas?

These kinds of spacecraft just don't show up for no reason, they are looking for something. I guess we are no more than cats watching planes fly over to them, so they don't take it too seriously when a civilian spots them and takes their picture.

Did you know that it is illegal for private citizens to own a spaceship? If one crashes on your property and you attempt to keep it, you can go to a federal prison for it. I guess the trial (if there is one) would be hush hush, too.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   
theukbloke, thanks for your pictures.
I'm sorry that they got over-analyzed by some here.

The pics are definitely not fake, or photoshopped or manipulated. These are not reflections or anything else. The sharp edges are sensor burn outs.

Those who own a high MP camera know this happens a lot.

I think its not anything unusual and seems to be an aircraft with hovering capability using jets. There are many as others have pointed out.

Sorry I lost interest



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
CIA's been hiding a lotta crap from us. We need a mole



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corum
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.


Ahha - so it's a hovering plane, slowly travelling backwards.

oO

When people ignore the OP's background statements, and just focus on the image, once again, I can't help but assume people are too busy with the hoaxhammer in hand than anything.

Why cant we wait till someone has verified the RAW images?




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
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.


Where in the universe did you get the idea that it was supposed to be "out of this world"?

Who said that? Certainly not the OP. As he has stated, he just saw something he did not recognise, it was flying. Hence, Unidentified Flying Object.

And did you read his description of the event he allegedly saw? Hovering, then disapearing at speed?

Obviously not, it would appear.

What next, it's a bug on his cameras lense? Far out...




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Amazing photos!

I think this may definitely a UFO. All these sightings are getting intense. Maybe try setting up a tripod around where you saw it in hopes that it may return.


+4 more 
posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
We should make some progress on this one soon, David Biedny has contacted me and I've sent him "ukbloke's" email address so they can coordinate getting the RAW files to David for a thorough analysis.

I will say this, ukbloke is a long term member, in EXCELLENT standing, of ATS and I won't have his integrity questioned BEFORE the data is reviewed understand? It's childish, ludicrous, insulting and highly UNLIKELY considering he actually wants to have the RAW data analyzed by one of the top experts in the field.


Let's all be grown ups and be patient while we wait for the analysis please.


Springer...



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
This object looks similar to an object I saw a few weeks ago in Nottingham, UK.

A few of us saw the same thing see this topic www.abovetopsecret.com...

Almost like a cars headlights with two lights either side flashing every so often and a weird noise that was not from a helicopter or 'normal' aircraft!

[edit on 28-6-2008 by nick_crawley]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


I think your EXIF software is not working as it should, I also get Lightroom as the program used



---- XMP-xmp ----
Modify Date : 2008:06:27 23:01:48+01:00
Creator Tool : Adobe Photoshop Lightroom


I used Exiftool, available for Windows or Mac OS X.

What did you use?



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by theukbloke
 


I do not own a DSLR, the only digital camera I have is an old Epson PhotoPC650 that eats the batteries in 10 minutes and does not show the image on the LCD screen since it got some rain on February 2001.


And I am not assuming anything, I was just saying that if you have a card reader you do not need to use any software other than the operating system to transfer them to the computer, unless your computer lacks that possibility.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thank you for that information. I looked at the exif information and it seems that the animated gif is a bit too fast. There is an average length of 2 to 5 seconds between the frames.

I could adjust the speed if anyone want



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Amazing,!!! yes indeed it cannot be a heliopter otherwise you would have hear the engine noise. If you have more pics we take them



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
If we are going to debate the issue at hand and bring forth evidence to support his credibility. I don't believe we should bring the fact that the OP registered in 2004. If you go through his profile, he has not contributed anything to ATS since just this year.

Anyone can remember an old account they signed up for a long time ago, I have done this to many email accounts and web sites.

I say this because I like to hear all arguments, I am not passing judgment, but if we bring facts, let's take out the ones that don't hold weight. I would fully support that claim, if the member in question was a contributor throughout the years.

But, I thank the people who have been civil in trying to get all of the facts on the table.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by emolo
 


Hold on just a second. They do have helicopters out that when hovering makes hardly no noise. The big police departments have these in catching criminals in the act of a crime.



new topics




 
150
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join