It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I was actually thinking that too. I wouldn't say its just the moon, but who knows for sure. We know what night it was taken, can we look to see if there was even a full, or close to full moon that night?
Originally posted by lightchild
If it was a long exposure shot, wouldn't the stars have trails too?
I would have thought you need quite a long exposure for the moon to appear to have moved that much. How long do you think it would take?
What do you think it is?
Originally posted by internos
I don't want to "debunk" this one in any way, i love the cold cases, but i think that it was a long exposure shot of the Moon.
Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for New York, New York (longitude W73.9, latitude N40.7):
20 March 1950 Eastern Standard Time
Begin civil twilight 5:33 a.m.
Sunrise 6:00 a.m.
Sun transit 12:03 p.m.
Sunset 6:07 p.m.
End civil twilight 6:35 p.m.
Moonset 7:19 p.m. on preceding day
Moonrise 6:47 a.m.
Moon transit 1:28 p.m.
Moonset 8:20 p.m.
Moonrise 7:08 a.m. on following day
Phase of the Moon on 20 March: waxing crescent with 4% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.
New Moon on 18 March 1950 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Glons radar confirmed the sighting of an unidentified object at an altitude of 3,000 meters. Semmerzake radar confirmed the Glons detection and passed its confirmation onto the Air Force. The radar scans were compared with the previous Eupen radar sightings (see Eupen Case) by Semmerzake and Glons and were found to be identical.
Several police patrols had witnessed the same phenomenon before. It was a massive triangular shape with the same lighting configuration as seen at Eupen four months earlier.
Colonel Wilfred De Brouwer, Chief of the operations section of the Air Force, said: "That because of the frequency or requests for radar confirmation at Glons and Semmerzake - and as a number of private visual observations had been confirmed by the police - it was decided that as these parameters had been met, a patrol of F-16 aircraft should be sent to intercept an unidentified object somewhere to the south of Brussels"
As a consequence, two F-16 aircraft of the Belgian Air Force - registration
numbers 349 and 350 = flown by a Captain and a Flight-Lieutenant, both highly qualified pilots, took off from Bevekom.
Within a few minutes - guided by the Glons radar - both pilots had detected a positive oval-shaped object on their on-board radar at a height of 3,000 meters, but in the darkness saw nothing. This oval configuration, however, caused the pilots some concern. It reacted in an intelligent and disturbing way when they attempted to 'lock-on' with their on-board radar.
Changing shape instantly, it assumed a distinct 'diamond image' on their radar screens and - increasing its speed to 1,000km/h - took immediate and violent evasive action.
Photographs of the actual on-board radar of the F-16s recorded a descent of this object from 3,000m to 1,200 in 2 seconds, a descent rate of 1,800km/h. The same photographs show an unbelievable acceleration rate of 280km/h to 1,800km/h in a few seconds. According to Professor Leon Brening - a non-linear dynamic theorist at the Free University of Brussels - this would represent an acceleration of 46g and would be beyond the possibility of any human pilot to endure.
It was noted that in spite of these speeds and acceleration times there was a marked absence of any sonic boom. The movements of this object were described by the pilots and radar operators as 'wildly erratic and step-like', and a zigzag course was taken over the city of Brussels with the two F-16s in pursuit. Visual contact was not possible against the lighting of the city.
This same procedure was repeated several times, with this object - whenever an attempt at radar 'lock-on' was made - pursuing a violently erratic course at impossible speed and losing its pursuers.
Why isn't there any recent UFO case with a malfunctioning digital camera? Either we don't hear about them because without a picture the witness does not report the case or UFO technology has evolved and stopped interfering with our electrical systems?
In March 1993, Eric decided to try to document the old mine using his son's camera, a Kodak S50 with a Fuji 100 ASA-film. Despite having never owned a camera of his own and having virtually no experiencing photographing, Eric set off in order to try to capture the beautiful colors of the open-cast mine from as many angles as possible. And, s photo contest in the magazine "Southern Times-Messenger" about the best image of a sunrise over land also helped him in his decision. He thought he would be able to capture the sunrise on film from Ochre Point, a cliff 60 meters high from where hang-gliders used to take off - but the sun was hidden behind a dense layer of clouds.
Wednesday, March 10, didn't appear to be much better. It was a cool morning, only 14 degrees Celsius, and a stubborn wind came from the west. From the top of the grassy cliff, Eric was forced to accept that there wasn't going to be a sunrise that morning either. A persistent layer of clouds blocked out the sun, and the time was 06:00 AM when Eric instead turned to face the ocean to the west.
- It was then that I saw a movement on the surface on the water, and something looking like the tower on an atomic submarine emerged, Eric tells UFO-Sweden. When the object rose from the water I was able to see how three legs were pointing out from the hull. I was also able to see how it was spinning, and how the three legs were pulled in.
Before the legs were pulled in, Eric managed to take his first photograph of the object, and he estimates the distance to the object at the time being about 400 meters. It then dawned on him how exposed his position was. Standing on top of the Ochre Point with the sun right behind him made him an easy target to spot for a possible crew.
- I had heard of people being abducted by UFOs, so I climbed down a slope nearby. From there I could see how the light-grey object came flying somewhat south of me, and came to a halt over the mine. At that very moment I spotted yet another object, north of the first one. That's when I snapped my second picture, but since the light from the sunrise was straight into my view-finder I moved a little to the left.
The main object has turned its bottom to the photographer and a second object has appeared a little farther away.
While taking photographs from his hideout five meters below the top of the cliff, the new object moved towards the larger one, came to a halt, and then continued upwards, into a deepening in the larger object.
- I could see three lights on the exterior of the larger object and how it shone around the opening. Shortly after I'd taken the fourth and last photograph the larger object rose straight up and disappeared over me. When that happened, I could feel water dripping from the craft down on me.
In a report form to the Australian UFO-group Australian Flying Saucer Research Society, Eric estimates the size of the object to be 40 meters, and the distance (when he first saw it rise from the ocean) to be 2 kilometers. While talking to him on the phone, Eric tells me how it never got closer to him than 400 meters.
When the incident was over, Eric returned home. However, despite his amazing encounter he decided to remain quiet about it, even to his wife. He first wanted to have the film developed in order to find out if there indeed were any photographs of it. But he was not in a hurry. Before he handed in the film for development he made sure to use up the entire film. And not until May, 1994, when he had watched a UFO show on TV, did he bring forward the photographs.
Originally posted by internos
perhaps you meant straight, right? Yes, that's a good observation.
Well, to rule out the possibility for the cameras available at the time to take such a long exposure shot, would put to rest the explanation: but since the assessment by Project Grudge was made the same year, how come that they were even able to mention something that still didn't exist?
Another possible explanation would be a multiple exposure, with shots not very distant each other
So, basically, some possible explanations are:
1) Stellarium is wrong
2) The photograper was a liar
3) The guys of Project Grudge were some heck of investigators since they did NOT notice this inconsistency
4) The photographer was drunk
5) The guys of Project Grudge were drunk
6) I am drunk
7) Something else i'm missing right now