It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ByteChanger
reply to post by reject
I just seen a ufo hunter episode on these I think. They had a Polaroid expert on.
Then created it in a CAD type program and when they took a 20' object and moved it 200' away (I forget the actual #'s) it shrinks the size of the object on screen. They overlayed the photo onto the display and it was like a totally perfect match. (Which I thought was kinda amazing since I couldn't judge something that size & distance)
This was supposed to rule out a frisbie or brake or whatever being tossed into the air.
Originally posted by Regenstorm
reply to post by Bosko
Unbelievable, ignorance rules this thread!
People should really do some research before commenting!
This is supposed to be an intelligent answer? You can dismiss (though fallaciously) practically any sighting with this.
Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm
Aliens are not going to come to earth and pull bank maneuvers for some hick dude.
[edit on 8-11-2009 by Wormwood Squirm]
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I found the link to the Druffel, Wood and Kelson paper here:
I saved some images from the pdf, but I suspect they have better quality originals I'm not sure how to access. But I'll show you what I mean about part of the photo missing in the OP, here is the OP photo:
And here is the photo I extracted from page 585 of the publication the Druffel, Wood, and Kelson paper appeared in (scroll photo to the right to see the telephone pole shadow missing from the photo in the OP, that's helpful information for the sun angle reference):
Now what I would like to find is a copy of this photo from Druffel, Wood and Kelson better than what I extracted from their pdf. I think Druffel has the original photos (amazing that Helfin got them back after they went missing for 28 years, that's why there are so many bad copies floating around, nobody had the originals, or at least nobody knew where they were). But the original has problems now too, there's a huge fingerprint on the lower right of the one I posted here for example, and I read all 40 pages of their paper and they mentioned fingerprints but they don't say if they tried to clean them off and couldn't, or what.
If we are going to do analysis we should at least try to not work with 5th generation copies and find a good source photo to analyze. By the way, the analysis in that pdf is pretty interesting. Does anyone know a good source for high quality images from the original photos, like in the pdf but a more direct source than the pdf?
[edit on 4-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]
Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
BTW, the lady responsible for the photos being brought to prominence, Ann Druffell, was my friend. We went out one night in L.A. to look for UFOs from nearby mountains. Her daughter was my chiropractor! What a small world.
Originally posted by Ophiuchus13
I alway's wondered this....
Why do the UFO's in old photo's look not so aerodynamic...Like for example this photo was taken in '65. the technology for aero dynamic's was not really up to par.. front's of the vehicle's were flat and boxy no contour really..
Flash forward 40+ years and the vehicle's of today are all streamlined and aerodynamic and so are the photo's of UFO's they are all sleek and smooth..Even though it's only 40+ years for us..These UFO's are allegedly flown by advanced being's from light years away..how come these UFO's didnt look like they do today back then...
I think the govt' stole the technology from the NAZI's (The Vril Disc) and as we grew in technology so did the UFO's.
I'm not saying that there are no such thing's as UFO's.. I'm just pointing out the irregularities i see with the photo's..