Earthfiles: Spider-Like “Drone” Photographed Over Petten, Holland

Internos, excellent reasoning, investigation, and examples! My gut-level feeling is that we're not looking at a crack in a piece of glass, but this is exactly the sort of thing that has to be considered and ruled out before one can make any kind of judgment as to the likelihood that any UFO photo is authentic.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by flightsuit]

Originally posted by who-me?
Take a lookm at this Today In Brazil

Some similarities here in my opinion.

Youtube Direct Video Link

[edit on 19/4/2009 by who-me?]

From the above-referenced site:

We have no idea if it is real (it sure looks real) or fake nor do we have any idea if it is already a well known video amongst UFO researchers. If any one does have any information on the video please contact us.

Top-notch, hard-hitting journalism!

Looking at this new "spider-like" drone, it looks to me like there are two central rings, one suspended directly above the other, and both being of equal diameter.

Though the object at first appears to have six "legs" splayed outwards on the same horizontal plane, when I more closely examine the images, it looks to me like the two thinner appendages are actually antenna-like structures running vertically through the center of the thing, one extending upwards from the top, and one pointing downwards from the bottom.

Does anybody else interpret it similarly?

I have to agree with Internos here. Really, you nailed it IMO looks exactly like a rock chip - which most here im sure have had and its the first impressive I had when seeing the OP images.


More pictures of rock chips compared to the OP image. You can see the "rings" created by the rock hitting the window and it causing it to spread into "spider legs".

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/55d5126b3898.jpg[/atsimg]

No way does it look like a chip in the glass you can tell from the pic that it is pretty far away and the "drone" image is too symetrical in my eyes.

obviously that is just speculation but it is of the same value as yours

im leaning more towards hoax like the other suspected drones

Originally posted by nasacarl
I just had an interesting thought.

Throughout time (and we have had a fair bit of it) there isnt much recorded information about UFO's and/or Aliens. It makes me think that maybe there isnt any but if there is we could be discovering this out way too late to confirm what we are seeing. Soon we won't be able to distinguish our own vessels from the alien vessels. Our technology is catching up and it may be too late to start looking in to the sky for UFOS.

Centuries ago would of been the perfect time to sky watch seeing as there was nothing ever in the sky except for the occasional shooting star. It's a sad thought.

Why would people in the old days not have recorded any UFO sightings?
Do you think maybe there was the possibility of being hung if you openly admitted seeing something like a UFO ? Maybe because of the church?

That could be the reason why people kept quiet. I mean , maybe UFO's have cloak technology anyway but still.. old reports would be good evidence..

First off there have been recordings of UFO's that date back to cave drawings 10 thousand years ago, but I am not going to even try to argue that point.

If there were nothing in the sky but the occasional shooting star, what would lead people to look up with any regularity other than those whom studied the heavens and they mainly worked at night. Also remember the time frame, people were getting burned at the stake for suggesting the world was round or not the center of the universe, so I would imagine that seeing a space ship would most likely get you 30 minutes at 350 degrees as well.

When Cortes discovered the Americas his ships were on the horizon for days yet the natives never saw them until one of the Indian priests noticed the waves were different and then they saw the ships. The point I am trying to make is this, if there is no need to look to the sky then most people will not and even if they do it is unlikely that they would see anything because their mind has already determined there isn't anything there. If you would like a modern demonstration of this, just take a look at any wall near you then turn away and name everything on it including scratches, marks, scuffs and any other abnormality. Your mind will recognize what it already knows or suspects is there, most people won't even have seen all of the normal things such as a picture. We just naturally look for what we suspect is there. This is more pronounced with unfamiliar things, try the same thing at a friend's house, you probably won't remember half of what was there. Have you ever had someone try to point out a plane in the sky and point to it and you couldn't see it and had to look very hard for some time to find it although you were reference to the exact spot in the sky? Most of us have especially when we were young, its the same thing.

Also in the time frame you speak of, they did not understand heavenly bodies and could have easily mistaken a night ufo sighting as a shooting star. Remember these people still believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe, religion was the science of the times and ufo's would have been seen as anti-christian. After you have seen a few friends get slow roasted, the natural response would be to keep your mouth shut.

[edit on 4/19/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

Confirmed "HOAX" !

Need I say more ? I don't think so. These pics have been floating around in the internet for a long time.

These images have been all over the net for a very long time. Old stuff, hoax.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by DEM0N]

Originally posted by Evisscerator
Confirmed "HOAX" !

Need I say more ? I don't think so. These pics have been floating around in the internet for a long time.

Actually yes you do lol. That statement is the same thing as me standing here stating that the tooth fairy is a confirmed fact. Where is any supporting evidence? What do you offer to confirm your statement. Just because you state it will not satisfy too many folks here.

I honestly do not know if it is real or hoax, but then again, I am not making a definitive statement either, and if I were I would try to at least offer some supporting evidence to back that claim with. Although I myself believe my own convictions, I would be foolish to think others would believe it also just because I said it, even for me, that is a bit arrogant.

Nice pictures! Multiple witnesses, at that too.

This kind of technology isn't out of our reach, especially not the military's.

In fact this kind of design looks familiar with what has already been invented albeit on a much smaller, primitive scale by backyard hobbyists.

Oh man... Not this again.

I guess they've had a "slow spell" over at Earth Files.

Springer...

Despite my admiration for Internos' very good find, there are many problems with the chipped windshield hypothesis. The photographs display an object with some characteristics that suggest otherwise :

- It's not possible to make a well focused picture of both a nearby car windshield and the scenery in the background (is that a radio/TV tower or a smaller antenna to the bottom right corner?) with a 450 mm (equiv. 35 mm film ) zoom lens. If you put the glass far enough away to make it look small enough and focused enough, you need a giant piece of glass.

- Perfect symmetry of the object, with thicker parts on 4 appendages, that you don't see on chipped glass from the examples posted so far.

- Lack of reflection (brighter parts) and refraction (red/blue lights as in a prism), that is usually visible on glass.

The movement is interesting. The object is not moving much during the 5 minutes between the 1st and the 13th shot. Unfortunately there is only one element in the background, not two, to be able to accurately stabilize the pictures. Clouds are too fuzzy to use for accurate positioning. The movements could be camera shake, but even then the composite views should all line up in one direction, if the object moves in a straight path or doesn't move at all.

Here is a composite, with the antenna on the bottom right stabilized. The object is all over the place.



CGI is unlikely as the JPEG format matches original Nikon D50 photographs, that's not as easy to fake as most people think.

The fact that the witness is not anonymous, that the original photos are available, makes it likely that this is not fake. It could still be a kite with transparent wings, who knows...

[edit on 2009-4-19 by nablator]

[edit on 2009-4-19 by nablator]

Originally posted by who-me?
Take a lookm at this Today In Brazil

Some similarities here in my opinion.

Youtube Direct Video Link

[edit on 19/4/2009 by who-me?]

great video ... genuine ... I heard the reaction by the people .... what the hell they recorded?

Originally posted by nasacarl
reply to post by pjslug

 

Im not talking about paintings. Im talking about documented sightings.
Paintings can be interpreted in many ways... Written accounts..
I think half those paintings are actually depictions of gods , and the cave paintings could be anything.


Edit: The UFO's in the pyramids , i see them alot i suppose. They are everywhere. But i was hoping from the age of 1200-1900

[edit on 19/4/2009 by nasacarl]

Perhaps you would find the information interesting in this thread, then: www.abovetopsecret.com...

More documentations on this link:www.scribd.com...

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Nightchild]

reply to post by Faiol

A spiky balloon, notice the number of spikes is the same:
forgetomori.com...

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso

Originally posted by Evisscerator
Confirmed "HOAX" !

Need I say more ? I don't think so. These pics have been floating around in the internet for a long time.

Actually yes you do lol. That statement is the same thing as me standing here stating that the tooth fairy is a confirmed fact. Where is any supporting evidence? What do you offer to confirm your statement. Just because you state it will not satisfy too many folks here.

I honestly do not know if it is real or hoax, but then again, I am not making a definitive statement either, and if I were I would try to at least offer some supporting evidence to back that claim with. Although I myself believe my own convictions, I would be foolish to think others would believe it also just because I said it, even for me, that is a bit arrogant.

Yeah, what he said!

Originally posted by nablator
reply to post by Faiol

 

A spiky balloon, notice the number of spikes is the same:
forgetomori.com...

That's a heck of a find. If I recall correctly, Whitley Strieber had taken that Brazilian Spikey UFO quite seriously in his blog, and it's so damned weird that I was at a loss for any conventional explanation. I guess maybe now we have one. Regardless, it was fascinating to read about the fierce competition among rival balloonists in Brazil. Very interesting...

Originally posted by nasacarl
I just had an interesting thought.

Throughout time (and we have had a fair bit of it) there isnt much recorded information about UFO's and/or Aliens. It makes me think that maybe there isnt any but if there is we could be discovering this out way too late to confirm what we are seeing. Soon we won't be able to distinguish our own vessels from the alien vessels. Our technology is catching up and it may be too late to start looking in to the sky for UFOS.

Centuries ago would of been the perfect time to sky watch seeing as there was nothing ever in the sky except for the occasional shooting star. It's a sad thought.

Why would people in the old days not have recorded any UFO sightings?
Do you think maybe there was the possibility of being hung if you openly admitted seeing something like a UFO ? Maybe because of the church?

That could be the reason why people kept quiet. I mean , maybe UFO's have cloak technology anyway but still.. old reports would be good evidence..

But on the other hand, technology in recording such events is also getting much better. So it should also be easier to tell the difference from what is man made to what isn't.

It is amazing to see the thing morph like that. Would be cool to climb aboard on one of those things!

I'm going to try and see if any two of the photos are separated enough horizontally to create a stereo pair. Maybe there would be some way to judge size and distance that way. It's always problematic, however, if the thing moves horizontally through the air.

Here's just a quick look at it as a cross-eyed stereo pair:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/b5b8b2ee475ccf2a.jpg[/atsimg]

I had to reduce the image a lot, but you can see that the "tower," (if that's what it is) which we know is stationary, has depth information to it. It looks pretty far away. So we know we have a workable stereo pair. The thing itself looks way too far away to be something close, like an impact on the windshield. Subjectively, if the tower was a mile away, the thing looks like 1/2-3/4 mile away. It also looks pretty big. Bigger than something like a kite, for instance. (Although it could be a really big kite!)

Anyway, that's what I see. I might have it screwed up in some way, like having it completely backwards. Other folks wanting to try what I just did may come up with something different.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Nohup]