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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:56 PM

My Apologies, these have been sitting on my card for a couple of weeks and I checked the exif for date and must have got it wrong (I transpose numbers in my mind 14/6 became 16th for some reason). It was the 14th as the exif shows. I can promise that these images came right out of Adobe Lightroom - not photoshop - I have the raw files for inspection and don't know an image editor that can edit raw files - do you?


Modify Date 2008:06:27 23:01:48+01:00

I am not discrediting him, but just like to point out something. In the XMP data that greeneyedleo posted, it says the photo was modified on the 27th. Can you clear this up for me, please.

+1 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:02 PM
*sigh* ...and once again we see a scenario in which a person produces a pretty impressive piece of evidence to go along with his verbal description of what he saw and where he saw it and then proceeds to be lambasted by more cries of "Fake! This is so clearly fake! Why did you lie?" than ever would have happened if he'd just told his story and kept any evidence to himself.

Thanks for sharing, UK Bloke. For absolutely no reason at all, because I don't know jack squat about you aside from what you'be posted here, I believe your story and I believe these photos haven't been screwed with. Maybe it's because I want to believe, maybe it's because the logical side of me figures a person wouldn't waste as much time as it seems to me it would take to cover all the tracks some on here are accusing you of covering unless these photos were showing something a hell of a lot more impressive than a few lights in the sky, or maybe it's just because I'm a gullible moron. Whatever the reason, I believe you and I thank you for sharing the photos and the story.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:03 PM
Very interesting, looking forward to hearing what the experts say on this once they have had a look. OP hats off to you and stick in there bud, was a member a year back, tbh was put off by the flaming and prefer to just view the site now. I'd imagin im not alone either, so flamers, before you post ask yourself if your comments are constructive


posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Yarcofin
How can you tell that the lights are flashing once per second from still photos?

Very easily.
The two white lights have no motion blur attached, therefore they are on very briefly. They are not on the same path as the motion blur, therefore they are not two instances of the same light flashing twice. In most pictures you see them flash only once or twice. As the time is 1 second, I would say probably a little faster than one second, not much.

In this RC helicopter video, the tail light flashes about at the same speed, and the blue light looks similar too.

Also I've never seen anything shine that bright except afterburners, and if he was able to snap a dozen pictures I don't think this "craft" would be moving that fast.

Did you look at the pictures???
You must realize that brightness in a picture is a function of exposure, controlled by the camera parameters: aperture, shutter speed, ISO setting, focal length of the lens, ... It is not the same when watching with naked eyes. And the UFO is hovering, not going fast. Don't you see the vegetation?

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:10 PM
reply to post by jhill76

This is the date when it was converted to JPEG and saved by Adobe Lightroom.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:14 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I have no fears of the unknown.. speak for yourself.

Although I think this is an interesting insight into the mind of a blind skeptic.

I have always suspected their blind disbelief and immediate denial of anything unknown stems from fear.

Thank you for confirming that.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by NephraTari]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:15 PM
So, first he said it was straight from his camera and when someone said about the EXIF data he suddenly admitted of one of the pictures did go through Light Room?

First stumbling indicator of this being a hoax.

One other thing that someone also mentioned. Why are the leavesblurry while the lights are razor sharp?

It screams composited CGI.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by Macrotus]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by Nikon

Instead of posting one-liners, try thinking before you post. There is no evidence of any tampering or fakery. Flashing lights are always sharp, even with a lot of camera shake. Nothing impossible there.
So say something constructive. How about eliminating possible candidates? A RC helicopter makes a lot of noise, but not a "deep bass buzzing sound". A real aircraft has FAA lights red + green, not it either. A UFO, definitely.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by Macrotus

Because he uses lightroom to convert the RAW files. The sharp lights are evidence of flashing white lights. Is it so difficult to understand?

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

Wow you did register a long time ago. Thanks for sharing the pics!

I've read a lot of the discussion in this thread. Star for Nablator
....I agree it's unusual but not willing to cry hoax. The OP seems quite sincere, he registered for ATS a long time ago, and the pictures are intriguing.

I'm on the fence on this one..

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:34 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

+2 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Macrotus

Digital photos and videos is no longer a credible source to be used as proof for UNIDENTIFIED flying objects. It can be faked because digital data can be fabricated using the same technology that were used in the first place.

So that's it folks. You don't have to go home but you can't stay here.
What are we going to analyze from now on, our feelings?
Last person out of ATS turn off the lights.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:40 PM
reply to post by Macrotus
simply as a matter of decorum i suggest you need to go back and read the posts in this thread, for the op has from the start stated he used lightroom to convert the files from the camera, the vegetation is fairly close, and it has been pointed out numerous times that focusing on a distant object will blur close objects in the foreground; i also would like a list of your credentials and years of photo analysis expertise so we can accept your opinions as coming from long term experience;

ukbloke, thumbs up for the good work and thanks for having the sand to endure these individuals. i await jeff reitzman and perhaps internos' insight and critique' of your raw data; again, good show!


posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by Macrotus

I'm not going to sidetrack this thread, but I'd suggest you reread what I posted and reread what you've posted. Telling someone:

It's so blatant that if no one believes this is composited cgi then you've been living in a cave.

C'mooon why is the fabricator is too naive enough not to put a little bit of blur filter to make it more believeable is beyond me.

is a far cry from being "skeptical." It's actually being an authoritative ass. As for the C2C drones, I was interested in them, but made no judgement until I had a chance to read a little more and do some research on it. The Haiti video seemed off to me, but again I didn't jump onto a message board and scream "HOAX!" at anyone over it. BTW, you being an ass really doesn't achieve your stated goal of "making scam artists think twice about posting on ATS." In reality it probably cracks them up far more than making them think.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:10 PM
The bright "sharpness" to the light only represents "no data/detail".
That solid white is the cameras way of saying the light was too bright to discern any detail that would be different from solid white.

Sorta like snow blindness.. Where everything Starts to look like it has a white clear wall cast in front of it.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:10 PM
Just as something to think about, I have a Canon Rebel Xti 10MP DSLR. I also have a hp point and click. When i take the batteries out to charge them, my date and time and everything else reset to nothing, sometimes its on 1900 for the year. So sometimes on vacation my photos say i went back in time to the beginning of the 20th century. The camera date being two days off, or the time being a few hours off is common as well. So saying one date and then the "actual" date being different hardly invalidates what he's said. With that said, I don't know what to believe, and I'll leave it up to an expert in the field, just like everyone else should. If true thanks for posting though.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:12 PM
Very cool pics! I am never lucky enough to see anything like that. Every time I think I have 'PROOF" it turns out to be a blimp.
Anyway, thanks again..Weird whatever it is.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:16 PM
First off I would like to thank you for some very interesting pictures!

What I have learned when posting pictures/videos to ATS:

1: If you have Pictures/Video, U2U the staff and ask them to send them to Jeff or David for analysis beofre starting a thread.

2: Everyone on ATS is an expert image analyst

3: Threads like this and many more become so bombarded by skeptics you have to read through endless pages of bickering to get to the facts.

Thanks again for the awesome pictures! I look forward to the Professional Analysis.


[edit on 27-6-2008 by kdial1]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by kdial1

There was about one outlandish claim in this thread, but the rest were legitimate questions that were asked of the OP. People keep posting skeptics, skeptics. But, all we are doing is asking questions.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:25 PM

Originally posted by jhill76
People keep posting skeptics, skeptics. But, all we are doing is asking questions.

"A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation."

So yes, that is why everyone is screaming skeptics.


[edit on 27-6-2008 by kdial1]

[edit on 27-6-2008 by kdial1]

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in