It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Daylight Sighting of a Boomerang UFO in Alberta

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:05 AM
What could this be? Looks like the outline of a boomerang shaped object.
Whatever it is it is strange and looks like something from out of this world...


[edit on 31-1-2009 by SuperSlovak]

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:04 PM
well it definetely looks like previous boomerang shaped crafts




posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:12 PM
That's quite the picture, good find, S&F.

It would not surprise me that some experimental craft would be in that region of Alberta.

A couple of trips to Cole Lake, and what seems like a secret military base is very much apparent.

I was on the base for a few years during my Cadet training and when i took my pilot's license.

Any more info other than source?

Resident debunkers?? I await impatiently!

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by SuperSlovak

On the linked page it says:

Date: April 8, 2007
Time: 9:38 p.m

The picture was taken at night.

And, then:

... Took a picture a very bright looking star to the west of me which was floating several hundred meters and approximately 1 kilometer from my location.

Went into home, downloaded picture onto computer and bright star turned out to be a boomerang shaped craft with discernable structural elements. No contrail behind object, no sound from object. Object proceeded in a south to north direction slowly for 23 minutes before direct line of sight of object cut off by intervening homes. ...

It's not a video.

Cameras shake, particularly at low shutter speeds, particularly when hand-held. They can shake even when on a tripod because of things like the mirror swinging up or a poorly calibrated leaf-shutter. Looking at the picture I can't tell if the light's boomerang shape is because of camera shake, or something boomerang shaped. It is not helped by the fact the image looks interpolated by been increased in size, and also noise caused the sensitivity of the exposure.

So, I don't know, can't say for sure, but it shouldn't be taken at face value.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by jackphotohobby]

new topics

top topics

log in