Caught on camera! February 10 2010

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by noobsauce13

Originally posted by Phage
Center Pivot Irrigation

The lights are your overhead console being reflected by the _

[edit on 2/11/2010 by Phage]


If that is so, how did everyone in the plane as he stated see it?


Because he says so? That would make the only corroborating evidence heresay and invalidate the pictures.

Think about it.

OP - "Hey I have proof of something look!!"

US - "Frankly I can't see anything. Is that a reflection however?"

OP - "No - Well it is proof, everyone around me saw it too!"


If the basis for accepting the evidence here is that 'everyone on the plane saw it' then we are back to square one, and have a basic "I have a story" thread.


[edit on 12/2/2010 by Ha`la`tha]




posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   


kind of like this one? I think we were over the irrigation pics on page 1 right.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Ha`la`tha
 


read my detailed response as to why it cannot be reflections or refractions. Please. That is your proof of WHY IT CANNOT BE REFLECTIONS OR A REFRACTION!



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
how about we have someone look at the originals and take a look at the exif data


I almost posted that yesterday when I was here, but thought if it's down to that, we all know exif can be manipulated...

And lulz are best with a little effort sprinkled on top.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by misfitofscience
reply to post by Ha`la`tha
 


read my detailed response as to why it cannot be reflections or refractions. Please. That is your proof of WHY IT CANNOT BE REFLECTIONS OR A REFRACTION!


Proof is verifiable evidence, not testimony.

I'll also just add, that I cannot see anything in the images you posted in the OP - not even reflections.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
The other photos with blue "lights" are just reflections on the window from the interior. I've run into the problem a million times while trying to shoot photos in-flight (right there over the Colorado Rockies, as a matter of fact).

Something else that can freak you out is when you catch a glimpse of another jet heading in the opposite direction — the apparent speed is incredible, because it's a combination of your airspeed plus the airspeed of the other plane, which produces the illusion that the other plane is doing a thousand knots — not something you see a commercial jetliner doing every day...or ever.

Ask the old bomber gunners of WWII about this effect — they'll tell you that the enemy fighter planes coming in were impossible to target because of the combined speed. There was just no way to put a crosshair on them, they zipped by so fast. So the bomber gunners had to lay down a steady wall of fire into empty space and just hope the enemy ran into the bullets.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by misfitofscience
 


Two theories on blurry aircraft.

The craft is actually vibrating too fast for the camera or
fast enough for the camera to take multiple images.
This because some have seen the craft and the photo shows
a blur. The eye must make up for the movement as some
have said it was a metallic craft and the photo shows purple fuzz.

The other theory is the electric-ether suspension field ionizes the
surrounding air giving off a dark light picked up by the camera.

If not a craft then just a camera image from nowhere.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by zaiger
how about we have someone look at the originals and take a look at the exif data


What for? Exif data isn't going to tell you if there's reflections present in the image.


It would help verify the origins of the image, and if the ED image is actually the OPs.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by misfitofscience

I always follow these simple steps when I travel:


Don't take your photos at an angle to the _ This will increase optical distortion from the windows. Stop reflection coming back into your pictures as noted below. It helps if you have a digital camera, so you can see your results and make adjustments during the beginning or landing part of the trip.

(clearly the photo is straight on)


Don't take your photos at an angle to the _ This will increase optical distortion from the windows. Stop reflection coming back into your pictures as noted below. It helps if you have a digital camera, so you can see your results and make adjustments during the beginning or landing part of the trip.

www.wikihow.com...

I see you're researching as you go along.

Interesting. But verbatim quotes of a wiki guide, don't prove you do anything of the sort. Sure, this may be a long reach but this thread has wandered into areas where eyebrows are raised, and here you are claiming what you do every time you fly is found directly on a wiki website. Perhaps you just follow good advice, perhaps you are disingenuous.

I don't care. It's your life.





posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ha`la`tha

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by zaiger
how about we have someone look at the originals and take a look at the exif data


What for? Exif data isn't going to tell you if there's reflections present in the image.


It would help verify the origins of the image, and if the ED image is actually the OPs.


Fair enough, but in the end they're still just going to be photos of crops and some light reflecting off the _ Not really worthy of more attention in my opinion.



[edit on 12-2-2010 by freelance_zenarchist]



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by misfitofscience
 


I did see a triangle craft in one photo.
Perhaps more than one.

A good place to look for secret craft that needs no runway.
Irrigation circles with no chance or water ever being applied.
Try and find the circle that is a base.


Do you ever post anything that isn't utter nonsense T&L? How about you take the pictures into photoshop and show us exactly where these triangle craft and bases are. Let us put your outrageous claims to the test as well!

IRM :shk:

[edit on 12/2/10 by InfaRedMan]



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Well, I ran the "blue light UFO" photo in my HexEditor to read the EXIF data. I was very puzzled that there is no mention in the EXIF data of the word "Sony"... Which is the camera I believe you said you used.

Just to be sure, I loaded one of my own Sony digital photographs and read its EXIF data. Sure enough, there was the word Sony, embedded in the EXIF data.

So, we need to find out why there is no "Sony" embedded in the UFO photo's EXIF data, right?

Is that information somehow erased by loading it through the ATS storage system?

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


I've noticed before that the ATS storage system does some strange things to images now and then. I wouldn't trust the exif data once it's on the media server.

IRM



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Okay, I can tell you that uploading the photo through the ATS storage process does indeed change the EXIF data, removing the original creator. Nice way to cover your tracks if you've just uploaded a PhotoShop file.

I'm not saying that's what the OP has done.

Rather, what I'm saying is that we need to get an original copy of the photo to examine its EXIF data.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Oh stop it.

Here you go!

[edit on 12-2-2010 by misfitofscience]



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by misfitofscience
 


We don't want a screen shot with selective information on it. We want the complete exif data to check a few things for ourselves. Not just the camera model. Therefore we require the original pictures... and preferably not from the ATS Media Server.

If you can't provide that, then don't bother posting again as your wasting everyones time.

IRM



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by misfitofscience
Oh stop it. Here you go!

You understand, of course, that this is ATS, where debunking is an everyday issue. Requesting an original photo isn't anything unusual.

Just so, your posting another image of your photo's properties isn't really proof of anything, except that you've uploaded another photo through the ATS storage server.

You wouldn't object to sending one of us an original copy of the photo, would you?

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Well... Maybe he does mind sending an original photo. I mean, he was really duking it out for 6 pages until we asked for an original image, then POOF he kind of vanished.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I'm watching the Winter Olympics live, taking photos of the event.
We do have one of the worlds biggest net infrastructures you know.

Who would like me to send a photo to them,how would you like it sent.

mesage me. I have no issue debunking you debunkers. It's been fairly easy thus far. With no real sustenance formyour end, except for the lousy, "it's a reflection" comments.

It is not. message me and I'll send a photo.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join