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.

 

More UFO’s are photographed without notice

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
More and more UFO’s are being photographed unaware.
Lots of people have digital camera’s these days and the technology doesn’t stand still.

But the if we shoot a picture from aeroplanes and clouds in some occasions it leaves us with some remarkable pictures of strange looking metallic objects and sometimes sharp and sometimes smeared and fast flying things that raises some questions by the photographer who think that they made a beautiful picture of some aero plane or landscape.

Are those UFO’S want to tell us something or are they just passing by at the that same moment the photographer takes the picture? If this is coincidental photographing then you can probably calculate how many UFO’s are passing by unnoticed each day .


Here are some witness or lets say unaware witnesses who made pictures from UFO’s flying by.





Camera specs original photo:

Width: 4288 Pixels
Height: 2848 Pixels
Colordepht: 24 Bit
Aspect Ratio: 1.50561798
DPI: 96x96

Model: NIKON D90
Color: Yes
Flash used: Auto
Focal Length: 45.0mm
Exposure Time: 0.067 s (1/15)







Width: 3888 Pixels
Height: 2592 Pixels
Kleurdiepte: 24 Bit
Aspect Ratio: 1.50000000
DPI: 96x96
Model: Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Date: 2009:04:10 18:05:34
Exif Version: 0221
Width: 3888
Height: 2592
X Resolution: 72.0
Y Resolution: 72.0
Orientation: Top Left (default)
Color: Yes
Flash used: No
Focal Length: 55.0mm
35mm equivalent: 89mm
CCD Width: 22.28mm
Exposure Time: 0.002 s (1/500)
Aperture: f/16.0
ISO Equiv.: 400
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Automatic




files.abovetopsecret.com...



Width: 3888 Pixels
Height: 2592 Pixels
Colordepht: 24 Bit
Aspect Ratio: 1.50000000
DPI: 72x72
Model: Canon EOS 1000D
Date: 2009:04:10 19:20:31
Orientation: Undefined
Color: Yes
Flash used: No
Focal Length: 36.0mm
35mm equivalent: 58mm
CCD Width: 22.25mm
Exposure Time: 0.005 s (1/200)
Aperture: f/11.0
ISO Equiv.: 100
Whitebalance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix


Maybe there are more unaware UFO pictures then we are aware of so let’s dig in our latest photo session .Maybe we find something







[edit on 11/02/2007 by 0bserver1]




posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
You never really know just how dirty your computer screen is until there is a very light background and your looking for a tiny dot. Honestly I was like woah look at em all, then I wiped my screen, and couldn't find it.

The one on the tree, seems like a real long stretch, it could really be just about anything.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
The only problem I have found with the pictures from airplanes is the windows seem to be smudged a lot of the times. It would be nice for a photo of a huge, mile wide, UFO to photoed from a plane. If it is out there it shouldn't be long before we get that photo with all the tech. out today.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I have to agree with you. It is absolutely reprehensible for anyone to photograph a ufo, until after they have notified the ufo that they are about to be photographed. Isn't there already a law about that?



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
There's a reason why they're not noticed. Because we don't notice birds when they fly through the photo we're taking. They're common, and then zip, they're gone.

Now, of course, it's impossible to prove a negative. I can't prove they're not flying saucers from Venus, nor can the photographers prove they're not birds. But given the choice of possible explanations, I tend to want to go with the more mundane. Birds. Not alien spacecraft. If that makes me a "glass half empty" kind of guy, so be it.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Republican08
You never really know just how dirty your computer screen is until there is a very light background and your looking for a tiny dot. Honestly I was like woah look at em all, then I wiped my screen, and couldn't find it.

The one on the tree, seems like a real long stretch, it could really be just about anything.




This is a stretch?????



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


But they do sometimes appear out of nowhere and have some very sophisticated cloaking abilitities.If you have to believe the people with infra red camera’s who film them ?



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
By the way I think that the camera always will register more that the eye can see or believe to see . When Columbus arrived the natives also didn’t see the ships . But waves that came to shore made them see the ships. Because they started to believe what they saw.!



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0bserver1
But they do sometimes appear out of nowhere and have some very sophisticated cloaking abilities. If you have to believe the people with infra red camera’s who film them ?


But these are just regular cameras, right? The problem comes with the digital camera, which has a tendency to have a really long "shutter" speed, particularly in low light. A fast-moving object close-up, like a bird or a bug, shows up as an elliptical smear in the image. Just look up some digital photos of bird flocks on Google images. You see this kind of thing all the time.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I know it's difficult to say that some who take these pictures, really have proof of alien craft. But I think that there is constant UFO activity around us and we don't see them and they observe us in cloaked possition. But that me we probably catch a lot ufo's in our picture takings if we shoot the sky all day. I’ll bet you catch one yourself. But we don't do that because it's stupid to run around and take pictures from only the sky without objective.



[edit on 11/02/2007 by 0bserver1]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


I know it's difficult to say that some who take these pictures, really have proof of alien craft. But I think that there is constant UFO activity around us and we don't see them and they observe us in cloaked possition. But that me we probably catch a lot ufo's in our picture takings if we shoot the sky all day. I’ll bet you catch one yourself. But we don't do that because it's stupid to run around and take pictures from only the sky without objective.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
I was in a store in Beverly Hills a few years ago, that was selling photos. They had some of what they called UFOs. They were Stealth planes, USAF, and the planes were kept secret for over a decade. They now have other advanced tech that will blow our minds. They can project images of planes, troops, tanks, Allah, whatever, along with the sounds. And they can make people hear things, but only in their heads. They have body cloaking tech, like in that Schwartzenegger movie. Whatever you see in movies, is probably already in use.


[edit on 22-12-2009 by Gregarious]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Look at data under first picture!
the shutter speed under the first picture its 1/15th of a second first ufo is most likely a bird.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by odyseusz



Those are nice balloons.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Is it any real surprise that photographs result in "UFOs" whilst none were seen at the time when photographs are a representation of reality that is subject to aberrations/imperfections?

As Nohup so rightly said, do people generally pay attention to a bird flying past in the background? Why would you not expect to find something unidentified from time to time in a photograph since the photographic process is a. imperfect and b. a compromise between capturing a perfectly real snapshot of reality and the limitations todays technology imposes on us.

A "perfect photograph" produced by an "ideal camera", would freeze any and all motion due to an infinitesimally small exposure time, at the same time as gathering enough photons to accurately portray the brightness of objects ranging from those in the near pitch-black to the brightness of a supernova from our sun, and correctly render every tone of color in a scene.

Such a camera is impossible, and could never exist due to the laws of physics. Today's most advanced cameras don't even come close, although with proper use, amazing results that please the eye can be achieved, but there will always be imperfections and artifacts, as well as objects that are rendered differently to how we would see them.

Buy yourself a bag of birdseed, and spend a few evenings in the park as it's starting to get dark (so your shutter speed is long) with your camera taking as many shots as you can whilst making sure to include lots of sky, and see how many "UFOs" you catch.

In the mean time, consider this photograph. I could say virtually every light in it was "unidentified". But we all know that cars make streaks of light as they drive down unlit roads, and sometimes streetlights in photographs have "spikes"...


The point I'm making is that a photograph is never a 100% true representation of reality, and should never be taken as such. A camera does not "see" in exactly the same way as a human does, so things that a human does not see may be made more apparent and distorted depending on the circumstances and the type of imaging system used.

Ultimately, the less perfect the imaging system used, the less chance you have of identifying common every day objects in a photograph, especially when taken under difficult lighting conditions, and when objects and/or camera are in motion. So it follows that you will get more "UFOs". Its not rocket science.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


It's also worth noting that digital compact cameras have quite high depth of field as a side effect of their sensor size and lens multiplier (see here for a rundown), so often it's something people couldn't have noticed, like a small insect, close to the lens. It's quite hard to get shallow depth of field with most digital compacts, which is useful because it's easier to get things in focus (a positive), but an amusing side effect is spirit orb photos (primarily close particulates being hit by the on-camera flash) and small bugs being misidentified. With DX sized sensors up there's less of a tendency for insects and 'spirit orbs'
, but more misidentification of small objects like birds.

Edit: Added a link to google image search.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by jackphotohobby]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join