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: 6
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Ceara
 

No. I don't understand why so many people fail to understand that a flashing light doesn't stay "on" long enough to make an elongated shape whatever the exposure time is. It makes a sharp dot obviously. The same argument kept coming up in the other thread "Been on this a site a long time and now I get pics", followed by "FAKE" screams.




posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesinghThey seem to be equally spaced and therefore probably fixed on a solid object -


or strobes attached to an object moving at a constant velocity ?



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I keep seeing people that say it looks like it could be a plane going by, but the circular shape of the lights betrays that. The lights would be more linear.
IMO, I think a helicopter is more likely. Something that could've made a circular patter in the 4 - second exposure time. I also don't think it looks like there's anything solid in the middle of the circle, which makes me lean toward the helicopter theory as that the only mass would be behind the lights, not between them.
Either way, interesting photo, though I'm betting that with a few tries, a similar photo could be reproduced with a helicopter circling. (Which they often do.)



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Area_X
 


do the lights in the pic i took appear linear ? well do they ????????????

if you want i can tell you where the pic was taken from - which runway it had just taken off from - exact distances and bearings etc etc etc



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The key here is clearly the exposure on 4 secs - which will make it look like that string of light when a airplane is crossing. As stated in earlier comments this is backed up by the FAA regulation lights on planes.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I'm going with the plane idea it does fit, this is a picture i have seen way back and read similar things about what it is in the picture, i am surprised it has not been up on ATS before, but a good analysis all the same and a great pic of an orange moon.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Ceara
 


The strobe lamps are flashing on and off. Watch an airplane in the dark. When a light briefly flashes on it creates an exposure as a dot in the picture. It is the same as using a shutter speed of a fraction of a second with a light. The exposure is very brief. The plane move then the light flashes again in a different spot in the picture.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
IMO, it's another..... "we don't know" but I will repeat this again, the ships (if this is a ship) can and do mimic airplanes and anything and everything we have not only in lights but in sound if they choose.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by observe50]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Haven't read the thread and I'm sure this has been said before:

That photo is a pretty clear example of a short exposure timelapse photography picture, and I've seen many UFO claims based on such nonsense. It's an airplane.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by nablator

Let's examine those questions. The mystery isn't solved until someone explains the speed, wingspan, and color change issues. Those pesky aliens are getting better at mimicking airplane lights, but they're not good enough.



Was this post sarcastic? I cant tell if the wink at the end means "Im joking"" or "I know you'll never spoon feed me the information I am asking for, so I will always think it's real".

So, the fact that the configuration matches a planes, the pattern matches a plane and the strobe times exactly match a plane isn't enough for you?

Why do you ask for impossible information before you will stop thinking it is a UFO? It is impossible top know the speed without knowing the altitude. The wingspan will never be known because we would need the altitude.


Originally posted by observe50
IMO, it another..... "we don't know" but I will repeat this again, the ships (if this is a ship) can and do mimic airplanes and anything and everything we have not only in lights but in sound if they choose.



So go take pictures of clear airplanes in the daytime shy and present them as UFO's. Im done in this thread as it is obvious that no matter what some people simply want to believe in their fantasy UFO's, and they will say anything they cn possibly think of or make up to defend theirselves.

P.S.

Why is the angle even important? Is there some FAA rule that states your only allowed to fly at perfect 90 degree angles to everyone on the ground, or that they cant change altitude?

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Tiloke]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
could it be the TETHER?>

www.youtube.com...

there was some conjecture that it was a inflight refueling center for "ufos" since it collects large amounts of energy as it is carted threw space ..

one of the nasa guys here can probably answer this question

[edit on 2-7-2008 by undo]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Dont know if this has been posted. But what you photographed ther is just an aeroplanes lights this is what they look like on a long exposure, as the plane moves across the sky blinking giving it the appearance of a large object. Im sure Mufon will com out With the same explination if they are true UFO invenstigators.

Here is some examples of similar photos

www.flickr.com...
www.flickr.com...

:@@



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Havalon
reply to post by Teratoma
 


Nice move Teratoma!
turning the whole thing upside down!
did you alter the 'angle' of the lights or was it by rotation?

If I turn it upside down the 'angle is still there!




In this picture it looks like a Bridge.



[edit on 2-7-2008 by krestan]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by krestan
 


it does look like a bridge. interesting.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
A very good submital by Apexer and good analysis from all the ats members! I don't have anything to add, but do feel the plane explanation is the most likely, especially after seeing ig. ape's photo.
I enjoyed reading the dicussion.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:32 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.


Your questions are noteworthy, but have been addressed. You have not been able to convince me that Photoshop was used to alter the image in any way.

1. Many photographers, hobbyists and professionals alike, use Photoshop for taking photos off of a camera for it's extensive batch processing features. Why load the limited/trial versions of the software that comes with a camera if you already have something that does it much better?

2. Several users have shown that from strictly the data provided, the picture shows a group of strobing lights affixed to an object moving in a straight line with a consistent velocity. More than one of them is an expert.

3. The date? This is the most unsubstantial part of your argument. Any date/time can be set (or not) by anyone using the camera. On top of that, EXIF data can be edited too. Don't believe me? Do a Google search for "EXIF EDITOR".

4. The craft is blurred. So is the moon, to exactly the same degree that any other heavenly body visible in the pic is.

5. You wanted the opinion of an expert? You got one. I have been a professional graphic designer for over 20 years, and have been using Photoshop since version 3.0.

[Edit - punctuation]

[edit on 7/2/2008 by Teratoma]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Tiloke
 

No, I'm honestly puzzled, and seriously hoping to learn something from knowledgeable ATSers. I am not convinced by Internos' explanation. Since I have not observed enough planes to know what is the angle of visibility of position lights (red + green) and how they may be grouped with other yellow/white lights, I am just plain IGNORANT. There are so many variations in airplane lights that I often wonder how some configurations are possible. I JUST DON'T KNOW. My ignorance is not a good argument in favor of any far out hypothesis. I was alluding to this in my previous post.
A better understanding of what is normal for an aircraft is needed to analyze those puzzling pictures and videos that show up so often on ATS, and I'm here to learn.

I already said I never thought this could be anything else than a typical airplane until I noticed the color change, blue to yellow, that can't be ignored, and did a little math to see how credible the airplane theory is. I am probably wrong because the angular speed and angular wingspan apparently do not match any conventional aircraft speed and altitude (far too slow or too high). I may be wrong about the math, there may be a stronger perspective factor than it seems (i.e. the plane moving away from the observer at an angle, and upward, that would make it seem as if the plane was moving very little). More analysis could be done to check this possibility; the two rows of blinking lights seem nearly parallel, they shouldn't be if such a strong perspective effect is actually true. Or maybe the parallelism is too small to be measured. Silly me, I like to do 3D trigonometry for fun. It's a hobby. Sorry for disturbing a well done debunking.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Very nice pic.

I don't see any bluring at all. It just sits there.

But the real thing in question is .....SIZE. I can't tell if it's in front or back of the moon. I think ether way this thing is HUGE.
Compare it to the moon size and this must be miles and miles long.
The space station isn't that big........is it ???
The sun seems to light up the edge of it.

Great shot, if not a joke.

cya



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
wow thats a good pic, when u zoom in u can actually see the solid object there, two thumbs up 2 u



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
After looking at this image, I have come to the conclusion that the object is in fact FAA strobe lights from a passing aircraft.

The EXIF data shows an exposure time of 4 seconds, which would definitely make the strobe lights from a jet look like the picture.

The white streak that looks like "a solid object" is actually a light which exists on the top center of the jet, which does NOT "strobe". The red, and blue lights are FAA regulation strobe lights that exist on the tip of each wing. There is 2 other white strobe lights that can be found on the bottom center of the jet as well, and even lights that exist on tail rudders. I am not exactly sure what type of aircraft this is, but I can assure you it is a human jet powered craft.

Sometimes when jets reach certain angles, the jets own body blocks the view of some lights, so that could explain why the pattern isn't perfect.

Just look at this video of some jets landing:


I am very disappointed that ANY images are even being considered when they have been through image editing programs like Photoshop. Here is the EXIF data that shows the picture was taken 3 years ago:



"/File/Main/FilePath", "C:\Users\ALLis0NE\Desktop\7777_submitter_file1__notsurewhatthisis[1].jpg"
"/File/Main/FileName", "7777_submitter_file1__notsurewhatthisis[1].jpg"
"/File/Main/FileLocation", "C:\Users\ALLis0NE\Desktop\"
"/File/Main/FileExtension", "jpg"
"/File/Main/FileSize", "3082934"
"/File/Main/DateCreation", "02.07.2008 09:45:11"
"/File/Main/DateLastAccess", "02.07.2008 09:45:11"
"/File/Main/DateLastWrite", "02.07.2008 09:41:57"
"/Exif/Image/Description", "KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA"
"/Exif/Image/Make", "KONICA MINOLTA"
"/Exif/Image/Model", "MAXXUM 5D"
"/Exif/Image/Orientation", "1"
"/Exif/Image/XResolution", "240/1"
"/Exif/Image/YResolution", "240/1"
"/Exif/Image/ResolutionUnit", "2"
"/Exif/Image/Software", "Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows"
"/Exif/Image/DateTime", "8/28/2007 6:30:38 PM"
"/Exif/Photo/ExposureTime", "4/1"
"/Exif/Photo/FNumber", "28/5"
"/Exif/Photo/ExposureProgram", "2"
"/Exif/Photo/ISOSpeedRatings", "800"
"/Exif/Photo/ExifVersion", "0221"
"/Exif/Photo/DateTimeOriginal", "2/28/2005 9:57:22 AM"
"/Exif/Photo/DateTimeDigitized", "2/28/2005 9:57:22 AM"
"/Exif/Photo/ShutterSpeed", "-2/1"
"/Exif/Photo/Aperture", "2485427/500000"
"/Exif/Photo/Brightness", "171798672/4"
"/Exif/Photo/ExposureBias", "0/1"
"/Exif/Photo/MaxAperture", "497/100"
"/Exif/Photo/MeteringMode", "5"
"/Exif/Photo/LightSource", "0"
"/Exif/Photo/Flash", "16"
"/Exif/Photo/FocalLength", "250/1"
"/Exif/Photo/SubjectArea", "1504 1000 3008 2000"
"/Exif/Photo/ColorSpace", "65535"
"/Exif/Photo/PixelXDimension", "3008"
"/Exif/Photo/PixelYDimension", "2000"
"/Exif/Photo/CustomRendered", "0"
"/Exif/Photo/ExposureMode", "0"
"/Exif/Photo/WhiteBalance", "0"
"/Exif/Photo/DigitalZoomRatio", "0/1"
"/Exif/Photo/FocalLengthIn35mmFilm", "375"
"/Exif/Photo/SceneCaptureType", "0"
"/Exif/Photo/GainControl", "2"
"/Exif/Photo/Contrast", "0"
"/Exif/Photo/Saturation", "0"
"/Exif/Photo/Sharpness", "0"
"/Exif/Image/Compression", "6"
"/Exif/Image/XResolution", "72/1"
"/Exif/Image/YResolution", "72/1"
"/Exif/Image/ResolutionUnit", "2"
"/Iptc/Application/RecordVersion", "2"
"/Iptc/Application/Caption", "KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA"



If any UFO experts want to have their images analyzed please avoid all 3rd party programs, and only use your Windows browser to copy the image files from the camera to a folder on your computer hard drive.




[edit on 2-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]




top topics



 
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join