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.

 

16 UFO'S in two images taken 4 seconds apart

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
no one has taken into account his location where the pictures were taken. you were in an area heavy with trees and bushes. a place where gnats are likely to hang about. i think this is what you shot. 4 seconds is nothing for travel time of gnats.




posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sliick
no one has taken into account his location where the pictures were taken. you were in an area heavy with trees and bushes. a place where gnats are likely to hang about. i think this is what you shot. 4 seconds is nothing for travel time of gnats.


Gnats, no i took these pics . Just the facts right. wipe off your screen and try again.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DroolsAlot

Originally posted by truth2u
reply to post by space cadet
 


you can right click and zoom 5 times. If they were birds then where did they all go so fast?



They probally just flew off, like birds do.


As for the bird argument I went and took a pic today same spot with a bird. The difference between birds and ufo's is clear to see.

BIRDS



UFO'S




posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
so because you took a picture of a bird at a closer vantage point than the "objects" in your original photo, you believe it's impossible the original is full of birds? it's clear that in the originals the objects are at least two to three times farther away than the bird in your new pic. I'm 98% sure your original pictures are birds at a distance flying through your shot. traveling out of frame in 4 seconds is not unbelievable of birds, in fact i'd think it's pretty easy for them.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by optimus primal
so because you took a picture of a bird at a closer vantage point than the "objects" in your original photo, you believe it's impossible the original is full of birds? it's clear that in the originals the objects are at least two to three times farther away than the bird in your new pic. I'm 98% sure your original pictures are birds at a distance flying through your shot. traveling out of frame in 4 seconds is not unbelievable of birds, in fact i'd think it's pretty easy for them.


OK lets go with your new theory which states that the objects are two to three times farther away than the obvious bird I made an example of. Now you tell us how birds that are that far away can vanish in four seconds "f22 raptor maybe" bird with wings and no afterburnes?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by truth2u

Originally posted by Sliick
no one has taken into account his location where the pictures were taken. you were in an area heavy with trees and bushes. a place where gnats are likely to hang about. i think this is what you shot. 4 seconds is nothing for travel time of gnats.


Gnats, no i took these pics . Just the facts right. wipe off your screen and try again.


What the heck is that supposed to mean? Instead of insulting my intelligence, tell me why it cannot be gnats. I know you took the pics. You stated that in your OP. Maybe you couldn't see them, most people can't unless the sun is at their back. These little bugs fly in swarms of 10-30. The "swarms" move kind of slow but the bugs move quite fast. Sometimes the "swarm" will dissipate into smaller groups. Your "objects" appear to be closer than 10 feet. Next time you reply, TRY to be civil.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by truth2u

Originally posted by optimus primal
so because you took a picture of a bird at a closer vantage point than the "objects" in your original photo, you believe it's impossible the original is full of birds? it's clear that in the originals the objects are at least two to three times farther away than the bird in your new pic. I'm 98% sure your original pictures are birds at a distance flying through your shot. traveling out of frame in 4 seconds is not unbelievable of birds, in fact i'd think it's pretty easy for them.


OK lets go with your new theory which states that the objects are two to three times farther away than the obvious bird I made an example of. Now you tell us how birds that are that far away can vanish in four seconds "f22 raptor maybe" bird with wings and no afterburnes?


really? do you know how fast birds fly? fortunately i have a site that shows the average flight speeds for the most common birds caught in photos(common in my opinion)
pigeon, sparrows, starlings, and swallows

now if you convert the miles per hour to feet per second you'll find that it's not impossible for the birds to fly out of screen in four seconds. i'm assuming you were roughly 300 feet away from the building, the birds were at the maximum probably around 5-6 hundred feet away from you, giving the furthest birds a roughly similar arc of camera shot to travel through, the birds closest less of a distance to get out of the camera's view. they were obviously caught in midflight, meaning there was constant motion and no need to try and calculate how long it takes to get to maximum speed. now this isn't even taking into account that they might have had a wind behind them giving them even greater speed.

clearly the pigeon is capable of making the distance no problem without an accompaning wind behind them, even assuming they were all going in the same direction. the other three would probably barely make it(again if they were all going the same direction) but would have no problem with a tailwind(i believe that's what it's called when the wind is behind pushing them forward). obviously they were not all going in the same direction so the ones closest to the edges of the frames dont even have to be going 5 miles an hour to make it out of your shot.

i'm not saying ufo's, terrestrial secret government tech or otherwise, don't exist, just that your photos aren't ufos. i mean really, take a look again at the second object above the man to the far left in the jeans and longsleave shirt, that's clearly a bird with it's wings in the top part of flapping. you'd expect if they were some type of vehicles they'd be uniform in design wouldn't you. instead almost every one is different in shape and size just like one would expect of blurred out birds in flight.

anything else you'd like me to explain about birds in flight in your picture?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by truth2u
Now you tell us how birds that are that far away can vanish in four seconds


You yourself said you changed the exposure settings. Even the slightest change can blur out near/far objects to the point that they would not show on your image.

I'm agreeing that it looks more like insects/birds.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I think it's nothing for a simple reason: All the specks are generally the same size. So unless your ufos all appeared instantly, and all at the exact same distance (or, they were different distances, but amazingly, with their different sizes, they were either closer or further away, making them all look the same size).. I'd say it was a different and more mundane set of dots. Birds, gnats, dust, who knows. I don't see anyone in the picture looking upwards at the ufos. Are you suggesting alien craft all appeared instantly, you snapped a photograph, and then they all instantly disappeared? You do realize how unlikely that sounds, as opposed to a more reasonable theory that they were a much more common object, right?


Regardless, it's useless, since apparently there were no witnesses, and you can't make out squat. They could be a flotilla of alien craft, or perhaps inter-dimensional nanobots, but it doesn't matter, the evidence is useless, as it. If people sound frustrated or dismissive, it's because so many of these pictures, that provide nothing at all for the study of ufos come and go. I'm sure you think they are amazing, but to those looking for definative proof, they are just frustrating. They are dots, end of story.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Unfortunately the low-resolution of the pictures themselves don't offer much proof... They could just be birds. gnats, insects. there's definitely not proof enough to be conclusively UFO's. perhaps it's some other form of distortion caused by your camera itself?



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Nothing out of the ordinary here i assume, just birds.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Now that is one very inconclusive picture indeed!

Birds. Insects. Nothing from another planet here. truth2u, I don't know what you're trying to do with your posts, but to be frank I have not seen anything of quality from you so far. Please be serious.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Insects, most probably.
Its strange that the OP is defending his claim so furiously.

Its UFOs, yes, because no one will ever know just from these blurry dots, what object it was, but nothing special IMO.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpookyVince
Now that is one very inconclusive picture indeed!

Birds. Insects. Nothing from another planet here. truth2u, I don't know what you're trying to do with your posts, but to be frank I have not seen anything of quality from you so far. Please be serious.




Are we looking at the same picture cause I see a what looks like a metallic saucer with a shiny top?




[edit on 10-10-2008 by truth2u]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by truth2u

Originally posted by optimus primal
so because you took a picture of a bird at a closer vantage point than the "objects" in your original photo, you believe it's impossible the original is full of birds? it's clear that in the originals the objects are at least two to three times farther away than the bird in your new pic. I'm 98% sure your original pictures are birds at a distance flying through your shot. traveling out of frame in 4 seconds is not unbelievable of birds, in fact i'd think it's pretty easy for them.


OK lets go with your new theory which states that the objects are two to three times farther away than the obvious bird I made an example of. Now you tell us how birds that are that far away can vanish in four seconds "f22 raptor maybe" bird with wings and no afterburnes?



ARRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!!!



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bidu82
Unfortunately the low-resolution of the pictures themselves don't offer much proof... They could just be birds. gnats, insects. there's definitely not proof enough to be conclusively UFO's. perhaps it's some other form of distortion caused by your camera itself?


Eh? These aren't low res. You do know what low resolution means, don't you?



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by triplesod

Originally posted by bidu82
Unfortunately the low-resolution of the pictures themselves don't offer much proof... They could just be birds. gnats, insects. there's definitely not proof enough to be conclusively UFO's. perhaps it's some other form of distortion caused by your camera itself?


Eh? These aren't low res. You do know what low resolution means, don't you?



yep their high res in fact they were taken with a cannon rebel 10.5 megapixel cam then embeded into flash with no compression. It takes a while to load because I didn't compress it. I wanted viewers to have as much detail as possible and zoom capabilities.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by truth2u
 


no rebuttal to my very informative post?
since you've replied to about three or four other posts since yesterday, i'll conclude you agree that they are birds too far away for your camera to show clearly



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
There appears a dark oval spot with a lighter top.

Good enough for a saucer in any ones book but a government agent.

The anti Tesla/UFO/Free Energy troops are always vigilante.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


seriously?? because i think and put forth evidence to back up that they are most likely birds, i'm a government agent and anti tesla? that's just....sad and pathetic.







 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join