dark cylinder type ufo

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by CYRAX
 


You're catching a lot of heat that may be merited and maybe not. How about including some info about your camera so that we can include the info in replies. Brand, model, setting you shot the images on (AUTO or otherwise). Also, someone should emboss one or all of your photos to see if the pattern can be relegated to the foreground or background. Too bad there is nothing in the photo(s) for reference, something you should consider in the future 'cause...you never know!




posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
At first it looked like someone just used the Dodge tool in PS on the images and I thought it was some April fools joke, but after seeing them all played together I would say it's definitely on the lens as the object never moves from it's position. Nice work Bonez.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 

"Emboss"?

Are you talking about the emboss filter? If you are, that filter is useless for gaining any knowledge about the photo, as most filters used in some "analysis".



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Jocko Flocko
 


We didn't need an animation to work out what it was.


Odd this hasn't been moved to the hoax thread yet either...



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by deenuu
Nice pix of Bombo beach and chem/con trails, we get heaps down here, where did u see this object??





posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
you know whats funny you guys come on with your oh its dirty lens, yet i know i saw something and when i aimed to take photos of this object these pictures came out



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by CYRAX
 

Both things may be true, and that's the problem.

The fact that you saw something doesn't mean that you did get a photo of it, it happens many times for many reasons.

The fact that what we see on the photos look like something on the lens doesn't mean that you saw something, it only means that there was (possibly) something on the lens.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by CYRAX
 

Both things may be true, and that's the problem.

The fact that you saw something doesn't mean that you did get a photo of it, it happens many times for many reasons.

The fact that what we see on the photos look like something on the lens doesn't mean that you saw something, it only means that there was (possibly) something on the lens.

yeah sorry



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by CYRAX
 


I've just gotten back from Kiama!!!
WOAH! When and where???



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by wagtail
reply to post by CYRAX
 


I've just gotten back from Kiama!!!
WOAH! When and where???

theres pic on this page where it happened though this happened awhile back



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Well, then according to the OP himself, we can put the thread to rest, since even if he did spot some UFO, then he didn't catch it on camera because the amorphic shape that what we see in the series of six photos from DSC00113 to DSC00118 show something that was stuck in the apparatus, since there is NO WAY to catch six photos of something floating (and even spinning) in the air in the same exact x-y coordinates, of the same exact size and of the same exact shape, while it was "moving", ok? There is less than one chance in thousands of billion that what we see is an actual object. It could be dirth on the lens, or better the lens could have been covered by a layer of dust and the dark area was the only clean one (you can do it even using some finger).
So, OP, are you claiming that what we see is the UFO that you saw, or are you claiming that you spotted some ufo but it's not in that series of pic?
I'm asking because the difference between the two is huge.
Thank you in advance.


[edit on 6/4/2010 by internos]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 02:56 AM
link   
all i am going to say is i took as many pics as i could and as quickly as i could since it was moving and i was losing track of it now im pretty sure that is the object since the 7th pic is clear as day which i posted on page 1
"This is why photographers use cameras with various shutter speed settings. For stationary objects almost any shutter speed will do, but in order to capture faster moving objects, one needs a faster shutter speed.

What we are seeing here is that the object was moving so fast that the shutter speed couldn't freeze the motion of the object.

If you have a point and click camera with a single shutter speed setting, attempting to capture a fast moving target then this picture demonstrates the end results.

Similar to time lapse photography taken at night with a slow shutter speed where lights appear as long ribbons."
i think this explains what happened pretty well thanks


[edit on 6-4-2010 by CYRAX]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CYRAX
all i am going to say is i took as many pics as i could and as quickly as i could since it was moving and i was losing track of it now im pretty sure that is the object since the 7th pic is clear as day


The 7th pic isn't as clear as day, the same thing is in the 7th pic as the other 6 pics, but it's just harder to see because it's more washed out, but I still see it, look closely, it shows up in the thumbnail in the album you posted.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
could you point it out i cant see it thanks



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by CYRAX
could you point it out i cant see it thanks

Well like everyone keeps telling you, it hasn't moved, so if you can see it in the first 6 pics, then it's in the exact same spot in the 7th pic. It is harder to see but it's still obvious to me in the thumbnail. Since it's not obvious to you I lowered the brightness and gamma, and increased the contrast, and cropped it, see it now?



I included the sliders showing the adjustments I made so you can try it yourself and get the same thing.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
sorry to say but thats not number 7 this is next time check what your posting




[edit on 6-4-2010 by CYRAX]

[edit on 6-4-2010 by CYRAX]

[edit on 6-4-2010 by CYRAX]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by CYRAX
 


I see, well that picture doesn't really show that it wasn't something on your lens in the other photos, it's taken under totally different contrast and lighting conditions. The artifact was very light in one of the sky photos (the one I increased the contrast on, DSC00118) so of course if it barely shows up on a sky photo, then when you take a picture of some contrasty scenery then of course it will be harder to see, but that doesn't mean it's not there, it just means the lighting conditions are different.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by CYRAX
 


I go with one of these

www.solar-balloons.com...

What do you think.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
In my humble opinion, and once I've heard the reply of the witness:
the story could even be true, but the photos have nothing to do with it.
Sorry OP, not stating that I don't believe you, but six/seven/eight/thousands shots showing the same blurry formation in the same exact position with the same exact size are in strong contrast with your statement istelf and the absence of any points of reference make any assessment useles: was it MOVING or was it STUCK?
It's useless your quote about the shutter speed: I think I know what is a shutter speed: talk about your sighting.
Do you realize that if you were using a tripod then we would have noticed some variation, since it was moving, according not to me but to you?
IF it was moving then the photos are to trash, but if it was stuck, then your statement is to trash. The third possible explanation is some variation on the apparatus given from God knows what, but static and consistent with the apparatus. How long the sighting lasted may I ask you?


[edit on 6/4/2010 by internos]





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join