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.

 

dark cylinder type ufo

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mckyle
 


The TOPIC of this thread is the photo...

What you don't know is that internos had already sent in a "suggestion" to have the thread moved to [HOAX] and was, in deed, off topic when he posted here pushing for it.

Why internos got so bent out of shape over a simple (and penalty FREE) "Off Topic" deletion when, his post was, IN FACT Off Topic, is beyond me.


Any further Off Topic posts will be met with an Off Topic deletion per the TAC.

Springer...




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
hey, guys. just tossing something in here, but one time i saw something that seemed to only appear to ME---when someone came outside with me, it dissappeared. then when they went inside, it reappeared. and instead of moving, it more..'blinked' from place to place..it freaked the living [snip] out of me..oh, and it made sort of a 'sword' shape, the hilt to the blade. anybody seen anything like it?

 

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/4/10 by masqua]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
did you read the post above



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
ARE YOU SERIOUS??????? You expect people to think this is a ufo......and to those bible bashers.....at least the bible has something you can physically touch and read.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
A spinning dark cylinder.
I do recall seeing one or two in a drifting hover.
Not a very violent spin but looking like an out of control drift.
Perfect for the cylinder bag de bunkers.
The difference between visual and photo is a mystery.
I can't find the image right now but might be able to track one down.
On one you see light and dark bands as on a very old New York City
photo of a sighting.
This might cause the bag holders to paint white stripes for effects
but the only people with guts are the ones flying the cylinders
and not the ones letting bags loose cause they don't.
I saw one video and the bag was tethered.
Chicken bag de bunkers.
ED: bags or not




[edit on 4/8/2010 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


TeslaandLyne.....

The op posted pictures of a smudge on the lens of his camera.

That has been proven unequivocally.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
This pic here looks like a solar balloon

i54.photobucket.com...

The first pictures posted were not of this they were a smudge on the lens most likely because the position never changed.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I removed this post & consolidated my info in the post below.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CYRAX
 


CYRAX

I still have difficulty understanding your story.

I believe it has been explained & illustrated unequivocally by Chadwickus, Bone Z, Arbitrageur, Armap & Internos to be a smudge on the lens of your camera.

Here is BoneZ's definitive GIF:



wmd 2008 then posted this link to a picture of a solar balloon:

www.solar-balloons.com...

Subsequently, you started saying you might have seen a solar balloon, because it has been pointed out that a solar balloon has a vague resemblance to the smudge on the lens of your camera.

You also stated the object was "spinning through the sky".

I'm not sure a solar balloon "spins through the sky" in a speed & manner that causes it to be:

1. Impossible to identify, in view of the hundreds of solar balloon pictures that have been posted on ATS

2. Impossible to photograph

Your story also lacks salient info regarding your "sighting".

For instance, here is a picture posted by you indicating the "line of flight" of the object".




In this photo indicating the "line of flight" of the object, you have not offered any information pertaining to the length of time the object took to transit this "line of flight".

If it flew very quickly along the "line of flight", perhaps this could have been a reason why you could not obtain a properly informative photo. However, this would exclude you being able to place the object in the same place in frame in your photos.

If it flew slowly along the "line of flight", you should have been able to find the time to take a better picture of the object.

Your photo incorporating the "line of flight" raises other issues, including but not limited to the following:

1. In view of the population of that area, including the many vantage points for viewing from the houses & public areas on the hillsides, beaches, passing traffic, boats, ships in the heavy shipping traffic lanes from the steelworks, etc... (I am familar with this area), why is it nobody else has reported seeing this "object"?

2. If we can obtain EXIF data for your original photo, we can ascertain if your "line of flight" photo matches up with the idea the sun is the bright object in the op's original series of photo's (i.e. time of photos vs direction of photos vs elevation of sun). I suggest such a study might show your "line of flight" photo is a "red herring".

I also think this area is within radar range of the hi-res radar installations at Sydney Airport, yet nothing has been reported from that source...... notwithstanding the "shadowing" of the surrounding escarpment & the low "flight level" of the "object" as suggested by your photo (above) might exclude that possible source of correlating info.

Therefore, I still conclude your story endures significant difficulties.

Regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Maybe the spinning caused it to blur, I could definately see something cylindrical there.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
It my not be a cylinder craft at all.
It looks like some of those snake effects from who
know what part of the engine.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Once again, I'm baffled why seriously solid cases with great evidence, have to struggle over weeks to garner a few pages, and some ridiculous smuge on a camera lens manages to get 5 pages.

Since the pictures are utterly worthless, could you perhaps draw what you saw, so we have an actual idea what you are talking about?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


I can think of one theory about why the easily explainable UFOs get more posts. Because they can be explained (as this one can be explained as a fiber or smudge on the lens) so more people post their explanations.

If the case is really a UFO with no obvious explanation, then what can people contribute to it?

Oh wow!
WTF was that?
really cool UFO.

And since each one of those would be a one liner that contributes nothing to the thread, some people don't bother posting them (some other people do and then type "second line" after that
)



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Time of sighting (include time zone, am or pm)?11:00-12:00
How long did the sighting last?2-3 minutes
City, state of sighting (or nation, province, etc.)?Kiama NSW
How many other witnesses?2
Just lights, or shape discernable?dark cylinder
Color of lights and/or object/s?black
Number of lights and/or objects?1
Apparent altitude?n/a
Direction of travel?west?
Apparent brightness?no
Path of travel (straight, curved, etc.)?straight
Any pictures or video?pic
Any sound?no
Any aircraft around?no


UFO - Cylinder Chased by Soviet MIG-21
www.youtube.com...



[edit on 9-4-2010 by CYRAX]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by CYRAX
 


Sorry Old Sport,

but your own evidence, as processed by Bonez causes serious problems for your oral/written account. Why? Let's look at the photo:



I'm sorry for going over this again, as Bones and Maybe...maybe not, Chadwickus, and Internos, have already provided exhaustive analysis and explanation for why this photo overlay discredits your own version of events.

Putting it very simply: you captured - or rather you claimed you captured an object over a series of six frames, whilst this object was moving both in the horizontal plane, as well as "spinning". Remarkable!!! Truly remarkable!!!

Remarkable because you - without a tripod, were able to perfectly capture this object in the exact area of the camera's lens frame, six times!!! As indicated by Bonze's excellent overlay work with the six frames in question.

Now can I ask you: what's more likely? That you were able to miraculously capture this horizontally-moving object in the exact same position in the lens frame - without a tripod - or that what we are probably looking at, in all likelihood, just a smudge on the camera lens?

We're all waiting for your answer.


[edit on 9-4-2010 by mckyle]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a few minutes before taking pictures of ufo photo came out clear
i54.photobucket.com...
next photo taken after ufo went
i54.photobucket.com...
nothing there

[edit on 9-4-2010 by CYRAX]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
How do we know that the photo you showing that came before the pictures that came out clear is indeed the actual photo you took right before the pictures that show your "ufo"? Your history of communication in this thread leaves a lot to be desired, so it is hard to take what you are posting as evidence seriously.

You may have seen something, no one here is really saying you didn't. But your inability to admit that the photo evidence you are submitting doesn't depict what you saw is what this thread's problem is. You have been shown, time and time again, how what your posting can't possibly be what you saw, but your inability to understand that, honestly, leaves us all a little amazed at this point.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
no i just dont agree with with what you guys are saying as the before and after photos show



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by CYRAX
no i just dont agree with with what you guys are saying...


And many here don't agree with what you're saying - the difference is that we're basing our conclusions on photographic evidence, with some pretty solid logic thrown in for good measure.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by mckyle]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CYRAX
 

According to the EXIF data, those "few minutes" were exactly one minute.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join