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.

 

A decent image of an alien spacecraft is all I ask!

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Why are the best photographs obtainable, just fuzzy blobs of light? Pictures on here are posted, speculation runs havoc across pages all based on these little fuzzy blobs of light. Arguments, gamma adjustments, highlighting, even drawings of what ‘other’ people cant see, all based on a blob. Not the blobs fault!

With the amount of cameras available in the Western hemisphere, via compact cameras, mobile/cell phones, CCTV, news-agencies, video cameras, and more, the best photographs are fuzzy blobs of light. Because it’s a fuzzy blob of light (I’m going to call them FBLs) it can’t be 100% identified.

At this point Believers froth at the mouth at the slightest hint, that it’s anything else but aliens who have traversed the length of space to hover for a bit before going home. They demand proof that it’s not an alien craft, and ridicule anyone and anything which is not in their line of reasoning.

From there, the Sceptics do likewise and, try to rationalise the FBLs, and I’m sorry to say this Believers, they make a damn good job of it.

I’ve been a member here since March, and at no point have I looked at a photograph and seen an alien craft, and I want to. I really do! These are not fairies where you clap your hands and cry you believe. These are beings from another planet (or dimension), they’d have to be into physics in a big way to travel from where they do.

The photographs that are not FBLs are examined, argued over and eventually stamped with a fake or a hoax stamp or are explained away.
I think the main problem with FBLs is digital photography and imaging. Pixels in short.



As you can see in this photo, we have a FBL, just above the canoeist. If you zoom into the picture you’ll see its rectangular, like a disc viewed side on. Perhaps a couple of you may be able to detect energy signatures from it and tell us which star system it’s from. You guys know who you are.
It’s not a plane as you can’t see its wings and tail and its too low or large to be that. It’s not an insect or bird as its shape is wrong. There’s only one possible explanation and that must mean….

This is the same picture but viewed at a higher resolution


Now the shape is more solid. Now you can see its shape. That’s not a plane! It’s a solid shape. You can see it’s leaving some sort of trail behind it as it moves across the sky from right to the left. Its not an insect or a bird. No wonder the canoeist is watching it, what the hell must he be thinking?




2.bp.blogspot.com...

That’s my issue. FBLs. They’re clouds you watch on a summers day and try to make pictures out of. Nothing more. Nothing more not because there is nothing to them, but Nothing more because nothing can be discerned from them. It’s an FBL. A UFO if you really want to call it that and just because its in the air. The ‘F’ could be flying, floating, falling or fake.
It's an argument with a photograph. Ever played 20 Questions? Exactly like that, but without 20 answers!


Can I just ask, before any of the Believers post pictures with cries of ‘explain that!’ don’t bother if it’s an FBL




posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
People have been asking that question since Kenneth Arnold saw those Flying Saucers swoop by when he was flying over Mt Rainer. You would think that with all those cameras out there someone would have a decent picture. I've yet to see one myself.

Back in the early days one claim was that radiation from the saucers affected the film in the camera and made it go blurry. I'm not too sure how that applies to digital cameras today. You will also notice that the best photos are the ones with the apparently not so hidden string attached.


Actually now that I think about there were some half decent photos after all that were studied by some researcher called Bruce Maccabee. I just can't recall what happened there.

I have a feeling that we'll still be getting blurry photos even in the 23rd century. I have no idea why this occurs, must be some unknown physical law of the universe



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Ms Daisy, there will always be a kernel of doubt about any picture whether it is a hoax/mis-identification, no matter how much circumstantial evidence is piled up around the story for support. Instead, I'd suggest that you 'cut to the chase' and put more energy into having your own experiences with these 'UFOs' and their occupants, via meditation. I'm serious. You won't need pictures. It will change your POV forever, and most likely your life depending on how much contact/interaction you want to experience.

As I've said before, they're pretty nice people, albeit guarded at first. I think they have to because, well, when the primary method of communication of intelligent beings in this universe is 'telepathy' and you can read people's surface thoughts, then you'd better be very cautious with who you're talking/'telepathing' to, because that means they can potentially read your mind as well. Neat stuff, though! Opens a lot of doors.

I strongly suggest you try that path if you haven't already, (meditation with intent). If you get ahold of them they may try to find out 'who' you are and what you're about at first. But if you persist every day or so, they'll eventually interact with you... trust me! It's mind blowing. (So yeah, why look at pictures of Disney World when you can go there yourself
)

[edit on 27-11-2009 by Flux8]

[edit on 27-11-2009 by Flux8]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Daisy-Lola
 



at no point have I looked at a photograph and seen an alien craft


how would you know what an Alien craft looks like ?
are your preconceived expectations accurate ? the only way you would know if it's Alien is if there were Aliens waving at you



not decent quality and not a FBL , but this one is interesting



[edit on 27-11-2009 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 

Looks like a wave cloud to me.
Here's another



Of course, it could be a hubcap.

[edit on 11/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by easynow
 

Looks like a wave cloud to me.
Here's another



you meant that as a joke right ?

my god Phage it doesn't look anything like it



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


No? You don't think so?
How about a hubcap then?



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Nice, I've often thought the same thing!

Like lying on a field looking up at the clouds. Everyone sees something different.

The other thing is, pictures on the internet are NO LONGER TRUSTWORTHY. With the invention of photoshop and other programs like it...

Worth1000.com is a good example of manipulated things.
No amount of screwing with the pictures negative, depth, color gradients etc...can be used to explain anything. Thank "LAYER MERGING" for that.

Same with video software. Getting better and better all the time.

So, my question is:

Now what? When can we believe what we see, or make others believe what we see with a cell phone cam.

I projected an idea to the site owners about a coordinated skywatch... So that multiple people were pointing multiple styled cameras etc to the same section of sky from different areas of the hemispheres at the same time.

Then one persons blob could be someone else's crystal clear picture of a bird/plane/bug/alien spacecraft. etc. haha. They are considering arranging this in the near future. I think that will be fantastic. But yeah. Star and flag for you.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
have you ever tried google? google helps me find stuff!



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Daisy-Lola
 


A lot of cases are just "fuzzballs of light" as you say. But there is a small amount with good pictures, and pictures are not everything. There are at least 500 cases that even without pictures have enough evidence and credible witnesses to give credence to UFOs and possibly some being consistent with a ETH (extra terrestrial hypothesis). I would suggest you go out and try to film your own, be prepared, have a good camera, you never know what you might see. Other than that all you can do is sort through the many cases and wait for that one picture that rivals this one taken in Belgium on April of 1990:



The famous Petit-Rechain photograph taken during the height of the Belgium wave in 1990.

  • Belgium Wave



  • posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:39 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by easynow
    reply to post by Daisy-Lola
     


    how would you know what an Alien craft looks like ?
    are your preconceived expectations accurate ? the only way you would know if it's Alien if there were Aliens waving at you



    An interesting point. My "preconceived expectations" would be based upon other people's eye witness accounts.
    Bett & Barney Hill description was of a disc-shaped craft of metallic appearance. They never said it was fuzzy. This is pretty standard description. A waving alien would be an ideal optional extra, but a mute point if the alien is human looking in appearance.
    The point I'm making is, FBLs are a waste of time as evidence. If you have a picture of an alien waving next to a FBL, that would be much more interesting!




    Originally posted by easynow
    not decent quality and not a FBL , but this one is interesting




    [edit on 27-11-2009 by easynow]


    Well? Whats the story behind the photograph?
    If I just posted a picture of a gunman in a JFK thread, and said "this one is interesting!" without saying why it's interesting, it wouldnt be much of a post would it?



    posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:50 PM
    link   
    I think there are plenty of good photos, its just whenever there is, there is always a skeptic to bash it. No matter what, we will never get a good photo, because there is no way to prove that its made by man or not. We have maybe seen hundreds of real alien spacecraft on this site that have just been written off as a...hubcap or could.



    posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:54 PM
    link   
    Well in all fairness there are also a lot of hubcap pictures.

    The other problem is that certain "celebrities" in the field are found out to be hoaxers.

    Say about that belgium pic above?



    posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 12:59 PM
    link   
    reply to post by jkrog08
     


    Yes its a superb photograph.
    Makes you wonder why the photographer M.P. never properly came forward doesnt it?




    I think there are plenty of good photos, its just whenever there is, there is always a skeptic to bash it. No matter what, we will never get a good photo, because there is no way to prove that its made by man or not. We have maybe seen hundreds of real alien spacecraft on this site that have just been written off as a...hubcap or could.


    Thats because they're FBLs as in the opening post. If they were good photos then the sceptics would silenced or at least a loss for words.



    posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:35 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Daisy-Lola
     



    An interesting point. My "preconceived expectations" would be based upon other people's eye witness accounts.
    Bett & Barney Hill description was of a disc-shaped craft of metallic appearance. They never said it was fuzzy. This is pretty standard description.


    ok fair enough but what if those standard descriptions that have influenced your expectations are just misinterpretations ? imo , metallic appearance could mean many different things.



    A waving alien would be an ideal optional extra, but a mute point if the alien is human looking in appearance.


    if the Alien was human looking i would agree it would be difficult to descern or conclude anything from the pic or video. we will have to cross that bridge if we ever get the chance to.



    The point I'm making is, FBLs are a waste of time as evidence.


    for the most part i will agree with you that any blurry picture doesn't prove anything (neither does a clear one) and is probably a waste of time to even look at it but since my glass is half full , i would always be at least willing to look at the pics and listen to (if available) any witness testimony even though it would ultimately not prove anything.

    i believe the proof that everyone is demanding is an illusion or a fallacy because nobody will ever be able to prove Aliens are visiting this planet with pictures videos etc. evidence yes , proof no

    my thread discussing that very subject...

    www.abovetopsecret.com...



    If you have a picture of an alien waving next to a FBL, that would be much more interesting!


    yes no doubt something like that would be extremely interesting but what would it actually prove ? (Phage will just say it's a hub cap with a bug on it
    ) and just for the record here a UFO is an unidentified object (which could be anything) and a UAO is a unidentified Alien object. trying to distinguish which is the case in ufo photos taken inside the Earth's atmosphere is the fun part.


    in my opinion the cell phone pictures taken last year in Empire , Ohio by Tim Comstock could be a UAO. i say UAO because whatever that thing was/is doesn't look to me to be anything man made. of course i could be wrong.



    www.abovetopsecret.com...

    [edit on 27-11-2009 by easynow]



    posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 01:39 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Daisy-Lola
     



    Well? Whats the story behind the photograph?


    this is all i know about that Russian photo.

    www.ufoevidence.org...

    google search




    look another hubcap or cloud !




    www.ufoevidence.org...



    [edit on 27-11-2009 by easynow]



    posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:43 PM
    link   
    Today's hoaxers are lazy. We don't even have a good digital photo of a structured craft (not a blurfo, rod or FBOL) with :
    - untouched original JPEG file that can be analyzed,
    - some elements in the foreground or a shadow to get a sense of scale.



    posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:10 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Daisy-Lola
    As you can see in this photo, we have a FBL, just above the canoeist. If you zoom into the picture you’ll see its rectangular, like a disc viewed side on. Perhaps a couple of you may be able to detect energy signatures from it and tell us which star system it’s from. You guys know who you are.


    APPLAUSE


    Damn it jk, you beat me to it. I have to agree that the Belgium wave image is one of the best there is, plus it was well before the days of digital camera photography and CGI



    posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:28 PM
    link   
    reply to post by OzWeatherman
     


    There have been proof of concept fakes using film cameras:

    preview.tinyurl.com... (a Google translate of a French sceptic site)

    IIRC they used a back-lit cardboard triangle with holes in it, against a back screen, and underexpoxed while moving the camera to create the impression of motion. That could be quite difficult to catch out because it doesn't involve double exposures, airbrushing, or making a composite.

    For me the original picture in an interesting question mark. Not least because of the questions surrounding its origin.

    For balance another stance is here:

    preview.tinyurl.com... (also a translation)

    I disagree with their rebuttal of the fake photo, but, equally, don't think that because it can be faked it was. I don't know.



    posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:30 PM
    link   
    reply to post by jackphotohobby
     


    Good point

    And also we all know that BS that, that fraud Billy Meier has been peddling over the years



    new topics

    top topics



     
    6
    <<   2 >>

    log in

    join