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.

 

Amazing old pic, just released of U.F.O

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   
This picture was recently released by on 12/3/09 it comes from a guy who said he found it in his fathers belongings who is from Torremolinos, Spain, he said his father never talked about it or told anyone and that he took it in 1958.It was taken with a Nikon Rangefinder camera at f16 @ 1/124 Plus-X film iso 125. Looks really cool, it's not a tear, it's not a bird, maybe some of you guys can blow it up, fool with it and see what you can see.







posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by xAZIMUTHpx
 


Hey there,

Let me begin by stating that I really am no kind of expert ... but I do think it could be a bird (seagull maybe).

There is some blurring ... most likely due to the object moving ... and this gives some distortion but if you try to look beyond that it does look 'bird-like'

Hopefully someone with more expertise will come along shortly to give better information and opinion.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

Woody



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwytch
reply to post by xAZIMUTHpx
 


Hey there,

Let me begin by stating that I really am no kind of expert ... but I do think it could be a bird (seagull maybe).



I'm no expert either but couldn't it just be a tear in the photograph?

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Yes its a bird you see the burk of the bird



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Hey, its not a bird i personally don't think due to the fact of the man in the background is looking up at it



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   




?

On a serious note, i would like to see what it looks like blown up. To me it looks more like something blurred like a seagull.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
With the image enlarged and the sharpness increased, i see nothing more then a tear in the photograph, originating from the back.

Forgive the crudeness of my arrows, but they show creases from said tear.

The man in the picture is actually looking off to his left, note how he is shielding his eyes from the sun. He pays no mind to this object, which would be a few hundred feet across if it were real.

Image


[edit on 6-12-2009 by phrankie79]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by deloneninja
 


lol first thing that came to my mind aswell

I'm such a star wars geek lol


It could be a bird but the fact the guy is looking at it is interesting



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
If that was a bird, it would be HUGE. Look at the size in comparison with the boat. It is nothing more then a tear in the picture. Objects flying through the sky don't leave creases on film, i don't care how big they are.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   
The top looks kind of like a ufo disk, you know the high hat kind, but the shape might be lost because of the sun glare. Perhaps it looks elongated because it was moving? But then I doubt it would have ever been caught in the frame unless the picture was taken just as it was taking off.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   
my first impression when i initially looked at it was "this is a cloud"!

and after inspecting it further . . . .

that's probably what it is.



[edit on 12/6/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
sorry but if thats the " evidence " i refuse to play the game considering that its been scanned from a negative , slide or print the resolution and image size are PATHETIC

where is the ` origional ` neg / slide / print ?????

and why cannot a useable hi res digital scan of the image be produced - to allow meaningfull study

its absence is even more strange as the f-stop and shutterspeed and film sensitivity are known - how did someone who knew enough to include such data manage to produce suct a poor digital copy ????????

come back when the hi res is made availiable - then it will be worth looking at



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


It isn't a cloud.

The sky appears to already be overcast and you can see that it is too dark and has too many straight lines to be a cloud.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I don't know what it is but...


Originally posted by mtaftm
Hey, its not a bird i personally don't think due to the fact of the man in the background is looking up at it


The guy is not looking up at it. He's holding up his left arm to shield the sun from him eyes. The direction of his body indicates that he is looking at the blob to the left... not the whatever it is.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


what do you propose it is then chad?

it looks an awful lot like a cloud to me . . .



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Wouldn't have a clue what it could be.

Although I am leaning towards it being just a tear.

Without a look at the original we'll probably never know.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Agree with the previous post - not liking the size or resolution of this. If it is not a tear on the photo, could a defect on the film itself have created this anomaly? It could also be a Photoshop job, although hard to tell due to poor quality of image.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
If that was just a tear in the paper, then surely someone who'd seen the picture in real life would have noticed. If this has been submitted to any analysis at all, then I'm reasonably sure that a great big hole in the picture would have been spotted.


I'm not saying I know what it is, my first thought was a bird, but I dunno, it looks kind of pointy. Could be a natural cloud/sun phenomina.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Hi, mysterious-photo-fans.

We all relatively know how a negative looks like, and works, right ?

It looks/appearance, is the contrary of what is normal:
Dark is light, and light is dark. . .

Soooooooo, I would say it is a tear IN THE NEGATIVE.

because at teh developement process,
the tear would let 100% of the light go thrue the
negative, and do a VERY DARK STAIN on the final photo.

Voila.

Blue skies.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by C-JEAN
Hi, mysterious-photo-fans.

We all relatively know how a negative looks like, and works, right ?

It looks/appearance, is the contrary of what is normal:
Dark is light, and light is dark. . .

Soooooooo, I would say it is a tear IN THE NEGATIVE.

because at teh developement process,
the tear would let 100% of the light go thrue the
negative, and do a VERY DARK STAIN on the final photo.

Voila.




Blue skies.


I go with that analysis, I worked in a wafer FAB in the photo section for a few years and your explanation fits, I’ve blown the photo up and had a look see in negative also, I’m not an expert but it does look like a fault in the negative as apposed to a rip in the photo itself. I’m not saying I’m 100% right but it does point that way and is a plausible explanation..




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join