Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Huge UFO photographed in Peru

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DaWhiz
 


Your #1 explanation isn't really conclusive. You don't really offer an explanation. Just an explanation of the technology. Since it is an old picture everything looks blurry.

Your #2 explanation doesn't really make sense. The object looks close enough to move through your field of vision pretty fast. A few seconds. Can you elaborate more on this?

BTW, I'm not stating your explanations are bogus or anything, but I'm still unclear after I read it.

Thanks.




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by superdebz
It looks like a hot dog
a giant flying hot dog
im sure if i wasnt vegatarian my mouth would be watering right now


You took the words out of my mouth almost. I was thinking that if I could find a foot bratwurst like that I would be in heaven. I bet the white fibrous stuff was sour kraut. mmmmm


[edit on 20-11-2009 by Majiq]



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyjohen

edit: just realized that the given image could've been cropped. If so, where can I find the original full sized picture?


It's in Spanish but the website below contains a full size version of the photograph.




The image was published in print very soon attracted the curiosity of the world to this remote region of Peru. One of those charged with investigating the matter was Colonel McHenry Hamilton, military attache of the Embassy of the United States in Lima (Peru). In a report prepared for the USAF included some of the information published by the newspaper "La Prensa", which it is made known the first UFO photograph obtained in Peruvian territory:
"The color of the tip or center of this disc was a rich orange-picking the longstanding chronic. The direction was from south to north, being visible from 1 to 2 minutes, leaving a trail of thick vapor that floated in the area more than 15 minutes. The altitude was more or less 2500 to 3000 feet. was seen in broad daylight.


link



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyjohen
edit: just realized that the given image could've been cropped. If so, where can I find the original full sized picture?

Here's a slightly less cropped version. It still looks pretty heavily retouched, however. Some people think photos were harder to fake back in the "old days." That's not true at all.



P.S. -- And the shape of the trail tends to suggest that this thing was moving pretty slow. Not nearly as fast as the description. Which makes me think this photo somehow got wrongly associated with the sighting.

edit on 18-4-2012 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


..........................and that picture looks completely
genuine..

/ omg



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
addition to this case :

thebiggeststudy.blogspot.com...

Seems like the writer of above article lump this photo as a hoax perpetrated by James Moseley.



This picture seems to have reached the American public via James Moseley. That fact is almost enough to make you quit bothering right there. Moseley has spent a life fouling the waters of UFOlogy with hoaxes, misrepresentations, rumors, misplaced "humor".

In Moseley's magazine of April 1955 this photo was placed on the front cover with the information that it was taken in 1952 in the Madre de Dios section of Peru, which I believe, is near the Bolivian border. The photographer is listed as a customs inspector named Domingo Troncoso.

Others allegedly saw the object as it flew past. Basically no other information was given, including how Moseley would have gotten the photo. My own memory of some of the framing information dims, but I seem to remember that Moseley used to spend quite a bit of time in Peru, perhaps collecting artifacts.


Then it get worse ..



He published the picture in his SAUCERS magazine in April 1955. He stated that the photograph was taken on July 19th, 1952. And this is wrong. Who knows WHY he is publishing the wrong date, but it is in keeping with his style of "contribution" to the field. NICAP, in 1957, hears of a similar sounding rocket-like UFO spewing a dense smoke trail behind it.

They remember the Peru case and as Moseley is local, ask him for a comment about it. This comment is published in NICAPs UFO Investigator in fall 1957. In that report, Moseley said that he had met a Senor Pedro Bardi in Lima [no date], and that Bardi had told him that he was involved with this case and that it happened in 1952. At least this much of Bardi's comments is wrong:

IF Bardi is talking about the same case. Bardi speaks of a thing going by the window at high speed, and no photo. The thing made a buzzing sound; no mention of a smoke trail. Bardi's object was described as round; NOT missile or cigar-shaped. Moseley then gives the illusion that he obtained "the" photograph taken by Domingo Troncoso, as if this was the same thing.


im not sure anymore about this photo , some fact may be wrong but is the photo itself real ?



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by karl 12
 


..........................and that picture looks completely
genuine..

/ omg


And you have the explanation why it is not? Because saying no withouit adding anything, is such a pro analyses. Well it's called scoffing. No, that would be if some lame explanation is given, in the case, it is called stupidity.

Mixes quite well with the rest of the photo, doesn't look like added later. However, seeing the contrails it looks like man made, nothing extraordinary, could be a blimb or some mixture of a blimb and a plane, with the thrusters..
edit on 11-3-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpactoR

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by karl 12
 


..........................and that picture looks completely
genuine..

/ omg


And you have the explanation why it is not? Because saying no withouit adding anything, is such a pro analyses. Well it's called scoffing. No, that would be if some lame explanation is given, in the case, it is called stupidity.

Mixes quite well with the rest of the photo, doesn't look like added later. However, seeing the contrails it looks like man made, nothing extraordinary, could be a blimb or some mixture of a blimb and a plane, with the thrusters..
edit on 11-3-2013 by ImpactoR because: (no reason given)


assuming the photo is true and not a hoax , i dont think its a blimp , more like runaway missile or plane..

in my opinion this is a ufo photo depicting man made object , since in other cases ufo dont leave smoke or contrails that long.. one case in britain , a pilot encounter ufo and he noticed they dont have contrails, for example..



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   
anyone familiar with peru's ufo phenomena wont be too quick to rule it out as hoax. south america, for whatever reason , are massive hotbed of ufo phenomena.. must be something that causing it.. their large tract of unpopulated land might be a clue , massive human sacrifice in some parts also might be a clue..



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
This object was witnessed by several individuals and said to have emitted a strange buzzing noise - it was estimated to be over 100 ft long and was also reported to have exhibited electromagnetic effects on radio communications.

It was also noted that when the dense trail of thick vapor emitted from the object fell on the ground there were masses of 'thin fibrous threads'.


The first thing that comes to my mind is a chaff-deploying missile/drone experiment. Red/orange was a common drone color back then, and chaff was developed during WW2. Buzzing could indicate a ramjet, and the radio interference would be from the chaff.
edit on 12-3-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
The UFO in the photo looks similar to the one seen over the Chinese airport back in 2010:

www.bing.com...


These are pretty cool photos.
edit on 12-3-2013 by texasgirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by texasgirl
The UFO in the photo looks similar to the one seen over the Chinese airport back in 2010:

www.bing.com...


These are pretty cool photos.
edit on 12-3-2013 by texasgirl because: (no reason given)


Except that it was actually a long exposure photo of a helicopter.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 12-3-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by texasgirl
The UFO in the photo looks similar to the one seen over the Chinese airport back in 2010:

www.bing.com...


These are pretty cool photos.
edit on 12-3-2013 by texasgirl because: (no reason given)


Except that it was actually a long exposure photo of a helicopter.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 12-3-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



Oh, dang. Didn't know that. Something DID close down the airport, though.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by karl 12
This object was witnessed by several individuals and said to have emitted a strange buzzing noise - it was estimated to be over 100 ft long and was also reported to have exhibited electromagnetic effects on radio communications.

It was also noted that when the dense trail of thick vapor emitted from the object fell on the ground there were masses of 'thin fibrous threads'.


The first thing that comes to my mind is a chaff-deploying missile/drone experiment. Red/orange was a common drone color back then, and chaff was developed during WW2. Buzzing could indicate a ramjet, and the radio interference would be from the chaff.
edit on 12-3-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


you have to refer to the time / date and the place / country..

is it possible this is a runaway drone / missile launched by some military ? what kind of drone technology available at that time ? is peru's military at that time have drones in their arsenal ? or is it joint ops with other nation (if its a testing situation) ?

of course assuming the photo is real and not retouched / faked. but i think the explanation is more to man-made object. but based on the article below, seems like neither Peruvian military or US personell knew anything about it and conclude that its a hoax photo..



What gives us a minor chance of figuring this thing out is that when the event(s) happened, the Peruvian government got involved. They "read the papers" of the time about several alleged events which included photographs and the Peruvian Air Force did a small amount of investigation. The investigation seems to have amounted to going to the newspapers which were publishing these things and asking them for an explanation.

The Minister of Education of Peru was called in to help, and he apparently determined that the photo was taken by a "teacher" [rather than a "customs official"] while on a picnic with his family. The Peruvian Air Force then informed the US Air Attache of the event(s) and the photograph. The attache then sent an Air Intelligence Information Report to the Pentagon, as would be policy.

It went to a Colonel Hearn, who is known to be in the USAF Intelligence command structure at the time. This AIIR plus a spanish-language newspaper clipping is what ultimately made it to Project Grudge and into the microfilm.

What it tells us is not a lot. It does fix the date as July 19, 1951 or earlier. It also gives the very strong impression that three different stories of events each with a photo were coming out of the Puerto Maldonado area at the same time.

Attache McHenry Hamilton either did not understand this, or the Peruvian officer talking to him didn't. I'm guessing Hamilton is the source of confusion here. The newspaper article tells of one case of a luminous disk trailing thick vapor, allegedly seen five minutes later further along its path. Then the newspaper also claims that a similar craft was seen by 300 people.

Finally the paper claims to have received the famous photograph "of the same object", though no photo had yet entered the narratives of the other reports. The attache is then told that there are three separate photographs taken by three separate individuals. The Peruvian Air Force then says that these three photographs were done as hoaxes to sell papers


thebiggeststudy.blogspot.com...
edit on 13-3-2013 by milomilo because: grammarr





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join