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.


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

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:40 AM

Originally posted by alienj
reply to post by skywatch

All you guys that eat, breath and sleep the fact that there are UFO's need to thank skeptics for keeping UFO's in the realm of reality. Its because of skeptics that mainstream american will even look at the fact they may be real. Dont beat up the skeptics. We dont know this guy and all we have is pictures. Within the first couple of post we found out that what we were looking at was not the raw data but pictures that had been thru photoshop and other adobe software,,,2. we found out the date was wrong.. why did they sit on the camera for so long before posting, would you not post the next day, and 3. We found out from the guy himself that he can edit and do CGI work(hence the photoshop program) So his original posts were not straight up and other factors came to light later on...So in reality I want to thank the skeptical people and the people who do take second looks at these things so WE all dont look like fools and believe blindly

yes, brakes in a car is nessesarry..
-as long as they dont strick to the floor.

what im saying is that its ok to be sceptic and i approve very much on the post from sherpa discovereing that the image has been saved from a photoshop product, i just dont like that people keep pressing the OP for an answer he has allready given. im belive he surely could be in good faith and is not lying, hasnt modified the images, software may save a picture just because you opened it to look.

one post finding the annormality in the pictures, or a few of them is very good but not the sort of terror style oftenly being used. after all the guy have had some chock by seeing this and is brave enough to post it to the whole world.
instead we should have concentrated on getting the raw images up on a link so that we could all be examinating them.

im not saying this thread has been that evil, many things was acomplished but sometimes this gets to much for a poster, its not a nice thing to have seen something and it only makes people laugh.. we all know that out in the real world.. the OP is saying he understands the posters so everyting is ok,
what im saying is that if he tells us he havent modified these images we should belive a little, the world is not perfect, false is not always false, true is neither.

im stil waiting for the raw images in 10 megapixel solution before i start photoshopping trying to see what the heck it is

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:47 AM
Firstly, It's good to see images like this, good enough for debate (at least).

--Of course the image has a photoshop tag, Adobe is everywhere, just like Microsoft. And, Yes it's possible to do this in photoshop.
--I change the batteries in my camera and the date resets, I don't change it and I don't mind one bit. When I change the batteries it is to take a photo, not to mess around with the settings thank you.
--Mention UFO to some people and they immediately think of Aliens. What it actually means is Unidentified Flying Object, remember that!

"on topic"
Thumbs up for getting these pictures onto the site, glad you had your camera. Very interesting pics.
Thanks to Deaf Alien for the animations, nice work.

Autofocus cameras have a very difficult time focussing on dark objects, so it's no surprise to me that the trees are out of focus. This also accounts for the sharpness on the edge of the lights (as indicated earler). I find it curious that the flash didn't fire, if the camera was in "normal" mode, and light up the trees. Unless the "lights" were bright enough to prevent it, which is also likely. Or as has been suggested, daylight or dusk. It's fairly obvious from the original images posted that there is a little blue in the sky, for someone to deliberately photoshop it brighter to use as "proof" to the contrary is a bit suspect to me.

theukbloke says it's not a helicopter, he was there the rest of us weren't.

Plasma "glow" is a by-product of a levity generator, not pethetic lights like 19th century "technology" can account for.

Agent_T asks a "cloned" question..
I can see why (you) think the light on the left has been cloned, it's identical to the light in the middle...
This happens when the two light source positions are fixed in relation to each other, and the camera is unsteady. The sharp edges are somewhat of a mystery though, plasma is not so defined - generally. The edge could be a reflection on the craft's inner edge or something.

The light on the right is a bit more puzzling, It could have been that the object was "turning" or "rotating" and the light only becomes visible halfway through the exposure. Such as it would if it were strobing (However, strobing plasma emitters would be very difficult to control unless you are trying to make weapons, not thrusters). Very hard to call this one, I'd like to have the originals to humbly examine them closely.

I'm going to assume that this is not a "reflection" for a moment... The craft's profile suggests to me that this is a triangular craft (such as the black triangle, developed in the US). But it's very hard to tell what it is.

The exposure seems shorter than a second to me, a second is a Long time in photography. I've taken shots of a second duration before that have streaks all over them, looks like apocalypse now.

Once you got a couple of shots, you should have put the camera on a car or something to reduce shake. I'd like to read what Jeff and David think.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Corum
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?

no you should use your intuition...

to belive things are false from the start is just as bad,
-maybe even worse

[edit on 28-6-2008 by skywatch]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:55 AM
reply to post by theukbloke

I have taken a very close look at the last image you put up.

I am able to see a tail on the craft on the right hand side of the photo.
It makes the object, in my estimation, look like a "Harrier" type of craft.

I am not a professional photographer but have taken lots of photos in my lifetime and have seen at least 1 UFO and been visited by the Gray's as a child.

You should have those photo's processed with someone that can do some deep detailing on them with commercial or high def quality equipment.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:59 AM
I think the best way to handle this in the future, is to send all pertinent stuff to the experts first, then get their opinion after which the pictures are then posted here with a *STAMP* of Approval of some sort, negating the chatter of armchair experts who get the thread bogged down with attempts of refuting the said pictures.

At times, it seems people are being skeptic's just for the sake of being skeptics and throwing everything out there hoping something will stick. Let us wait for the expert opinion and then go from there.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by talisman]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Springer
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

Excellent statement Sir !

Well put, glad to see you are keeping an eye here!


posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Joe Montana
The light on the right is a bit more puzzling, It could have been that the object was "turning" or "rotating" and the light only becomes visible halfway through the exposure. Such as it would if it were strobing (However, strobing plasma emitters would be very difficult to control unless you are trying to make weapons, not thrusters). Very hard to call this one, I'd like to have the originals to humbly examine them closely....

I have been thinking about the rotation also. He stated one bright light but I suppose two bright ones could appear as one to the eyes at a distance. I does seem like the object is rotating or moving, plus a possible flash and the camera is unsteady. Blurring in more than one direction possibly?

I think you might be correct with this compound effect idea.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Ryan Lloyd
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!


Ryan x

Thanks Ryan, i just really like when someone has something like this to add, sometimes its the missing pussle that these threads needs to get "solved".
and by solved i mean the truth, alien or not.

did the similar thing you saw have a strange sound as this one, -or more directly, -tell us some more if you can remember something, even if you didnt think much about it. was the colors of the same kind ?

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:42 AM

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:46 AM
The first image is the best - clearly looks like an aircraft to me!


posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by bloodcircle
Ahha - so it's a hovering plane, slowly travelling backwards.

You've never heard of planes hovering, Mr Sarcastic? Do some research for that. Aside from that I said it 'seems' to be a plane.

Originally posted by skywatch
to belive things are false from the start is just as bad,
-maybe even worse[edit on 28-6-2008 by skywatch]

I agree. Close minded sceptics are indeed as bad as closed minded believers. You will find though, that 'most' sceptics on this site will always consider the evidence first of all, before coming to a conclusion.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Corum]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:41 PM

Nice pictures!

I've never seen anything like it before!

Great stuff here!

Thanks for sharing this incredible experience

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 12:56 PM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
The first image is the best - clearly looks like an aircraft to me!


how does that make it a hoax? UK man never categorically stated it was anything at all. How on earth do you call that hoaxed?
Maybe you have identified it as a plane, but dont call hoax when there is none.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:12 PM
haha,small world aint it!

I was talking to a workmate last night who lives in Kingston (which is 5 minutes from Hampton) and he said he saw something strange in the sky Wednesday night,25/06/08,he described it a blue fiery triangle travelling slowly towards Teddington,it changed shape a few times,went a bit blurry and disapeared.

Just for my own UFO hunting interest , I live very close to Hampton,where abouts did you see it? Along the Hampton Court Road?,111 bus route?
And what time?

Cheers,great pics btw.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:13 PM
Sorry I skipped a few pages, so don't know if anyone has posted something similar...

Since I play around in PhotoShop often, I decided to see what the object might look like if it has a much quicker exposure.... IE how it may have looked to the naked eye. Here's my stab at it....

I believe the photos to be genuine.... I believe his workflow scenario highly likely. In fact I was surprised by the technical ignorance of many users in this thread in regards to how RAW is handled and as far as how a 1 second exposure will result in blown out light sources and some blurred objects. That said... who knows what it was... too bad the Canon pros camera does not have video... my friend owns a similar one for her professional photo shoots.... this isn't a toy camera.

Though looking at my rendering... could it have been a stealth helicopter such as pictured below (RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter). I believe this is the same one used in the 2003 Ang Lee HULK. Anyways... thoughts?

[edit on 28-6-2008 by serinx]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:30 PM

Originally posted by bloodcircle

It's unusual for a digital camera to store original images in a lossy format such as JPEG, so Im guessing that these were reduced in size via photoshop in order to post on the forums, and that he means that the true exif data is attached to the originals.

Hope I quoted the right guy.... actually there is a setting on the pro Canon's to store a copy in both RAW and JPG at the same time... again I was helping my friend test her camera out a while back. But I agree these are probably 1/3 to 1/4 original pixel dimensions.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:30 PM
Great photos!! Because of the noise being made it makes me think the object was manmade.

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:35 PM
Anyone else notice the OP hasn't been back to reply/post anything??

If he's mysteriously disappeared, maybe it's safe to assume the photos are most definitely real?

EDITED to add...

[edit on 28-6-2008 by LostNemesis]

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:43 PM
My imediate thought was Chinook helicopter with 3 lights...

Although, I've been seeing strange jets flying over and last week I saw a vertical jetstream- very odd

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:45 PM
That chopper looks the nuts!
I want one.
The photos look too strange for just a chopper,unless the camera was broken.

From the position of the trees it couldn't be a plane as its too low for the area and isnt a flightpath to or from Heathrow.

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in