strange creature photographed at Argentina Airport, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 15-12-2008 @ 03:14 PM by aleon1018
reply to post by Allred5923


The legs do look more like a frog than anything else at first glance. The dark area in the center of it does resemble more like a small bird or a hawk. I wonder about the frogs or toads in this area that might resemble this color.

Otherwise, it's quite possibly a frog or toad that's caught an insect in flight? How far is this picture taken from the gound?

edit:
After looking again, and the thought of an insect, there does also appear to be a thin front set of legs directly in front of the others. An insect would have more of a transparent color. The distortion representing it being closer, but not so close that it blocks the lens and is still somewhat visible.

I wonder if there's any sites that show close-ups of insects such as this.

What about locusts and grasshoppers?

[edit on 15-12-2008 by aleon1018]


reply posted on 15-12-2008 @ 07:53 PM by Allred5923
It could also be a bird flying towards the camera, which would account for even more distortions.



Also gave some consideration to the "Birds of Paradise" family as well.

There are more than three-dozen species in the family Paradisaeidae, more commonly known as the birds of paradise.




Type: Bird
Diet: Varies by species
Average lifespan in the wild: Varies by species and habitat
Size: 4.75 to 39 in (12 to 100 cm)
Weight: Varies by species
Size relative to a 6-ft (2-m) man:
Birds of paradise are found in New Guinea and surrounding islands. The manucodes and riflebirds species also dwell in Australia. Birds of paradise are so attractive that their appearance once made them the target of skin hunters, who decimated some species.


animals.nationalgeographic.com...

Now, I realize the locality description bases these birds in New Guinea and Australia, but as of lately, I have been seeing birds, namely Geese and other North American types flying rather chaotically rather than their normal migrations.

Here's a map of Argentina:

Argentina is situated in southeast South America. It shares its northern border with Bolivia and Paraguay; its eastern border with Brazil and Uruguay; the west and part of the south with Chile, and the south and most of the east with the Atlantic Ocean.


It also could be a species of aquatic long legged birds that are also indigenous to Argentina as well, the picture in question is "Severely" blurry, none the less.

These are Herons and their family species that are indigenous to Argentina.

FAMILIA Nombre Español English Name Scientif. Link
ARDEIDAE Hocó Colorado Rufescent Tiger-Heron Tigrisoma lineatum link
Mirasol Chico Stripe-backed Bittern Ixobrychus involucris link
Chiflón Whislting Heron Syrigma sibilatrix link
Garza Bruja Black-crowned Night-Heron Nicticorax nicticorax link
Garza Mora Cocoi [or White-necked] Heron Ardea coccoi link
Garza Azul Little Bule Heron Egretta caerulea link
Garza Blanca Great Egret Ardea [Casmerodius] alba link
Garcita Blanca Snowy Egret Egretta thula link
Garcita Bueyera Cattle Egret Bubulcus [Ardea] ibis link
Garcita Azulada Striated Heron Butorides striatus link





www.fotosaves.com.ar...


As you can see, "I am pretty stuck on the 'It's a Bird' theory!!!"LOL



reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 07:03 PM by pyrytyes
reply to post by tcujie




Isn't that Howard the Duck, from the cartoons? Looks to be wearing a superhero costume of some sort...

Then again...?


reply posted on 16-12-2008 @ 09:35 PM by Teratoma


To the person asking if I'm a photoshop expert: Yes, and I could easily reproduce this image.


But why would you produce an image like this in the first place? If this is a Photoshop job, it's the first one I've ever seen that shows an almost completely ambiguous image. People that perpetrate hoaxes generally create images that look like something specific, even if what they're supposed to represent is from urban folklore or 'the unexplained'. It would be a total waste of time to create something that looks more like something mundane than anything else.

If I created this image in Photoshop with the intention of bamboozling people into thinking it was something anomalous, I'd be entirely disappointed with the assessments being expressed on this thread.

If you really are a PS expert, you'll be able to point out how this pic has been digitally manipulated. Just saying "Photoshopped" carries no weight at all. This is a real photograph of an event that actually happened in the third-dimensional plain that you and I live in. There is NO EVIDENCE of it having been digitally manipulated AT ALL. Period. It is almost certainly NOT an 'alien entity', the 'Jersey Devil' or Howard the duck either, just something that is hard to identify in the pic.

Plus - your inferring that this is a hoax that Easynow is responsible for is not only rude, but ridiculously misguided.

[edit to add: ]


[edit on 12/16/2008 by Teratoma]


reply posted on 17-12-2008 @ 04:14 AM by mikesingh
Originally posted by Jinni
In the original article here:
ceufo.blogspot.com...
It says that the photographer was not aware of the object hence no extra frantic shots.

So this get's more smelly, right? The darn thing covers the entire frame and he didn't know? Ah yes! That thingy was invisible to the naked eye. Caught by the camera lens only, as it was beyond the visible spectrum! (Now where did I hear this before?). Oh yeah - Ghosts!

Heck! The sky and Earth must then be full of these funny creatures! And the tragedy is we can't see them with the naked eye! Or is all this just hokus pokus? I feel so!

Cheers!


reply posted on 17-12-2008 @ 04:28 AM by Jinni
Originally posted by mikesingh
Originally posted by Jinni
In the original article here:
ceufo.blogspot.com...
It says that the photographer was not aware of the object hence no extra frantic shots.

So this get's more smelly, right? The darn thing covers the entire frame and he didn't know? Ah yes! That thingy was invisible to the naked eye. Caught by the camera lens only, as it was beyond the visible spectrum! (Now where did I hear this before?). Oh yeah - Ghosts!

Heck! The sky and Earth must then be full of these funny creatures! And the tragedy is we can't see them with the naked eye! Or is all this just hokus pokus? I feel so!

Cheers!


Calm down.

Given the following:

+ The photographer did not notice the animal
+ The animal is hghly blured and it is way in front of the focus point of the plane
+ The animal is transparent also indicating that the focus point is way in front of the plane.

I am certain that the photograph is of an insect close to the camera lens when the photo was taken.

The reason why there is more definition in the animal (given it is so close to the camera) is because of the high shutter speed.

I doubt the photorapher is intentionally trying to hoax more like he doesn't know what it is and is genuinely asking questions to find out.

I don't know WHAT insect it is but it certainly way in front of the focus point and it is very small.

Case closed.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by Jinni]


reply posted on 17-12-2008 @ 12:39 PM by Teratoma
Originally posted by mikesingh
...The darn thing covers the entire frame and he didn't know?


I'm disappointed, Mr. Singh! Your work is usually more thorough than this!*



If this person is really a 'photographer' (as opposed to just a guy taking pics with a camera), he probably used the highest quality settings, which I believe for this camera produces a picture 2100X1500 pixels. So depending on your screen resolution setting, this pic below is roughly 3 to 4 times bigger than it would be in print. So the little object is really taking up less than one square inch of the pic, not the entire frame. We know that most cameras take pics in the proportions of 4:3. Not square -I doubt this camera is any different.



(I estimate that this pic hasn't been enlarged and is presented in its original resolution. The jpeg compression artifacts stand out more due to the fact that the color saturation has been brought up, but I believe this is cropped straight from the original. I too would like to see the whole pic, as well as others he took that day - even if they just show the airport.

So, from what little data we do have, I am guessing that this little guy is a wasp. I dunno how big the little buggers can get down there, but I'll venture to say that if he has a wingspan of as much as two inches, he is roughly about 18 inches away from the camera lens.

Here he is in Teratoma-Vision:







**I'm familiar with your extensive Martian and Lunar anomoly research.


[edit - tags]


[edit on 12/17/2008 by Teratoma]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Strange creatures from Marianas Trench
  Posted 5 days ago with 26 member flags
\'Woolly mammoth\' caught on camera in Siberia
  Posted 4 days ago with 18 member flags
icelandic lake monster spotted! (VIDEO)
  Posted 5 days ago with 16 member flags
The Bridgewater Triangle
  Posted 18 days ago with 10 member flags
Shape-Shifting Dinosaurs by Jack Horner (TED Talk)
  Posted 2 days ago with 6 member flags
Bigfoot Attack...or is the Lizard Man in Georgia?
  Posted 10 days ago with 5 member flags
\'mutant spider fears at nuclear wastelab\'
  Posted 5 days ago with 4 member flags