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.

 

Photo of Object Posted on Mufon I Want Everyone's Opinion

page: 4
53
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by alienj
 


That's pretty strange. There was a total lunar eclipse on February 20th, 2005. I think it's been shown that the picture contains no anomalies though. Perhaps it's a pic of the 2005 event, but the person thought he'd garner more attention by claiming it was more recent?

Speculation at this point, but again, I think it's just a picture of a big rock floating in between a bigger rock an even bigger fireball with a metal tube full of people going by. Maybe it doesn't happen every day, but that's about as interesting as I can make it sound.


Goodnight, ATS.

[edit on 7/2/2008 by Teratoma]




posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Spent a few minutes to try to draw out any detail I could from the pic. Here's two more enlarged views with a little "enhancement" and inverted as well:






posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teratoma
reply to post by alienj
 


That's pretty strange. There was a total lunar eclipse on February 20th, 2005. I think it's been shown that the picture contains no anomalies though. Perhaps it's a pic of the 2005 event, but the person thought he'd garner more attention by claiming it was more recent?

Speculation at this point, but again, I think it's just a picture of a big rock floating in between a bigger rock an even bigger fireball with a metal tube full of people going by. Maybe it doesn't happen every day, but that's about as interesting as I can make it sound.


Goodnight, ATS.

[edit on 7/2/2008 by Teratoma]


No anomalies, how about one big one, why use photoshop CS2 to take pictures off your camera, you dont period. You use it to touchup or add something. Please show me where its been proven there are no anomalies, and pls make the guy an expert. I am not an expert but have already found 3. The date, photoshop, the blur from the aperture on the stars but none on the craft, and the moon.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienj

No anomalies, how about one big one, why use photoshop CS2 to take pictures off your camera, you dont period. You use it to touchup or add something. Please show me where its been proven there are no anomalies, and pls make the guy an expert. I am not an expert but have already found 3. The date, photoshop, the blur from the aperture on the stars but none on the craft, and the moon.




I use photoshop everyday as my profession doing high quality photo editing.

Here's what i think.

1. The CS2 input would probably be when the red text was added. Thou some people do dump photos straight to photoshop, that's not unusual in itself - especially if your only interested in a couple photos for a closer look.

2. There are no photoshopping anomalies - that object is in the photo - there is no editing.

I think the 'strobe' explanation is the most correct.

Removing all the doubling up of the lights, which would indicate a strobe - we're left with typical looking plane lights.
There's a red strobe, a white strobe and a blue & white strobe which flashes blue on every 4th beat. The faint line looks like the light which stays on and isn't as bright as the strobes. It's creating the line which gives the 'mothership disc' affect but it's actually just streaking like the stars, although due to the fact the plane is moving it's creating a longer streak than the stars which are only moving with the Earth. Only very bright stars have come up in this photo which would put the planes permanent light luminosity somewhere in the middle between the brightest and smallest stars in the sky.

So, IMO, this IS in the photo, there is NO manipulation, but it's NOT a long UFO.
Most likely it's a plane. The angle isn't so strange when removing the strobe streak.

and just quickly to explain in pictures:




[edit on 2-7-2008 by the00110001]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Well, I suppose I am going to get flamed for it , but, I think it's a plane.

You can tell from the stars in the shot that it was a fairly long exposure. I think what has happened is a plane flew that distance over the exposure time and its blinking lights , being so much brighter then everything else, were captured multiple times along its flight path.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   
When I saw the pic I was reminded of the similar light sig from the video the the mexican government released of ufos filmed from their jets. Someone else posted how they were also similar to the 2004 mexico ufo pic he posted. Just interesting how they all have the same light pattern thought I would mention it.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:49 AM
link   
To me it really looks like a series of repeats - ie. something that the shutter could be due to. I believe it to be a plane..

Notice how most of the lights are positioned relative to each other, again and again.




posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


I wouldn't discount the possiblity of a plane either...

If you look at a plane moving away from you in a straight line and decending at the same time, you would in fact get a vertical line.

This could be a case of a plane moving away or towards you, and the same time moving slightly to the left and down.
Since there's no reference points we can't say that the size doesn't fit a plane.
What more is that the colors indeed as pointed out corresponds to two wings with different colors and white lights.

One thing I would like to say however, is that it is definately not pixel error.

So this leaves us at another stalemate. It's really unfortunate we haven't gotten an upclose and personal shot of anything yet. Hopefully that day isn't too far away.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   
I think it looks like one of those rods that are always caught on camera, only with lights on it.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   
I think it is a plane but I have one problem with it. The exposure time is 4 seconds and the streak is about 30 arcminutes (the moon is about 30 arcminutes) so I did some calculations and found that the plane will have to be very high (over 100,000 ft) or it will have to move slowly.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:13 AM
link   
ok my pictures :

whole picture



cropped



appologies for ISO noise - opertating in the dark and trying to capture details - with no lights allowed

myy picture recorded an aircraft passing through the shot

care to explain why the OP image is something different ?



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


hi - please look at my post immediatly below yours and tell me how fast you think it is flying and how far away it is



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Well, the one in your shot is moving across your vanishing point instead of slightly off it as in the OPs image. You only have one wing visible from your point of view.
The object in the OP post, seems to move away or towards him at the same time of moving slight down and to the left... so where your shot is a profile shot of plane, the OPs shot could be a frontal (or back) making both wing signature lights visible.

If you were to watch a plane move away from you or towards you and you drew a line from it, it would appear vertical. Depending on angle (left or right) and descent/ascent it would be more or less a very steep angled line.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Well assuming that that is a passenger plane it travels 500-600 mph. Without anything to measure the length (i.e. moon) and the exposure time, I cannot tell how fast it was going.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   
That looks like a plane to me. Look at the lights layout and repetition.

Aircraft have strobes on the wing ends, and a rotating beacon on top and bottom. I find it easy to imagine that pattern coming from an aircraft over a long exposure.

Here, I knocked this up quick.




Keep in mind that it's a long exposure. Also imagine that the planes right wing is slightly obscured by the fuselage. The strobes appear to be flashing twice in quick succession and the rotating beacon... well rotating


I'm not great at working on pictures but I do have an interest in aircraft and as soon as I saw this picture, the above is what jumped straight in.

I HOPE I am wrong, would love it to be a UFO



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Thanks, LateApexer313, for your U2U

And kudos to everyone for some great contributions and for keeping the debate clean and intelligent.

In my humble opinion the plane explanation is the one that makes more sense, the lights match 100% FAA configuration.


Ah: ive noticed that here around there's someone who seems to hate the subject matter, and who keeps constantly an offending and insulting behaviour: dude, i really hope that you will give vent to your personal frustration elsewhere: you never add anything to the debate than insults:
i reallty wonder what is supposed to be the purpose of your presence here.



[edit on 2/7/2008 by internos]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Excellent layout Internos... I don't know what else to say, hehe. But that kinda seals the deal for me.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


The reason for the lights not streaking is because they are blinking. The blink duration is simply not long enough for a streak to occur in this case.
Regarding the steepness / angle of the line, refer to my post further up



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Raddest pic ever.

totally looks real



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Macrotus
Gullible woo-woo believers of faith can't distiguish between UFO and strobing conventional aircraft lights on multiple camera exposures. They only need parrot like rantings from their peers to prove every speck of light, dust, hair, etc as UFOs.

Sometimes it makes me wonder how these people see everyday objects through their eyes. Obviously they never heard of occam's razor or simply cannot comprehend reality.

Anything to get a star and a flag and a little bit of attention from their gullible peers...


Oh well that's what ATS is for.... Mundane everyday objects being labeled UFOs and being the star attraction of ATS front page.

Here's your typical gullible UFO poster and member response to every conceivable UFO thread in ATS who crave worthless stars and worthless ATS points:


*Sees an aircraft* : Woo-woo believers of faith: "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*A helicopter* : "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*A bird* : "Woooo it's a UFO!!"

*Chinese lanterns* :
"Woooo it's a UFO!!"


*A bug in front of a lens* :
"Woooo it's a UFO!!"


*A water speck on a window* :
"Woooo it's a UFO!!"


*A reflection of light on a window* :
"Woooo it's a UFO!!"


*A hair in photo negatives*:
"Woooo it's a UFO!!"


*A hair in photo negatives*:
"Woooo it's a UFO!!"


*Sun behind a cloud *:
"Woooo it's a UFO!!"


*A lenticular cloud *:
"Woooo it's a UFO!!"


*Ice crystals* :
"Woooo it's a UFO!!"


*Space debris:
"Woooo it's a UFO!!"


*Venus*:
"Woooo it's a UFO!!"


No wonder 99.9 % UFO threads in ATS are utter crapola.


[edit on 1-7-2008 by Macrotus]


Perhaps you're right, the only thing that I'm wondering is... would stars really move that much in 4 seconds ?
I'm looking at the length of the star's in relation to the length of the object in question and trying to think if an airplane would cross that distance in the the time given.

I mean it's definately following the pattern of two blue flashes, one red flash - loop - a common airplane pattern. It's just the time and distance that's got me wondering.




top topics



 
53
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join