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.

 

The Hannah McRoberts UFO photograph - Canada, 1981.

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Considering the purported subject of the photo is the mountain, there's not much to see of it is there?

WG3




posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Although it does look suspiciously like a UTO (Unidentified Tossed Object) the angular distance from the bottom of the frame, taken with the angular distance to the top of the mountain, suggests that it was tossed extremely high... difficult if it were a hubcap. Not exactly a smoking gun, but if it is a hoax it is a very good one.



DJW001, thanks for the reply -as it states below the NASA scientist involved in investigating the photograph did carry out experiments to see if the object was a UTO (main link in OP).

Cheers.




According to Peter Sturrock [Society For Scientific Exploration]:"The suspicion lingered throughout the investigation that a Frisbee or other similar object had merely been tossed up into the air and photographed. It became important to learn more about Frisbees and their "flight" qualities."

A former employee of a major Frisbee manufacturer, Gordon Holt, informed Haines that two factors of importance in the aerodynamic lift of a Frisbee are a "curved leading edge at the circumference of the disk and tiny microgrooves in the top surface. "He suggested that the addition of a dome-like structure to the top would probably reduce or destroy this aerodynamic lift."(Sturrock/Haines) Which was subsequently proven to be true by Haines in various experiments.

For comparison, Haines photographed many types of Frisbee models with an added dome illuminated by sunlight under the same angular conditions. "The surface reflections were markedly different in each case. In addition, the presence of the tiny, concentric microgrooves on all Frisbees would not be expected to yield a sharp contrast gradient as is seen in [the various color enhanced prints of the UFO photo]." (Sturrock/Haines)

"In summary, this investigation has shown that a mature adult with high credibility and little or no interest in UFO phenomena, obtained a single, colored, sharp-imaged photograph of an unidentified aerial disk-like object. Her subsequent reactions to seeing the disk's image on her photograph produced surprise and dismay as well as the normal array of "answer-seeking" behavior. She has not capitalised on having such a photo and acts somewhat embarrassed at having taken it without seeing the disk. The disk's identity has not been established to date." (Sturrock, The UFO Enigma.)

Link














Originally posted by waveguide3
Considering the purported subject of the photo is the mountain, there's not much to see of it is there?
WG3






posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
So they say they never saw the object at the time? well that is disapointing.

If thats a flying saucer hanging in the air theres no reason they shoudnt see it, the camera is not special its not infrared or UV, its in the visible spectrum.

photos with anomolies that arn't noticed at the time are usually mundane. An insect or bird. Water/dirt on the lense, maybe a film/camera error. I dont know what shutter speed they used but a flying saucer going too fast to notice one might expect more streaking or distortion of the "craft"

In order of likelyhood i would say 1.something mundane insect/bird/dirt/water/camera error 2. a hoax 3. an alien spaceship



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


the insert looks different than the picture...

gonna call hoax



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


none of those is the object in the main picture either



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Funny how the pseudo-skeptics above have dismissed it as a hoax without even bothering to read the scientific publications on it. Insect or camera error.. lol..

[edit on 4-3-2010 by jclmavg]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


actually i glanced at the supposed scientific analysis and it makes for very strange reading. He claims They didnt notice the flying saucer becuase they were looking at the mountain? come on its in your fov your gonna notice it. What about her husband & daughter they just happened to be looking away? Nothing more is mentioned by the author on that. As if not noticing a flying saucer in the clear blue sky is just natural , it could happen to anyone and 3 people all at once not seeing it is just run of the mill, happens all the time! ok..

theres more anomolies in the scientific analysis than the photo lol. Assumption after assumption its very noticeable and bias towards the authors preferred conclusion.



[edit on 4-3-2010 by yeti101]



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
I am not a sceptic - I believe because I have seen with my own eyes. However this pic just seems odd to me.

Also, why do a lot of UFO pics show UFO's that simply cannot seem to maintain a perfectly horizontal hover or flight?

They always seem to be listing over at some weird and uncomfortable angle. Doesn't make sense to me.


Well when they are viewed from the side angle they are not called saucer shaped, they are called cigar shapped. when it turns at an angle you can see it is round so we get saucer or cigar shapped bassed on what angle it is seen or photographed from.
I work accross the street from an airport and have seen planes do some crazy stuff as far as flying at angles. But i agree this photo seems off to me and does look to be like it could be the hubcap frisbe method. The "UFO" does not look to be far enough.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Actually, although I'm a skeptic, I'm going to deflate you a little here. If you look at the reproduction of the FULL photo above, the object has a very small angular diameter. Unless it were zipping about erratically, the hikers might scarcely have noticed it, assuming it was a large bird very far away or a passing jetliner. The human mind tends to fill in a scene with what it expects to see there. UFO believers see a lot of flying saucers where the rest of us see airplanes. Why shouldn't the occasional non-believer see an airplane when it's really a flying saucer? I'm not saying that's what it is, but I would move this one into the 1% "No Obvious Explanation" category. Good post.



posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Scientific explanation notwithstanding, here is the inset box reduced and placed beside original. Same angle?




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
they are at the same angle, see several posts back for the explanation.. The frisbee people explained how it could not possibly be a frisbee, and they did many tests...when you put that part that stick out on the top in the pic, you lose all the aerodynamics. I t would also need a certain kind of edge that this didn't have.

that thing was up and to the right, looking at the pic she/they were looking at the mountain with the cloud..that thing is way to the right and up would be very easy to miss...

like the other poster...I never heard of this one either, and it's a good one.. why did we not see on those shows over the years?


edit on 25-9-2011 by research100 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
How can a thread this good die?

ont.

Just looking at the uncropped picture www.ufoevidence.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">here i say it is almost impossible to be a UTO, it´s easy to understand why they missed it in the first place, maybe someone can zoom and crop the bigger pic to get a better look?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join