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.

 

AREA 51 - uknown device shown and discussed

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Just thought I would state *again* that the supposed object is casting NO shadow as one would assume a tall object would given both the surrounds and the position of the light source in the picture.

The fact that there is no shadow cast really needs to be addressed before any intelligent analysis can continue. This fact carries with it the very high possibility that the anomalous 'object' is a collection of natural objects that seem to be connected due to the observer's perspective.

As a footnote to the above info, I work in the photographic department of Australia's largest newspaper group, and I handle all image enhancement and correction - my opinion comes with 10 years experience in imaging, so hopefully that counts for something.

I appreciate the effort you put into the analysis of the satellite image, you did one heck of a job -- however, the problem with shadows is always an important one. From now on, well before you begin scrutinizing structure, first work out if the lighting is correct and matches what you think you're seeing.

Not trying to be condescending here, I just want to provide a bit of helpful feedback because once you do actually find something truly anomalous and real, your subsequent discussion of your discovery will be top notch indeed.




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
"Danger, Will Robinson... Danger"" .

I guess in a way it looks like a Robot. It looks like a Robot out of RoboCop. The Bad Robot that shoots everything. Yep! I guess that what it looks like..

But in the end, It's JUST A PILE OF ROCKS..

You have put so much effort into this, I must give you a flag. I have never seen a more detailed analysis of a photo of some rocks out in a desert. You need to apply for a job at NASA or Google Earth.

If you look just up toward the right you will see green stuff and brown stuff too. It's the Blue thing that you are concentrating on, isn't it? I have no idea what that could be but remember, Tricks of light, Lens abberations and Software can all change colors and make things appear different to what they actually are.

If it's proven to be something other than a pile of rocks I will apologise and I'll eat my Hat. Is that fair enough?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Evasius
 


Shadows are very important. The way to estimate the height of objects is to find one object with known height, measure it's shadow, then use that as a reference when measuring the shadows of unknown objects. This was used to estimate the height of that tall triangular tower at Groom Lake based on the height of an aircraft on the ground.

It gets a bit tricky with Google Earth due to the orthorectification of the imagery, but that is a second order effect if the unknown object is near the reference object.

Here is a photo interpretation question for which I don't have an answer. I read where the satellite photo interpreters set up the imagery so that north is pointing downward. Any idea why they do this?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by chopppacalamari
You should go back and look at the two pictures you have side by side showing the original and the "Degraded" pictures.

Any one with 20/20 vision can see that these two pics are exactly the same except the photographs were taken at different times of the day.
The "Distortions" are nothing but longer shadows cast by the sun. Have another look and you will see I am right.

Excellent work though. Keep looking and you might come up with something but I doubt the people at area 51 would leave an alien body laying on the ground.

Chopppa..


Thanks for the words of encouragement, Choppa but sorry that I have to disagree regarding your conclusion of the "before and after degradation" pics. Shadowing is NOT the cause.

Take a look at the following image in which I show the clearly obvious effects of deliberate image degradation.

The inset image was originally screen captured by myself almost a year ago. The main image was screen captured by myself a few mins ago.
According to the GE date/time stamp, BOTH images have the same date/time stamp of 26 May, 2007 indicating that they are the SAME image of the same location.

But it's immediately apparent that the inset image shows much more detail than the main image ... you only have to look at the left side of the main image, compare it to the left side of the inset image to see that the CURRENT google earth image is severely degraded.
The logical conclusion is that someone at GE DELIBERATELY altered the image as it appeared (and was screen captured) a year ago to make it less recognizable, less obvious and harder to pick out from the background that its on.

Honestly, you should be asking yourself by now just WHY a particular location was originally presented in a certain way by GE ... and WHY that very same image was darkened and degraded by GE a few months later.




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
I hope it is a real picture of an alien. For if true then I will have a BIG laugh when some fat donald duck like alien starts to try and give me orders or wants me to make a religion and worship it like so many false gods.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Evasius
 




I appreciate the effort you put into the analysis of the satellite image, you did one heck of a job -- however, the problem with shadows is always an important one. From now on, well before you begin scrutinizing structure, first work out if the lighting is correct and matches what you think you're seeing.


I certainly do appreciate your comments (and experience) regarding the lack of shadowing for the device so I did a spot of analysis.

Firstly, unless proven to the contrary, I believe that GE attempts wherever possible to use images that were taken with the sun at the highest point at that particular location ... this is obviously to give the greatest clarity to the image and in particular to reduce the undesirable effects of shadowing.

Secondly, using this as a basis, I took a close look at the general location that the device was found in and even though there are many cliffs, bluffs, escarpments, rock walls, etc in this location, the shadowing that such geological features can produce especially with the sun at a low angle were almost non-existant. This immediately indicates that the image was captured when the sun was at or almost at it's high point for the day.

So the next step was to consult the Astronomical Applications Dept. of the
U.S. Naval Observatory at Washington, DC and find out the altitude and azimuth values of th sun on the day the image was taken (26 May, 2007).
The supplied values were
time = 11:40am
altitude = 74.1 degrees
azimuth = 180.6 degrees

Now if you take a good look at the location, you can make out some very, very minor shadowing at some cliff/bluff faces. This shadowing falls in a near north/south orientation which agrees almost exactly with the azimuth value of 180.6 degrees (taking north as 0 and south as 180).

Take a look ... north in the image is due left and south due right.




So in the following image, we are looking at the image and facing due east ... this means that the sun at 11:40 am would have been at max altitude and shining on the device from the right hand side but not exactly directly overhead (74.1 degrees).
This would result in a very faint shadowing effect on the left side of the device as we look at it ... take a look, there's the left side shadowing !




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hemlocks
I hope it is a real picture of an alien. For if true then I will have a BIG laugh when some fat donald duck like alien starts to try and give me orders or wants me to make a religion and worship it like so many false gods.


Now that you mention it ... it DOES look somewhat like a fat donald duck



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Hi,
Do you have the coordinates and have you checked Bing maps to see what that shows...

Peace



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Your research and analysis is very good, however, your conclusion puzzles me. Dont get me wrong, I can see the shape of your "device" but I know it isnt a device, its only rocks. There is just too many things in the actual image that proof its nothing more than a part of the landscape and you ignore my previous post instead of addressing it because deep down you know you are wrong but after spending months on this you refuse to give up. You are chasing windmills with this one, give it up already and spend your energy on something more promising.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Waldy

The image clearly shows shadows of rocks and slopes but the device doesnt cast any shadow at all. How do you explain the lack of shadow from the device? And why is the landscape around it covered with the exact same tones of blue, red and green?



Your research and analysis is very good, however, your conclusion puzzles me. Dont get me wrong, I can see the shape of your "device" but I know it isnt a device, its only rocks. There is just too many things in the actual image that proof its nothing more than a part of the landscape and you ignore my previous post instead of addressing it because deep down you know you are wrong but after spending months on this you refuse to give up. You are chasing windmills with this one, give it up already and spend your energy on something more promising.


If you look back 2 or 3 posts you'll see that I did in fact address your "lack of shadow" question.

As to your other question regarding the device having the exact same colours as the background ... simple answer is that it doesn't ... otherwise it would not have stood out sufficiently for me to spot it.

And you stated "but I know it isnt a device, its only rocks." ... I fail to see how you can make such a definitive statement !
I've gone to a lot of trouble to show that it IS NOT a pile of rocks ... can you go to the same amount of trouble to show that it IS a pile of rocks ?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Date stamps are not very accurate. You need to turn on the overlay that indicates the boundary of the imagery.

Of course, that won't help a person who sees things when nothing is there. ;-)



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
LMAO!!

omg... this is ridiculously pushing the limits on visualization.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
No matter how I look at this one, it is just rocks and shrubs. The feature doesn't seem out of place relative to any other rocks and shrubs in the surrounding terrain. Moreover, this feature is in the middle of nowhere. it's not really "near" Area 51, so the thread title is somewhat misleading, and there are no roads or other nearby infrastructure.

I applaud anyone putting in this kind of effort to analyze a mystery but I don't believe this particular feature represents any sort of mystery at all. There is nothing remotely artificial-looking about it. For comparison, at least gariac's hilltop object has the decency to look like it could just as easily be rocks or structures of some sort. This just looks like rocks.

I think it is important to note that the OP is the same person who posted pictures (on another thread) of an obvious cattle watering hole, claiming it was a crashed flying saucer.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Date stamps are not very accurate. You need to turn on the overlay that indicates the boundary of the imagery.

Of course, that won't help a person who sees things when nothing is there. ;-)


What do you mean by "date stamps are not very accurate" ?
Why should we NOT trust the accuracy of date stamps placed on images displayed by GE ? I assume that you have some kind of substantive proof of inaccuracies in GE date stamps to back up your statement ?

And even though you tempered the tone of the last part of your post, I still have to say that I take offense to your implication that I am delusional and basing the contents of this thread on nothing more than wishful thinking. I assure you I've spent considerably more time examining this anomaly before presenting it, then you (and others) have spent on your apparent 10 second rebuttal !



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
LMAO!!

omg... this is ridiculously pushing the limits on visualization.


Is that a fact ????

As I just replied to a similar post, when you've invested as much time in careful analysis of this anomaly as I have, then and only then would you have earned the right to dispense such analytical "gems".

Obviously you're another 10 second analyst who has no hesitation in voicing his/her "in-depth and considered" analysis !



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Okay, based on the admittedly low-resolution source image(s) used in the OP, it can be surmised that what is down there is possibly:
- A rock and/or plant formation, closely packed and low-lying
- An artificial construct of some kind (based on the cutouts/filtered images, possibly a mechanized bipedal unit)
- Something I may have missed

However, without higher-resolution images, nothing can be definitively argued. I will say, however, that there is at least one company INCONUS that has been working on a proving-model mechanized walker, so the idea is not that far-fetched. It just can't be argued further yet.

To the OP: Interesting premise of post, unfortunately there isn't much to go with yet. Good effort, though.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
101 Photoshop filters.
Bevel and Emboss is my favorite.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
No matter how I look at this one, it is just rocks and shrubs. The feature doesn't seem out of place relative to any other rocks and shrubs in the surrounding terrain.


I'm looking at the GE image right now and considering that there are NO isolated collections of rocks or rock piles anywhere within that location, especially rocks stacked on top of each other, I actually wonder if you've really examined the area using GE ?
If you had, you'd immediately notice the complete barrenness of the location ... NO rock piles ... NO large, individual rocks ... NO trees .. NO large bushes ... in fact, NO major vegetation at all !

So yes, the "feature" is unique AND in isolation to it's immediate environment.




Moreover, this feature is in the middle of nowhere. it's not really "near" Area 51, so the thread title is somewhat misleading


I certainly consider a distance of only 25kms from the Nevada Nuclear Test Site, Area 51 and Nellis bombing range as being "significant".

Especially considering the fact that the entire Groom Mountain range (including Papoose) was ...

"In August 1984, approximately 89,000 acres of public land and private holdings northeast of Groom Lake were closed to the public for "national security reasons." This area comprised the Groom Mountain Range that overlooks the lakebed. The appropriation was done without fulfilling the legal requirements for an environmental impact statement. Air Force officials denied there would be any significant impact because the area would only be used as a buffer zone."

oai.dtic.mil...




... and there are no roads or other nearby infrastructure.


What's the relevance ? Without detailed knowledge of the devices capabilities and functions, such a statement is meaningless and out of context.

As a very simple analogy ... you'd probably say that finding a device that appears to have rotating blades attached to it's upper surface (i.e. a helicopter) would probably be considered a "pile of rocks" because it was found sitting in a huge clearing in the middle of a desolate mountainous terrain ... simply because there was no sign of roads or infrastructure anywhere near the mysterious device !




There is nothing remotely artificial-looking about it ... This just looks like rocks.


Yet again I have to state that if I didn't think it looked artificial, then I would certainly NOT have devoted untold hours examining the device and the surrounding location ... even more so if it was "just a pile of rocks" !




I think it is important to note that the OP is the same person who posted pictures (on another thread) of an obvious cattle watering hole, claiming it was a crashed flying saucer.


Absolutely correct ... yet again a clear example of many hours of examination debunked in a matter of seconds as nothing more than a "waterhole" by "armchair professionals" !



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Tempered. Hardly. You're still looking at nothing.

Regarding the coverage, the date is often not correct. You can see buildings come and go as you scroll through the history. Run the linux version of Google Earth, and you get a different date, generally one day off. I think this is a Zulu versus local issue. There are things that I know are built that do not correspond to the date in Google Earth.

Your mistake is you are not looking at things in Google Earth, then looking at them in real life. Now granted this can't be done everywhere due to restricted access. But you can find stuff locally, then see how the area looks in Google Earth. I'm telling you there are plane crashes around the range that barely look different from other areas. I know where junk cars are located that don't show up on Google Earth, and don't tell me the government is trying to hide junk cars.

Regarding coverage. at the very bottom of the layers menu, you will see "More". Expand it. Most of the coverage is from Digital Globe, so go and expand that menu. You can click on 2009. Here is what I see:
DG 2009 coverage

But this doesn't mean everything under these blocks has 2009 coverage on Google Earth. Rather, it means Digital Globe has coverage of these areas taken in 2009 that they want to sell you. Often the imagery is older.

Here is your next assignment:
37.446695° -115.389160°
37.450162° -115.396843°
37.442597° -115.396131°
37.460042° -115.401067°
37.458915° -115.418741°

Are these underground base vents? Flying squares? Really large orange crates?

See I know what the stuff looks like on the ground and on Google Earth, so I have a better feeling of what is an area worth investigating versus simple shrubs and rocks.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
At the center of this image is a yellow truck. It's near the ET Highway. I have the waypoint, so I know where it is.
yellow truck

Google Earth has it's limitations. I just don't know what else to say. There is simply nothing like being on the ground.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join