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: 20
150
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


Excellent analysis nablator.

The only thing I think doesn't fully gel with this from my mind is the brightness of the lights. Having seen footage of an RC helicopter (below) it can certainly do amazing things and the humming is quite different to a real helicopter, but the brightness of the lights seems out of place.

Someone or the poster may be able to enlighten me as to how bright the lights in the photos were compared to say those on a remote copter.







posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


Yes, looking through them - you could be right. I just did my own animation to help out with the flight path and your observations are correct. I have used the trees to steady the shots



Some things are still not right though, a RC heli could not produce light on the scale I saw - the batteries would have to be massive. The sound was a deep constant bass and unless the river caused some sort of resonation of those little buzzing motors it had to be much bigger.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


you beat me to it, those things are amazing - i want one



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


Wow! That RC pilot is superhuman!
We need a new thread just to discuss him.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


I thought the circular form of a spinning tail rotor was visible in at least one of the pictures.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
This thread is a mishmosh, there are actually four lines of thought mixing up in here:

- theukbloke: what I saw
- The photo analysis
- The story analysis
- Skeptics shut up

Lets keep that last one for another thread. It is muddling things up. Let the analysis focus on the images, then we need to look at valid items in the story like why are there no other reports of this craft?


Originally posted by Springer
I will say this, ukbloke is a long term member, in EXCELLENT standing, of ATS
Springer...


On this point. If we do find that these images are not faked (my hunch is we will we will) and we need to start questioning the story behind the image. Take note of this:

theukbloke joined 9/16/2004, just a few weeks after the great Aussie Bloke Hoax that occurred and has been largely dormant in posting till now.

I would like to know if there are any other *bloke accounts on the site and if so, were they registered in 2004ish?



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
wow, that's probably the best bit of RC flying I've ever seen. I'd chop my own head off if I tried that. (i can see people cracking their typing fingers right now)

That thing must be tuned up to the top, great footage.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by skywatch
 


I would love to see this software you could easily create to handle raw image files. I think that it wonderful for you to volunteer your extraordinary talents with computers and software for this task. We look forward to using this software you plan on whipping up for us here at ATS. Thanks in advance.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I love the pics ukbloke, thank you for sharing them with us.

I was just reading through some other threads and ran across another member who might be of some service
.


"Please contact me at henry@comwave.com
as I am a professional videographer and image processing professional
that has the ability to host videos and photos and to analyze them
with our high end video editing system up to HDTV resolution!
We can also process still photos at up to 25,000 by 25,000 pixels RGBA
we can accept JPEG, BMP, TIFF, PNG, MAC, Corel Photopaint,
Adobe Photoshop or any other still photos of any resolution."


Link to full post below...

I am a professional videographer and image processing professional

Its the 12th post on page 2.

Maybe he can get you a better look at what those lights are....

Anyways thought I'd give you a heads up and thanks again for the great images.


Johnny



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   


Are you saying that you were able to perfectly negate the motion of the craft by following it with your hands? Ladies and gentlemen. This image is fake. End of discussion.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Are you saying that you were able to perfectly negate the motion of the craft by following it with your hands? Ladies and gentlemen. This image is fake. End of discussion.


I haven't seen one pic which shows a negation of the motion of the craft, they all appear to be in motion, hence the obscurity of the object.....

Interesting pics and no definite conclusion as to what it is yet, but end of discussion?

For you maybe, thanks for sharing.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


The lights in the "craft" would be double imaged as well, indicative of motion in the hand of the cameraman. If the camera was moving in the photographers hand and double imaged the tree, it would have done so to the craft as well.This is not the case in this image. I didn't analyze the rest of the pictures yet. Here I just opened up another of the images and i see the same thing:



[edit on 30-6-2008 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


I see what you are referring to and I can understand your hypothesis, I just had a problem with the finality of your conclusion.

From my point of view, even in the image you use, there is a possiblity that the double light on the left represents the movement as the right was the pivot point.

Let's just say I am still holding out from making a definitive assessment.

If you feel comfortable with your conclusion, it's alright with me, we all have opinions, I haven't reached one yet.

Thanks again for sharing.

ed:sp

[edit on 6/30/2008 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Your welcome. If he used the right side (the area of the craft) as the pivot point, it would mean he was following the craft with his hands. During a one second exposure this is extremely difficult, and he was able to follow it with pixel resolution from the two photos I saw. This is very difficult. It just seems really odd that several of the one second exposure photos he took he would be able to follow it with such precision manually.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


*Star* very nice nablator!


The OP didn't mention a fantastic speed so I would agree with the helicoptor hypothesis..


Just how quiet was the Quiet One? "It was absolutely amazing just how quiet those copters were," recalls Don Stephens, who managed the Quiet One's secret base in Laos for the CIA. "I'd stand on the [landing pad] and try to figure out the first time I could hear it and which direction it was coming from. I couldn't place it until it was one or two hundred yards away." Says Rod Taylor, who served as project engineer for Hughes, "There is no helicopter today that is as quiet."

Source

There you go. If there were only lights seen, little sound, and lacking fantastic speed or manuverability.... No aliens. Just some type of military heli.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


I took another look at the pic you reposted and reviewed my post and realized there could not be a pivot point, on that particular picture.

I would have to defer to your analysis of that pic.

My apologies. It will be interesting to see if the same thing holds true for the rest of the pics.

Let's take a look.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


The lights in the "craft" would be double imaged as well, indicative of motion in the hand of the cameraman. If the camera was moving in the photographers hand and double imaged the tree, it would have done so to the craft as well


You are overlooking one option - it could have been windy out, and the trees could have been moving on their own from the wind. This would cause them to have that double image, while the craft not being affected by the wind would not have the double image.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   

It just seems really odd that several of the one second exposure photos he took he would be able to follow it with such precision manually.


Again, you are assuming that the craft was moving 100% of the time. It it was hovering in the air, he would not have to pan the camera to follow it, he could hold it still.

In the photos where the craft was moving, it is indeed motion blurred with a streak any way as you suggest it should. So your analysis is false.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Looking at the first image he held the camera fairly still from the looks of it. But the odd thing is that the contours of the craft are too sharp compared to the foreground trees.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
How many seconds apart was the pictures taken? It would see that from that perspective a airplane or a helicopter that close would have been heard. Helicopters are way loud and makes a consistent thump sound that can be heard a long ways. Also them lights look way to bright to be running lights. Aren't planes helicopters supposed to have red running lights? If so, then it should have shown up sometime in them pictures.



new topics

top topics



 
150
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join