It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:10 AM
The flaw in the negative idea could be the answer. Here is a crop and close up, and you can see to the right of the object how a triangular form leads out to the right of the crop... Or is that some reflection of the sun? I'd tend to lean towards a flaw in the photographic process someplace, but you decide...
Blow Up of "Flaw"

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:16 AM
I'd go 100% with tear / photographic damage, I'd suspect the reason it's black mostly is that it's a hole sat on a black surface thus looking very black.

I know we all want to see really good photo's but that one just looks damaged..

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Mclaneinc]

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:50 AM
reply to post by phrankie79

This is a no-brainer: the man is looking at the arrows!

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:01 PM
Personally to me it does look like a bird maybe swooping down to the sea for food, which could be the explanation for the blurred look it has. But I'd also go with the photographic damage opinion just as well, this picture just looks damaged in my opinion.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:50 PM
Whatever it is, it has diffirent noise and grain levels to the rest of the photograph and has iether 2 light sources or the shading hasnt been completed on the left sharp area (Nose?)

Could be as mentioned, a tear in the negative. More likely to be something on the scanner or equipment used to capture it. ( Could even be deliberate, piece of paper?)

To add, after seeing the blow up posted earlier...There are massive jpeg artifacts around the object. I have to call hoax for that reason

[edit on 20-12-2009 by captiva]

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:53 PM
According to Mufon it is not a tear in the emulsion, the man is not looking at the object. It is not a bird, this is from a closed thread.

Mufon report,

[edit on 20-12-2009 by smurfy]

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:13 PM
my first impression was it looked like Spike's ship Swordfish II

I think too it's a flaw in the pic though.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:46 PM
I'm in the tear camp on this one ! Sorry OP

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:34 PM
I, after thorough inspection, conclude that this picture is either an elaborate hoax or a imperfection on the surface of the image.
I started the inspection by zooming in on the image and studying the shadow and shape. After this I studied in detail the mans face and the direction in which he was looking.
Whilst studying the shadow, I noticed that the darkest areas of shading where in the middle of the object. The darker areas signify depth. This therefore meant that the object could not possibly be any aircraft, possibly a surface scratch, or tear. Or even a badly forged hoax.
If this picture is as old as it looks the cameras would be on tripods, limiting and camera shake, the boat is in detail, but the mark is blurred, this made me wonder, could it be a scratch with such bad resolution? surely if it were a scratch it would be defined, could it be an object moving very fast across the picture, surely a bird would not move this fast to produce such blurring, could it be a ufo moving very quickly across the screen, who knows?
Only one person, the man who took this original picture.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by xAZIMUTHpx

That certainly is an amazing hole in the picture....

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:21 PM
Be it a seagull or an alien craft its definitely between the photographer and the boat. Also the object in question looks newer than the photograph itself.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:28 PM
I just checked it out and zoomed in on it etc.

Looks like the object is moving, as if it is either a paper-airplane or a flag pole. As if someone was throwing a flag pole so it would stick in the ground beside the boat and they tried to get a photo of it mid flight.

That is my 2 cents.

I would however agree with phrankie79.

[edit on 20/12/2009 by the_denv]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in