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.

 

Disk Shaped UFO Over Snowdonia 24/07/2009

page: 16
97
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jubjub
reply to post by Sam60
 


It's exactly what I'm thinking.
The OP's ufo is nothing more than the refraction of light from the surrounding area inside a drop on the window.

With such high contrast between the bright sky and the dark mountain the "ufo" will appear darker than in my photos.


That is exactly what I said (wrote) in this thread after taking a quick look at it.

The "UFO" displays the same colours as the mountain below.

Nice work you did with your photos
. I would not come to a conclusion but this is definitly a possible explanation and if nothing (thru an in-depht photo analysis) can be done to refute this possibility then Occam's razor will be needed.

Cheers,
Europa

ps : Thx Springer & Beauty for making the RAW image available




posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
To the OP:

Have you considered the possibility that the object in question is the canopy of a parachute,side on?

The reason say this is there are groups of folks who get strapped into parachutes on those mountains to catch thermals-in order to ride the thermals,they corkscrew upwards,and the riders can sometimes be hidden from view(as the chute is side on to the viewer).

Its possible that at the moment you took the picture,a parachutist was in that side on position from your viewpoint.

The object evn seems to have hints at the seems those types of parachutes have.

Imagine this,side on,with the pilot? occluded by the canopy,as he spins in an upward circular motion,riding the wind:

www.phototravels.net...

I have to say though,I have never seen a parachute of that colour-they are usually bright colours(like in the above pic).
Maybe you could find out from the locals if anyone was parachuting in that area on that day.
Side note:My sister and her friends were camping in that very area about 12 years ago and they witnessed a classic 'triangle' UFO,complete with central light,and low throbbing buzzing sound.

I put that down to a secret aircraft been tested,as Snowdonia would be a good place to test stuff out...Who knows though?

Good picture anyhow,hope you get to the bottom of it.


I think there is a possibility that what I have captured could indeed be a raindrop and not a parachute/glider but I see why you point this out, its a fair point and again a possibility!

It did rain a little on the journey but the rest of the day was clear. I saw no parachutes or gliders when walking.

I do think it is best to keep an open mind and I can say this now I have calmed a little... lol
I really hope this turns out to be a ufo


Thanks for sharing your sisters story, very interesting



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
After examination, it's obvious the ufo is far from perfect, as you can see in these images after zoom. I made the area around the ufo black so you can see every exact pixel of the ufo.





Now what doesn't make sense to me, is how the camera is thousands of feet lower than the ufo, and if the dark bar across the middle of it is supposed to resemble the middle of the disc, it means the ufo is tilted down about 45 degrees. Since that's the case, the next thing that doesn't fit is the fact that the sides of the ufo are not the same length, when using the top "bulge" as a reference.
Don't know if any of this makes any difference, but it's just some of my observations.



[edit on 7/26/2009 by bl4ke360]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Any updates on this photo?



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
If you had the frame of mind to take the photo, then why did't you stop the vehicle and watch it for a while or for that matter, take more than one photo? this kind of bits and pieces stuff is what always makes it difficult to beLIEve.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
If you had the frame of mind to take the photo, then why did't you stop the vehicle and watch it for a while or for that matter, take more than one photo? this kind of bits and pieces stuff is what always makes it difficult to beLIEve.


Oh Lil Drummerboy, you had the frame of mind to post in this thread, yet you didn't read it...
Beauty_HairyBeast stated in her first post that she didn't notice the object until later when she was looking at the photos. She was taking pics of the mountain, not the ufo.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by freelance_zenarchist]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by freelance_zenarchist
 


Even I have to say this does not make much sense to me, because if she really wanted a picture of the mountain, she would have waited until no cars were in front of it. Also, she had to have looked at the mountain before she brought up her camera, almost making it impossible to not notice the ufo. If she didn't look at the mountain before she took the photo, how would she have even known the mountain was there in the first place?



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Any updates on this photo?


UPDATE

I need to get the original image off my phone because at the minute the only way I can get it is emailing it to myself ( I dont know why I cant transfer it through a cable? )
When I received the picture through my email it had sent it as a smaller file.

I have been in touch with a good friend of mine, who is a whizz on the old computer and he has agreed to help me tomorrow at some point to get the image from my phone and then on to Springer for analysis.





[edit on 26-7-2009 by Beauty_HairyBeast]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Beauty_HairyBeast
 

Sorry we cross posted. Thanks.

[edit on 7/26/2009 by Blaine91555]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Beauty_HairyBeast
 

Sorry we cross posted. Thanks.

[edit on 7/26/2009 by Blaine91555]


No problem



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   




this was something i just did.. interesting pic imo, but i can't come to any conclusion really. around both the so called ufo and the other object higher to the left, there seemes to be some pixilation when i edited the contrast, any explanation for this? maybe i missed it in the thread, sorry if i did
don't think the other object has been touched that much, but i think it looks solid and pointed towards our "ufo"? is that just me?

im not on the paraglider waggon though.

jakob



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Beauty_HairyBeast
 


What do you mean your phone sends the image to your email as a smaller size? What phone are you using? Surely it can't have a 1024px × 1365px screen because that's the size of the image.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


The file size (resolution) is smaller. Most cell phone email services compress images to reduce file size and thereby reduce the resolution of the image to keep traffic manageable on their email servers.

The image here is only 70+KB the one her phone has saved is almost 500KB. The 500KB image will be much clearer and will have nearly 7x the data to analyze.

Make sense?

Springer...



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


Actually it's 131.46 KB, but sending the file to her email wouldn't compress the image, so it's this website that does the compressing, right? Since that's the case, why doesn't she just host it on an image hosting website, keeping the original size?

Edit: Now I see you're talking about the email compressing the images, but I've never heard of this before and it's never happened to me. But who knows, maybe her's is an exception.




[edit on 7/26/2009 by bl4ke360]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Sam60
 


I agree that we can't be certain what it is, but I would have to say that the "raindrop theory" is false, otherwise you would see some kind of reflection in the object. Also, its apparent that the object is in the distance since it doesn't have the same perspective in comparison to the obvious raindrop in the foreground.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
If you had the frame of mind to take the photo, then why did't you stop the vehicle and watch it for a while or for that matter, take more than one photo? this kind of bits and pieces stuff is what always makes it difficult to beLIEve.


Oh Lil Drummerboy, you had the frame of mind to post in this thread, yet you didn't read it...
Beauty_HairyBeast stated in her first post that she didn't notice the object until later when she was looking at the photos. She was taking pics of the mountain, not the ufo. sorry, not buyin that. take a pic of the mountian? really... if that view was interesting, she needs to get out more.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by freelance_zenarchist]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Man....I have been chomping at the bit for this one since the first post.

I wish there was something I could do to help. I am very impressed with the image and although a little naive, have a ton of faith in the sincerity of the OP.

Who needs disclosure? I am a little confused about the angle, and how the object appears to be 'head-on' despite the altitude difference. Probably some smart person explanation for that. parallax, or something? is that even the right word?

I've taken plenty of pictures with cars and stuff in them...you can't always get the world to accommodate you for a photo op.

Mostly I'm just posting to say 'Thank You, OP!' and kill time until I can hear more.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
Man....I have been chomping at the bit for this one since the first post.

I wish there was something I could do to help. I am very impressed with the image and although a little naive, have a ton of faith in the sincerity of the OP.

Who needs disclosure? I am a little confused about the angle, and how the object appears to be 'head-on' despite the altitude difference. Probably some smart person explanation for that. parallax, or something? is that even the right word?

I've taken plenty of pictures with cars and stuff in them...you can't always get the world to accommodate you for a photo op.

Mostly I'm just posting to say 'Thank You, OP!' and kill time until I can hear more.








Thankyou for your kind words



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bl4ke360
 


Next time you email an image to yourself from your cell, look at the size of the image file you got in your email and compare that to the size of the image file on your camera's harddrive/memory card.

If they are the same (or even close), you have an INCREDIBLE cell phone service and should never leave them!


Springer...

edit to add the word "file"

[edit on 7-26-2009 by Springer]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen

I am very impressed with the image and although a little naive, have a ton of faith in the sincerity of the OP.



Here, here. Well said


I think the OP has demonstrated a lot of restraint in the face of some rather acrimonious comments.

Thank you for taking the time to make your initial and subsequent posts. That photo is intriguing.




top topics



 
97
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join