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.


Three Clear Photographs of Black Triangle over South Carolina

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:33 PM
Judging from perceptual focus, the Black Triangle is very small and very close to the camera, considering it shares the same focal length as other articles within the frame, eg, trees. Therefore size is quite discernable, if the object was huge but much further away the triangle would be out of focus compared to the close focused trees. It's a simple Triangle "shape" close to the camera.

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:42 PM
reply to post by BLUE ARMS

Yeah -- It looks close to the camera and small to me, also. Something farther away from the camera would perhaps look a little more hazy -- especially on a late spring thunder-stormy day in South Carolina. This object looks a bit too sharp to be high-flying (but that's just my opinion).

If it was low-flying, then it wasn't flying very fast -- the difference in the "time taken" between the first photo and third photo is 13 seconds.


Here's the three photos cropped together that shows the distance traveled in 13 seconds (I used the trees as common reference points):

[edit on 6/10/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 03:22 PM

Originally posted by internos
Someone in Greenville is having some fun with a Mugi Evo RC toy or something very like that, in my humble opinion: this is at least the THIRD report of "triangle ufo" shaped more about that way, see also:

Three Clear Photographs Taken of Triangular UFO over South Carolina Ufo casebook - March 16, 2009

Photos Taken of Mysterious Aurora or TR3B??UFO NorthWest - April 19, 2008

But especially in one of the photos submitted to UFONW,

the resembleance is streaking.

As correctly pointed out, while it's impossible to calculate its size, it's obvious that the object is at the same focus of the trees, hence it's small and relatively close to the camera, nothing even close to a real aircraft for sure, not to mention the absence of motion blur and the strange manoeuvre of the object (what was the pilot's purpose to hang there? To be photographed as many times as possible)? Besides, even an amateur would be able to customize the shape of his rc toy so we might see many different "triangle ufos" photos coming from there, in the future, since someone seems to crave much attention. Just my 2 € cents

[edit on 10/6/2009 by internos]

Internos my friend

Great minds think alike:

I found it interesting that there are other pics (usually three), taken in stormy weather, with terrrestial points for reference.

How convenient

This picqued my curiosity about our Storm Boy photo snapper

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 03:43 PM
reply to post by Bspiracy

Great post, thx

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 04:03 PM

Originally posted by peacejet
The photos are perfect. Best evidence of aliens visiting us. A flag for this thread.

The object looks closer to the camera than the tops of the trees ?
best evidence
your to easy to convince!

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Bspiracy

Originally posted by defcon2
The thing that strikes out at me is that the noise on and around the craft is different from the rest of the image.its as if someone has tried to match up the image noise to make it look authentic.

I tried to address this earlier..

a .jpg is blocks of mathmatics used to describe much smaller block of pixels. When an object such as this is compared to the treeline below, it's inherent that the algorithm used is consistent throughout the image.

Meaning the closer the color tonal values, the less pixelation will be seen since it's easier to average the colors. Go through your picture collection and look for similar sort of shots.. trees next to buildings, powerlines etc.. hard edges will almost always have a "noisier" look to them than objects of similar values.

Bspiracy -- here's a good example of the jpg compression you are talking about. This is from one of the photos in question:

The "noise" is also around the trees...and I'm pretty sure the trees are really there.

However, even though I think the craft was really there (not CGI), I also think it was just an RC toy or something. As I said before, I think it is too close to the camera -- and thus too small -- to be an "actual" craft.

[edit on 6/10/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 04:09 PM
Thank you Internos! Case closed IMO, but I'll leave the rest up to you guys.

I just love it when the 'photoshop' experts pop up and start rendering the original image to prove it's not there. It's really there, people. It's just may not be what u think/hope it is.

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 04:19 PM
The original article has been updated on UFO casebook with a zip file to download with the pics that were sent into the site,has anyone analysed them yet?

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 04:41 PM
GUY IT'S A HOAX! look at it properly if the E.T's were intelligent they would make it so the ship is equal.. second it's easy to do here i just done one to show you..

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

While I'm glad to see you rotated the image to account for correct projection mapping. I would like to point out that the distance between the two points (the craft versus the camera) could easily vary anywhere between 50ft. to 2+ miles out. The closer an object is to the viewer the faster it will subtend a horizontal degree of arc. For instance, take this F-14 tomcat cruising at ~780mph, ~13 miles / min or ~.0216 miles / second. Notice it takes it about 12 seconds to cross about 170 degrees of arc. So the F-14 moves about 2.5 miles over the course of the below video.

Now imagine the person moving a mile away and re-recording the same thing. The change in projection will cause the object to appear to cross less horizontal space. So using the above example of 170 degrees of arc = 2.5 miles (13200 ft), at a distance of lets say 400 ft at its closest to the F-14 (picture an obtuse triangle bisected by this 400 ft distance). Now moving 1 mile back (5280 feet) would change the degrees of arc of movement to ~102 degrees. That's pretty significant.

So, to sum up, while it appears like the craft hasn't moved very far over the course of 13 seconds, this isn't necessarily true and is mainly a product of people having a hard time judging angular speed to actual velocity (which we can't compute because size / speed / distance are all unknowns).

[edit on 10-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 05:00 PM
Just my small bit.

My first thought when I saw it was that it's very small and very close to the camera, I've photographed many planes and you sort of get a feel for the distance. It's way to sharp to be any distance away.

I get the feel that it's a real object and not cgi (for once) but it just bugs me so I'm guessing with a pretty good gut feeling that it's a black paper and balsa model that's been launched from a guy either up a ladder or on top of a building and after few tries they got one series that went well.

I could be wrong but I have a good feeling that I'm damn close.

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 05:10 PM
If you ask me, these look kinda questionable. I wanna see a vid.

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 05:13 PM
Seeing that it looks like a cloudy, overcast and windy day(as you can see by the tips of the trees bending in the wind), it looks to me like just some random piece of debree blowing in the wind such as a torn off roofing shingle. Aside from it being dark/black, and in a triangular shape, nothing here even remotely sudgests anything 'alien' in nature.

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by atsbeliever

Agreed! It seems almost too perfect and the image almost looks pixelated as the edges are uneven.. It is just so clear and ALL black, no shinyness, no dullness, just black... maybe thats more proof that its real.. We are always so used to poor quality images and when we see something like this so clear, its hard to take it as real..
I dunno, I am on the fence with this one..

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by ELECTRIC kool aid ZOMBIE test

why would creatures with the ability to traverse great distances in space need lights on their craft?

Flying Triangles (FT) have many lights and use them as a disguise.

1. Flying slow and high overhead
Random pattern of white lights that look like stars

2. Flying low / medium heights and fast
Green and red lights to look like aircraft, but quite often they are on the wrong sides

3. Flying low and slow near the ocean
Green and red lights to look like boats, but quite often they are on the wrong sides

4. Flying low and slow over built areas
Either red / white lights to look like cars
Yellow lights to look like street lights

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by manbird12000

Greetings Mr Bird - I had no idea you were on ATS. Love your stuff, true art.... Glad you are here to review these things.

If anyone can spot things not so obvious to the ordinary ATS'er I would put money on it being you!

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 05:25 PM
reply to post by Xtraeme

Good points. I also found a couple other airplane fly-by videos that made me question my argument about the angles being too extreme.

Here is a good video to help compare speed. It shows a flyover of a B2 bomber and it travels across the sky much slower than one might expect, and, although it's flying low, it's very large in the frame at a similar zoom level as the 3 photos.

Now I don't know what to think. One thing that I'm still questioning is that the object isn't obscured at all by rain or low clouds, something just doesn't look right.

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 05:27 PM
So there goes my inter dimensional spaceship that was stolen.

darn kids taking it for a joy ride!!

S&F, Good find dude!!!

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 06:12 PM
Well, if I was going to fly something relatively stealthfully out of Wright-Patterson AFB to test it, and I wanted to avoid airspace around Washington, DC, or large cities to the north, I'd either go straight up Michigan to Canada (Michigan is a hotspot for UFO activity), or maybe I'd head east over this route:

And by golly, look where it ends up.

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 06:47 PM

Originally posted by whiskeypoet
Seems only pteridine has mentioned the different aspects. Think of the last time you saw an aircraft fly over you. How far would you have had to travel in MILISECONDS to get photos of the Port, Starboard AND tail of the aircraft?

This is staged, CGI, Model what have you. Unless the pilot chose to make three runs over the same wooded area to allow the photographer the chance to get his good side THREE times this is bunk.

Sorry, wish it was real. I would love to see a daylight photo of the SOB that flew over me about a year ago.

That's just the rub right there isn't it? A photo is either not good enough, or too good to be true? Well what's going to satisfy? People scream and scream for good quality pics of UFO's, but then squirm and moan when one comes forth, 'cause it 'must be a fake'.


<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in