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.

 

UFO Impressive Image over Perth, Western Australia August 2009

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
New UFO video I came across! Looks pretty kwel


Funny how there are so many more images/videos are being caught as we're getting closer to 2012!




HISTORY:



The story gets weirder... did a quick research on Google and found this article.

www.ufodigest.com...

Supposedly someone else in 2001 took a photo of the same spot (look at the two buildings, look like the same ones from the video) and cought this...



What are the odds that the UFO was in the same place as it was 2001 and now in 2009 !!



here's one more UFO sighting from the same area... (must be UFO Hotspot)

www.strangeunknown.com...




Edit: added second article

[edit on 26-8-2009 by freighttrain]



[edit on 26-8-2009 by freighttrain]




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by freighttrain
 


I am at the office, had to watch the video w/out sound - what was discussed re the analysis of the photo? It appeared that they were discussing light reflections/refractions (which was my first thought re the UFO). Can someone grab the UFO (from the photo) and blow it up for us?

Love a good UFO photo/video - thanks. S&F

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Yukitup]

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Yukitup]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Nice picture he took.
Anybody downunder know of any reports that would go along with this?
Is there a MUFON type of organization in Australia?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Yukitup
 


He was basically saying, he was just taking random photos and later on when viewing the photos with his gf, he came across the UFO. Regarding the reflection, when it was analyized they're saying that you must be a Photoshop master to created this type of reflection, since the light from the city is very accurate.

It's funny though, the news reporter is constantly trying to come up with a logical explanation as to how this can NOT be a UFO...


To me this guy is legit and I do believe the photo is real! I'll do more research see if I can find a still photo of it!



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Never saw a UFO photo or video like that.
Although I suspect I saw a triangle fly overhead once.
We might be seeing the snake eyes of the triangle, of Belgian fame.
Seen on many a UFO video.

However that separation of lightning balls means quite a large ship.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by freighttrain
 


I agree. We all here have seen more than our fair share of fakes. We analyzed photos in a similar manner and identify fakes in a similar manner.

As to a reflection from the city, where in the photograph could the anomaly come from? I don't see anything (even upside down) that resembles the image in the sky.

I say real.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
You shuld show this posts to the guy making the posts about ufo mirages.. He might have a explanation.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


I totaly agree... so the ultimate question remains... man made or ET made


I just don't see a purpose for a man made ship to be hovering in the same area for the last decade (at least) or be making crop circles... what's the point?! If it's an ET UFO well maybe they simply trying to slowly intorduce themselves to people or doing something that we just can not comprehend.

I think the disclosure has started few years back and by next few years it will be undeniable, even to the skeptic. But again... a UFO could land on the skeptic lawn and he'll come up with any reason on how that can NOT be real!

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Just a question that brings this case to a standard level:

If the UFO on that picture is really a UFO, and if it's that big... Why didn't he or she see it when they were looking to the place they were photographing?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by freighttrain
 


In the first video, from around 1:50, Jackson Flyndell, Head of Photography at Sunday Times, states that he thinks the UFO is a reflection of the city lights. I think he may be right, since neither the guy who took the photo or his girlfriend saw anything unusual in the sky at the time


Here are two "UFOs" over Sydney which were reflections of the city lights created internally by the camera lens elements. These reflections (lens flares) were not visible to the photographer when the photo was taken:


www.iwasabducted.com...


Lens flare is created when non-image forming light enters the lens and subsequently hits the camera's film or digital sensor. This often appears as a characteristic polygonal shape, with sides which depend on the shape of the lens diaphragm.


Learn more about lens flares here:
www.cambridgeincolour.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60
reply to post by freighttrain
 


In the first video, from around 1:50, Jackson Flyndell, Head of Photography at Sunday Times, states that he thinks the UFO is a reflection of the city lights. I think he may be right, since neither the guy who took the photo or his girlfriend saw anything unusual in the sky at the time


Here are two "UFOs" over Sydney which were reflections of the city lights created internally by the camera lens elements. These reflections (lens flares) were not visible to the photographer when the photo was taken:


www.iwasabducted.com...


Lens flare is created when non-image forming light enters the lens and subsequently hits the camera's film or digital sensor. This often appears as a characteristic polygonal shape, with sides which depend on the shape of the lens diaphragm.


Learn more about lens flares here:
www.cambridgeincolour.com...




One (me
) can argue with that ... saying... that there really is a UFO (real object) in the sky using a cloak technology (which we already have) that they break the light reflection (which is how we see objects in 3d) and can not see with bare eyes, BUT since camera can hold more information then what are brain can translate through our eyes, it can see through the cloak partially... which then can explain why so many UFO caught on film seem to be just bright lights, since that's the only a portion of the UFO we can see!


[edit on 26-8-2009 by freighttrain]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by freighttrain
 


That's not arguing. That's making up things to fit whatever you believe.

Occam's razor. Enough said.

(not being agressive btw. lol)

[edit on 26/8/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Another very similar case took place in Chongqing, China, and also here are noticeable some concentric rings in the ufo:





news.xinhuanet.com...
www.shanghaidaily.com...

Also that one seems to have been noticed just by the photographer, which is never a nice thing whenever you come to allegedly huge spacecrafts.
Now, one of the problem is that we would need the original photo straight as it was taken (first and foremost).
The photo may be way more clear than it looks to be in the video, and also its resolution should be better: but the most important is never trust in enhancements made by others. I just would like to take a look at the original pic, i think that we have some chances to get it


Regarding the chance of it possibly being a reflection of something being projected to the sky, that would be possible: one of the problems that we have is that the possible sources of it could be hidden behind the building the we see:

and not only hidden but even reflected in some way that jeopardized the angulation of the reflection and confused us even more: see 1 (possible sorce) and 2 & 3 (possible reflections, consequence of other reflections possibly bumping on some reflectant surface, like some building side like the ones that we see).
Just added my two cents, if it turns out to be some alien spacecraft i swear i will be more happy than you



[edit on 26/8/2009 by internos]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


Well no, that's not correct. Do a little research and you'll find out that what our eyes see is not necessarily what the camera picks up. The eye is not nearly as sensitive as a CCD device. The camera is able to take multiple images and in most cases they are "stacked". This is an additive thing as each image is added to the next to bring out the detail.

"Stacking" is still in essence a form of time exposure. Instead of having a single picture at a 20 minute exposure, we combine (or stack) multiple pictures of shorter exposures (say a quantity of 20 exposures each at a single minute...or 10 exposures each at 2 minutes). Total exposure time is still 20 minutes no matter how you look at it.

Our eyes only see in the present. What this means is that we can not view in time exposure. That's why it's so important to stare at an object for minutes on end so the retina cones can absorb as much light as possible. That's why when you stare at an object for a long time through a telescope, you start to see more subtle detail.

If you recall the guy said he was taking random photos every 15 seconds and not looking at a same spot for longer period of time.



[edit on 26-8-2009 by freighttrain]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Ya, I do think the original photo would help out a lot, gonna do more research but no luck so far.

It is possible it's a reflection of some lasers/lights producing it (in Vancouver some weekends they project super bright lights in the sky, some club promotion), but you always see the trail of the light leading back to the ground, and so if it's "lasers/lights" would have created (such as the photos you provided) I would think there would be a trail of light going back to where the device is producing the light.

In the video there is not trail of light leading back to the ground from anywhere else.


[edit on 26-8-2009 by freighttrain]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker718
You shuld show this posts to the guy making the posts about ufo mirages.. He might have a explanation.


If you mean me, yes he asked me about it in the mirage thread, I decided to reply here.


Originally posted by internos
Also that one seems to have been noticed just by the photographer, which is never a nice thing whenever you come to allegedly huge spacecrafts.
Now, one of the problem is that we would need the original photo straight as it was taken (first and foremost).
The photo may be way more clear than it looks to be in the video, and also its resolution should be better: but the most important is never trust in enhancements made by others. I just would like to take a look at the original pic, i think that we have some chances to get it


Regarding the chance of it possibly being a reflection of something being projected to the sky, that would be possible: one of the problems that we have is that the possible sources of it could be hidden behind the building the we see:

and not only hidden but even reflected in some way that jeopardized the angulation of the reflection and confused us even more: see 1 (possible sorce) and 2 & 3 (possible reflections, consequence of other reflections possibly bumping on some reflectant surface, like some building side like the ones that we see).
Just added my two cents, if it turns out to be some alien spacecraft i swear i will be more happy than you


I agree with what my friend Internos said, especially that it's most helpful to have the original image to evaluate, instead of a youtube compressed video.

I also think he's right it's a reflection, but I think the source is lower. Take a look at this photo:


en.wikipedia.org...
See how that extremely bright light at the upper left causes internal lens reflections that appear as fainter reflections on the lower right?

That is typical for a shot where you have an extremely bright light on one part of the image, to produce an internal lens reflection on the opposite side of the image.

Now look at the image in question. The reflections appear at the top, and extremely bright lights appear at the bottom, so bright in fact that it's hard to even identify the exact lights that caused the reflections. If you had the original photo I might put it in photoshop and apply some filters to try to identify the light source that caused the reflection, but it's not really worthwhile to do it on a youtube compression.

I think it's highly likely you're seeing the same effect as on the lunar lander photo. The bright light is bouncing around inside the camera lens. They use anti-reflective coatings on the lens to try to minimize this, but when you have lights that are so overly bright as in the subject photo, the anti-reflective coatings aren't enough.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos


[edit on 26/8/2009 by internos]


Nah, sorry, hate to say this is nothing.

Nov 10th 2001 is a Saturday.
August 8th, 2009 is a Saturday

In Perth, precisely below this lights in Northbridge there's a club that uses large beamlights( like spotter lights ) I believe its 'The Shed'

They run sideways across the sky all night long.

The strange colours / shape is just the reflection of this beam light against the clouds.



Couple that with the reflection from the colour full city lights and bright beacon lights atop the Bank west building against the Camera lense and you’ve got it debunked.

www.budoniambiente.org...


Perth, why on EARTH would aliens come here, surely intergalactic news stations 'also' report that Perth's known as ''dullsville''






Our planes have red flashing lights on them,
This photos 'looking east over the hills' is over looking the airport.
We may be small, but we do have police helicopters and light planes.



[edit on 26-8-2009 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


That sounds like a good possibility too. So do they use 3 or 4 spotlights? Are we seeing 4 separate spotlight beams you think? Or are you saying it's a combination of some spotlights and some aircraft?

If we ever find the original photo, we can check to see if there are any traces of the beams traveling up, but if the lower atmosphere is clear until a cloud at the height we are seeing stops the spotlight, we might not see much evidence of the beam.

But without the original it's a little hard to tell.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
You do see the beam, but only if you look hard enough, and only when its moving.
I think there's 3 spotlights.
they go both Fri and Sat nights, from dusk till late.


[edit on 26/8/2009 by internos]


This picture to me is the spotlights, with some sort of light reflection putting 2 white specs in the middle.

The right hand 2 lights, the 2nd light near the numbr 3 is actually the light at the top of the 'Antenna' of the Bankwest building ( the one with the blue lights )



The light diagonal to it just looks like a reflection of any one of the city lights

This one:



Is the spotlights.
you can see by the glow on the city and the blurring that the image is poor, and what looks to be colours, is just gray/scales

This image:



Is shot looking towards our airport.



[edit on 27-8-2009 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
In my experience when someone captures a UFO on film without noticing it at the time its just some kind of reflection.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join