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.

 

Cow abducted by UFO? - Video

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


Well I think if you look at the cattle mutilation phenomenon and see what is actually happening, you will find that maybe they aren't so much butchering the poor creatures as they are surgically removing certain organs and genitalia and in most cases every drop of blood. The cattle are stripped of their vitals right where they experienced their last chew of cud. No tracks going into the scene. None coming out.

So if we use your theory of nutrition source, then they must be harvesting those parts of the cattle highest in protein, vitamins and especially iron. No meat is ever harvested that I can recall.

There is a book on this sort of thing by researcher Greg Bishop who lives in the San Luis Valley paralleling the Sangre De Cristo Mountains. I highly recommend his stuff if you are interested.

Cheers,

Erik



Sorry about that, LIW. I gave the wrong researcher there. You should be reading Christopher O'Brien not Greg Bishop. His website is:

www.ourstrangeplanet.com


Warning: Some of the pictures of the cattle mutilations are very graphic in nature.

Cheers,

Erik




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
There we have it. These images are not hoaxed.

No, we don't "have it", the fact that someone says that they didn't find any signs of manipulation does not mean that it was not manipulated. I once altered one photo as a test and there were no signs of digital manipulation in it either.

Also, that description is a little suspicious.

The "non-destructive super-resolution processes" (I don't know of any destructive super-resolution process) use more than one image to create a somewhat better image, using the parts that look different to try to create an image that uses all the best parts of those photos. The more photos used the better, and if we have just one photo it's the same as resizing it, useless. But the photos must show the objects in exactly the same position, otherwise the process creates a new image that is based on wrong data.

I don't know how they were able to see "hooves, tail and head", I can't see any clear evidence of that, so if they can see them in those photos I don't see how. If they see it in other images then it would be nice if they would publish those images.

To me, that report is more suspicious than the photo.

PS: and where are the other photos? As anyone seen more than this one photo that is always presented?

Edit: if the "UFO" had a diameter of 8 to 10 meters, how big does that make the cow?

[edit on 13/10/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
There we have it. These images are not hoaxed.

No, we don't "have it", the fact that someone says that they didn't find any signs of manipulation does not mean that it was not manipulated. I once altered one photo as a test and there were no signs of digital manipulation in it either.

Also, that description is a little suspicious.

The "non-destructive super-resolution processes" (I don't know of any destructive super-resolution process) use more than one image to create a somewhat better image, using the parts that look different to try to create an image that uses all the best parts of those photos. The more photos used the better, and if we have just one photo it's the same as resizing it, useless. But the photos must show the objects in exactly the same position, otherwise the process creates a new image that is based on wrong data.

I don't know how they were able to see "hooves, tail and head", I can't see any clear evidence of that, so if they can see them in those photos I don't see how. If they see it in other images then it would be nice if they would publish those images.

To me, that report is more suspicious than the photo.

PS: and where are the other photos? As anyone seen more than this one photo that is always presented?

Edit: if the "UFO" had a diameter of 8 to 10 meters, how big does that make the cow?

[edit on 13/10/2009 by ArMaP]


ArMaP!

Good to see you hear as the "Voice of Reason". If I have to be reigned in by anyone, I prefer it be you! Enough buttkissing? Good. To the point.

Supposedly their are a total of 4 photos that were analyzed. I like you, have only seen just the one.

Are you familiar with this Valentin fellow? Please gawd tell me he is not another Jaime Maussen. I have a ball bat that I think would look good on him as a hat. I would help him try it on numerous times until it fit just right.

I respect your opinion on the photo analysis. This is my inherently weak point. I am not a photo expert. It used to be you could just send stuff like this to Jeff Ritzmann and he could tell you right away usually if the photo source was actually a baloney salesman. Who do we have on here now? Jeff still here in that capacity? He seems awfully busy with other projects as of late.

How about you? Can you do a thorough and expert photo analysis with what is available? I don't know how to get the other three photos until they are posted.

I appreciate any help in this endeavor. Because of your statement my hope just sank to about 25% assuredness on this case.

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Silvia Pérez Simondini has been running a UFO organisation in Argentina for some time. Seems to be pretty legitimate.

This is the groups web site visionovni.com.ar...

One thing i did notice was that. When i first looked at the cow, i assumed it was from a alight angle from underneath and that the cows head was lolling to the left partly hidden. That does seem to be what the analysis says as well..

The impression i get is that, they are saying. The date stamp on the photo is fully commensurate with the data given to them, by the witness and shows no sign of being manipulated *outside* of the camera itself.

Slivia moved to the area, specifically because of lots of UFO and cattle mutilation activity. Just maybe they were able to get there, pretty quickly, for once and are saying that the images show no sign of being uploaded to the camera from an external source?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Silvia Pérez Simondini has been running a UFO organisation in Argentina for some time. Seems to be pretty legitimate.

This is the groups web site visionovni.com.ar...

One thing i did notice was that. When i first looked at the cow, i assumed it was from a alight angle from underneath and that the cows head was lolling to the left partly hidden. That does seem to be what the analysis says as well..

The impression i get is that, they are saying. The date stamp on the photo is fully commensurate with the data given to them, by the witness and shows no sign of being manipulated *outside* of the camera itself.

Slivia moved to the area, specifically because of lots of UFO and cattle mutilation activity. Just maybe they were able to get there, pretty quickly, for once and are saying that the images show no sign of being uploaded to the camera from an external source?


Possibly....Let's see what ArMaP says. He's usually pretty level headed and once again, I will be the first to state my gross ignorance in photo analysis and what is more, it looks real to me, I have no way of knowing how to test against it to see if it is otherwise. I'm pretty much relying upon others here in this regard.

We shall see, my friend

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
The impression i get is that, they are saying. The date stamp on the photo is fully commensurate with the data given to them, by the witness and shows no sign of being manipulated *outside* of the camera itself.

That would be the first thing to check, so I think your interpretation is right.

I also think they say that the photo itself was not manipulated.

Both things can easily be done without leaving traces of manipulation.

I am looking for the other photos.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I have found two photos, and only one with the "cow" and "UFO", here, but they are just 800x600, a format that I haven't seen in the camera's specs, making me think that the photos were changed by the people that posted them on that site.

The problem is that this way we cannot know if the photo was cropped and then this is the highest resolution available or if they were resized and the originals look much better.

Another thing about the camera, with a 5x optical and a 2x digital zoom, the size of the final full resolution photo would be more or less what the witnesses could see with their own eyes.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Very interesting story and photo. S & F.

I have to say, I see a cow and a disk. lol.

I also don't think the argument that the woman who took the pic saying "I want to believe that's what it is" (a UFO sucking up a cow LOL) is proof that her judgement is clouded and she is seeing what she wants to see holds water.

As others have pointed out, why stop and investigate through a zoomed camera and then take the photo as described if there is nothing unusual to see? She said that when they looked through the zoomed camera they could see "it was a cow". That sounds pretty unequivocal to me in terms of what felt they were seeing at the time. So, if they are telling the truth, they must have seen no flapping or other motion that would indicate a bird etc. (TBH I'd accept it was a faked photo sooner than that is was a bird etc. I don't think that idea is credible really) Apparently we are seeing a reasonable picture of what they saw more clearly in real time - a ton of beef floating through the air LOL.

So, I take her comments about "I want to believe that's what it is" more in the sense that "I know what I saw, and despite it being shocking and hard to believe, I want to be able to accept what I saw with my my own eyes".

Very interesting. Inconclusive and useless as 'proof' of anything, but very, very interesting.


[edit on 13-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Checking to two original pics... in the foreground there is some flotsam on the water where there is a V shape made by two pieces of wood.. it appears in both pics, slightly moved but still there. Plus if you check the far bank there is, what seems to be a boat moored to the far bank. It's there in the same position on both pics. That being so, i'd say the pictures were taken pretty close to each other.

I'd also guess that, the extrapolation of the size of the UFO comes from the first picture, without the cow.

Ive taken the pics and blown them up and tried a couple of effects on them and that disk does seem to be part of the original picture. If it has been faked, it has been done with an incredible eye for detail.

The crux of it all for me is the answer to this question....

Am i alone in believing that... The cow must actually be, suspended over the water for the proportions to be right? I just wonder, if there is enough detail in the picture to pick up any sort of reflection of the cow on the water?

Does it not strike people as strange that, if you were going to fake it , wouldn't you have put the cow in the first picture with the much larger UFO? Rather than, the second picture, where the cow looks huge compared to the UFO?

That lack of deliberate contrivance seems to be a plus point for the pictures authenticity.

I think, one thing that has to be said is this. Even to the most avid of believer, you can't help thinking on looking at the pictures... "No way...this has to be a wind up"... and yet, just maybe, they are just too crazy to to be fakes?

If this is a hoax, I'm mightily impressed, it has been done very very well, with a superb eye for offering just enough information and not quite enough, at the same time. It's incredibly audacious to go for something so *out there* as to have ,even the most fervent believers, thinking "Surely it's got to be fake?"



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Considering that the "cow" has almost no detail, I don't see how it could be possible for it to be seen in the reflection, even if in the right position.

What I think happened in this case is that they saw what most people have been saying, it looks like a cow, so they said that what they saw was a cow being attracted by a UFO.

And it's easy to take photos with strange, unexpected shapes in them, mostly birds, as the following examples show.

Any suggestions of what this may be called? A buffalo?



And this one?


And this?


If they weren't taken with such a large zoom they would look very strange.

PS: all these photos were taken by me, so I know exactly the conditions when they were takem.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


But that's not what the person who claims to have taken these pictures saw is it? They saw a UFO, damn better get a picture.... they then saw what does look like a cow * suspended* in mid air and a UFO.. well better take a picture of that. That the pictures are blurred are the cameras problem not the person's problem.

This is Argentina, pretty much, the only large mammals in the country are Cattle and Horses. This is cattle country so everyone living there is pretty darned clued up on what cattle look like in any given situation.

Maybe it's a balloon shaped like a cow that just happened to be floating by at the time there was a UFO sighting. See, I don't see any motion blur, i see a shape that, unbelievably, the shape not only resembles a cow, but one that has been sedated, its' neck lolling over to onside. I saw that before the photo analysis even mentioned it. That doesn't mean it definitely is that, but right now, ideas that it's a bird, or whatever, doesn't seem to have much credence at all.

There's no motion blur, to suggest it is anything actually flying, but something lifted into the air. Now yes, could be a balloon or something else that is lighter than air. fair enough, but that still leaves a picture of something that looks remarkably akin to the ship in the, "Trent photograph*, to explain away.

The jury's still out on the photos authenticity, but let's not make any mistake here. The lass took the pictures because she thought she saw a UFO with a cow suspended in mid air. Not, *oh that's a funny shape i think i will take a photo*

Yes, you can argue she is projecting onto the photos what she wants to see. Then again, you could equally argue she wouldn't have taken the photos had it been something so unbelievably mundane,. lets get this right she claims that both UFO and the cow, vanished. Not resolved themselves into wholly mundane objects, there's there's a huge difference.

However, i first looked at the photos thinking.. "Yeah right and I'm the King of Siam", but my thoughts of how it might be a cow seem to have been bolstered, rather than, diminished by the analysis.

I suspect, the problem with this picture is simple. Many will want to see something unexplained, but mundane, when in actual fact, if genuine, it is something mundane in an inexplicable situation and something completely unexplained , in the same picture.

the trurh is, an inert cow, looks like a cow whatever situation you put it in. It's not like a bird that has moving parts that cause motion blur on a single photo frame. There is no blur here, motion wise. That would suggest it is an inert object in the sky.

Furthermore, the, supposed UFO, looks like a UFO in both pictures and has exactly the same shape and same characteristics. What would be the chance of snapping something that has flapping wings appearing exactly so in 2 different pictures taken as much as 3-4 minutes apart?

Show me the pictures you have taken, over a 3-4 minute period where, exactly the same anomaly crops up from a different distance?

[edit on 13-10-2009 by FireMoon]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
This happens occassionally. It is nothing new.
Have you never heard the old poem about the "cow jumped over the moon"?

If they did not abduct a cow every now and then, we would not have a Milky Way. That is where they go.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
But that's not what the person who claims to have taken these pictures saw is it? They saw a UFO, damn better get a picture.... they then saw what does look like a cow * suspended* in mid air and a UFO.. well better take a picture of that. That the pictures are blurred are the cameras problem not the person's problem.
I see I didn't express myself clearly enough.

What I meant was that the photo was taken (and I am talking of just one photo because, to me, that's the only thing that exists) and when they saw it they interpret it that way. My idea is not that the photo was hoaxed, what was hoaxed was the description of the events and it's much easier, it changes the basis from the photos to her word.


See, I don't see any motion blur, i see a shape that, unbelievably, the shape not only resembles a cow, but one that has been sedated, its' neck lolling over to onside.
There isn't motion blur on the first photo I posted either, and if I had used a smaller zoom there wouldn't be any motion blur in the other two photos either.

Motion blur depends on two things, the speed of the movement and the camera settings; when taking photos against the sky we have to use a fast shutter speed, to avoid the photo being completely white, and that fast shutter speed prevents motion blur from happening on most objects, only a very fast movement would appear blurred in those conditions.


The jury's still out on the photos authenticity, but let's not make any mistake here. The lass took the pictures because she thought she saw a UFO with a cow suspended in mid air. Not, *oh that's a funny shape i think i will take a photo*
And how do you know that? Because she said it. But she said other things that do make sense, like using a camera with only a 10x maximum optical-digital zoom and a 2.7" screen to have a better view of the object.

Also, if the EXIF data related to the focal length from those two images is correct and was not altered by the software used to crop the images, those two photos on that page to which I linked some posts back were taken with the zoom level at 1x, no zoom was used.


Yes, you can argue she is projecting onto the photos what she wants to see. Then again, you could equally argue she wouldn't have taken the photos had it been something so unbelievably mundane,. lets get this right she claims that both UFO and the cow, vanished. Not resolved themselves into wholly mundane objects, there's there's a huge difference.
I think she took the photo and only after that did she noticed the "cow" and the "UFO", like happens in most of the cases where smaller objects appear on the photos, and because she had a photo that looked somewhat like a cow she created the story. Another thing that I find suspicious is that only she appears on the video, if her husband was also a witness of such a momentous event why doesn't he talk about it?

Also, up to this point, I haven't seen any other interview besides the one from the video.


Furthermore, the, supposed UFO, looks like a UFO in both pictures and has exactly the same shape and same characteristics. What would be the chance of snapping something that has flapping wings appearing exactly so in 2 different pictures taken as much as 3-4 minutes apart?
The chances of photographing an insect flying in front of the camera would be high on a river bank in the beginning of spring.


Show me the pictures you have taken, over a 3-4 minute period where, exactly the same anomaly crops up from a different distance?
Show me evidence that this is exactly the same thing, then we will talk about reproducing it.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
The chances of photographing an insect flying in front of the camera would be high on a river bank in the beginning of spring.

The UFO is not an insect... please.. let's keep this within in the bounds of reality. I don't know if the pics are faked, i suspect they will turn out to be, however, to suggest someone who lives in cattle country doesn't know what insects look like is a tad patronising



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
What I meant was that the photo was taken and when they saw it they interpret it that way.


But that's not what she says happened. She says they saw something strange they could not see clearly, looked through the camera's viewfinder, saw that it was a cow, at that point, floating in the air, and THEN took a photograph. That's how I understood it anyway. Not that they just snapped something that afterwards they thought looked like a cow, which is what you appear to be suggesting.

In any case, it takes a little time to steady a camera and prepare to take a shot, enough to establish if you are seeing something flying and flapping, or floating and....moo-ing



[edit on 14-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Wondering if the cattle rancher's missing a Guernsey Bovine from that herd?
Suppose it's one way of learning more about the facts of the report?

Decoy



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
The UFO is not an insect... please.. let's keep this within in the bounds of reality.
As you said "What would be the chance of snapping something that has flapping wings appearing exactly so in 2 different pictures taken as much as 3-4 minutes apart?" I thought that you were considering the very real possibility of the UFO being an insect that was accidentally caught in the photo.


I don't know if the pics are faked, i suspect they will turn out to be, however, to suggest someone who lives in cattle country doesn't know what insects look like is a tad patronising
I was not suggesting that, what I meant was that they know that there wasn't any large object there at the time or a cow floating in the air, but as the photo may be interpreted that way they used that possibility and presented it like that.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
But that's not what she says happened. She says they saw something strange they could not see clearly, looked through the camera's viewfinder, saw that it was a cow, at that point, floating in the air, and THEN took a photograph. That's how I understood it anyway. Not that they just snapped something that afterwards they thought looked like a cow, which is what you appear to be suggesting.
Yes, that was what she said, but I find it more likely in this case that what is faked is the testimony, not the photos.

It's easier to do and harder to debunk.


In any case, it takes a little time to steady a camera and prepare to take a shot, enough to establish if you are seeing something flying and flapping, or floating and....moo-ing
They say that they were looking at it for some 8 minutes, time enough to fill the memory card and to select the best settings before taking the last photos.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


But they took the photos because they thought they saw a UFO not an insect and i asked if you could take a pic of the same anomaly 2-4 minutes apart where the same insect appears, but in a different place?

Personally, i'd guess that, the picture is faked far quicker than id say that shape is any sort of insect. For one thing , if you blow the first pic up, without the cow, you can quite clearly see the sky reflected of the right hand side of the object



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


OK, I admit it, I don't understand what you are talking about (and maybe you aren't understanding what I have been saying either), so I will try to start from the beginning.

1 - They say that they took the photo because of what they saw, but we have only the woman's word, and one thing I know is that people lie for a multitude of reasons, so the first possibility I put on my list is "the witness is lying".

In this case there were, apparently, three witnesses, but we have the testimony of one of those three, and it's the same one that says that they were three.

That same person says that they looked through the camera to see better what it was, but a camera with a small screen and, as you can see in the photo, the "cow" so small when compared with the whole photo, how could they see it better? Also, by my own experience, a 10x zoom (5x optical + 2x digital) shows things as we see them, but they will appear smaller on a small screen.

All that makes me seriously doubt her statement.

2 - I don't know why you say that the UFO is the same, I don't see the same thing in those two photos, I see different things, that's why I think that it is perfectly possible that they photographed several insects flying.

I hope I have made myself clear this time, but I am an optimist.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join