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.

 

MUFON:UFO Caught on Camera While Ghosthunting [Admin Update]

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Im sure this is a flower basket from a grave that somehow was double exposed onto the film..


As there are thousands have a look and see if you can find a match , Im sure you will...


Baskets




posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sakrateri
Im sure this is a flower basket from a grave that somehow was double exposed onto the film..


That's exactly what I was thinking when I wrote earlier. Although I don't think it's a flower basket (the shape doesn't seem right) I do believe it's some other object, perhaps a watering device, found at the graveyard that it simply got double exposed (I said "superimposed" because I didn't remember the English term) to this other picture. Here's an example of unintentional double exposure:





posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
The people behind this photo are the Society of the Unknown, classic orbists. Here is the EXIF data from Jeffrey's Exif viewer, the photo was taken at the Rollins cemetery near Kampsville IL.

The Society of the unknown

*Warning! Their start page loads with loud spooky music, turn it off at the bottom left of the page.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by cripmeister]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Radiobuzz
 


If it is double exposure, why is it behind all of the threes? It seems to me it should be seen in front, as in the bike picture, no?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Looks like some sort of bucket or basket, with a long handle.

Also would like to know if there is any sort of structure there. The first photo does not pan up enough to show that area.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I am not following any of this.

How come a 'shooting star' wasn't mentioned in the original report yet was in the MUFON report?
What does "several clumps of dirt overturned in the cemetery" have to do with alien activity?

Where are the pictures of ghost 'faces' they supposedly captured?
(Man I am beyond confused here)

And how did a ghost hunt turn into a UFO sighting? Why wouldn't they naturally assume perhaps they captured something that was frozen in time? Like many ghosthunters seem to find in Gettysburg. (ie. covered wagons, cannons etc)

It just sounds like a gigantic leap to me.

And I can't make out anything in that photo. That's their proof???
It looks like a bunch of branches from trees in the foreground.

This story sounds fishy.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sakrateri
Im sure this is a flower basket from a grave that somehow was double exposed onto the film..


As there are thousands have a look and see if you can find a match , Im sure you will...


Baskets



Am I looking at the same photo? What flower basket, where?
Is this the same photo?



Man....you must have much better resolution than I do or something because this looks like total darkness to me!



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
reply to post by Radiobuzz
 


If it is double exposure, why is it behind all of the threes? It seems to me it should be seen in front, as in the bike picture, no?


Well, yes, but I have a theory. Let's assume this really is a double exposure. The original photo is dark enough considering it's being taken on a cemetery at night, and the other picture will obviously be just as dark for the very same reason. If this other picture is dark enough it can give the impression that the object is on the background with it's really not.

I'll try to explain, I've been playing with brightness and contrast and I'm not so sure the UFO is on the background. Check out this capture:



There are green spots over it so I'm pretty suer that the branches are on top of the object.

I believe that the reason for why the bottom part appears to be on the background is simply because the leaves on that part of the picture are heavily hit by the flash, so the light is so bright that (assuming the other picture is dark enough) it would give the impression that the object is behind those branches when it may be not. Check out this other pic:



You can almost make out the circle going on top of the branches. At least there's a obvious curve on the lower right side of the circle.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Radiobuzz
 


Thanks for the answer and the time you took on it!
It is logical and fits the crops...


But if you take a step back, you will see more things. Here is the link again to the pic from the OP. www.mufoncms.com...

And again, the same but only with the object in question in its entirety.



Another one to show that lighting of object is consistent with surrounding trees.



Another with the exposure "corrected"...



Again, but with arrows to point at some things.



( Sorry, I replied instead of preview, will add the rest in edit mode! )


Okay, LOL First, the yellow arrows point to branches being pushed and you can see them and their shadows on the object. The big blue arrow points to a major branch slightly curved by being pushed.
Towards the rim you mentioned, we can clearly see the shadow of the inner rim of the bottom, but the outer side is barely hidden by the leaves in front, from our view point. It is our minds that interpret the data as it is easier for our brain to make sense of the mixing data.

Overall, the object is NOT transparent as in double exposures. And the arch over the object is not seen in the branches of the tree, it goes behind it. Also, the lighting of the branches in front of the object is consistent with the lighting of the tree, not affected by a double exposure as in the bike example.
That's it for now!



[edit on 9-6-2010 by Aresh Troxit]

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Aresh Troxit]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Aresh Troxit
 


I'm not completely sure what your point is. The arrows on your latest picture show those things I was trying to point. The yellow one points to green smudges which look like leaves. The green/red one is showing the very same curve which appears to go on top of the branches rather than behind them.

Regarding the light, and I'm not 100% sure so don't quote me on this, I believe it's to be expected that it has the same attributes to the trees, or to any picture took during that session for that matter, considering that they were no other discernible source lights except for the camera flash.

EDIT: I wrote this before you added the later part of your post, lol.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Radiobuzz]

EDIT 2: Ok, now I see your point. Regarding the shadow of the branch... I didn't noticed it earlier but I'm still not convinced. I'm not seeing the branch being moved in any of our versions so to me it looks more like a glitch or simply some obscure pixels that an actual shadow. Now about the bottom part: I agree the outer circle is difficult to discern but I was referring to the inner one. Again, a new pic:



Check out the arrows, particularly the left one. Those bright pixels are coherent with the curve of the circle. On the right one it happens the same although the line is thinner.

On I side note, if you think this thing was actually there and it pushed branches from the tree... I just wonder how come they didn't noticed it!

I don't know, I'm just not convinced at this whole thing.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Radiobuzz]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Radiobuzz
 


That's the thing about the lighting of the scene, even for a dark scene, a double exposure of an object will double expose it and will be more lighted than the rest of the picture.

As with the example of the bike, it is orange, not life like colored.


( I swallowed a few swears when I saw my mistake! LOL Next time for a clean cute post!
)

Here I made a circle of where the object should pass, and it doesn't fit the curve with the upper red circle. And I could have gone a bit more outside of where I made the curve.



[edit on 9-6-2010 by Aresh Troxit]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Radiobuzz
 


When I said the inner and outer rim, pointed by the red and green arrow, I wasn't talking about the ring around the bottom, but the bottom of the "bucket" itself, exactly where you circled in red at the bottom of your pic. The other red circle is only leaves. There are no linear continuity, only the illusion of one because of the "mass" of the leaves.


( Looking back at the pics I posted, it looked WAY much better when I was working with them... Sheesh... )

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Aresh Troxit]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I tried to replicate the effect with my cheap Samsung Digimax S1000 camera. I set the camera to night mode and took this photo.



I held a brush in front of the camera for about two seconds and quickly removed it before the shot was finished. This is the easiest way to do it in my opinion, no need for any editing or complicated setups and a cheap camera will do. I think the Society of the unknown photo is a hoax.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by cripmeister]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
reply to post by Radiobuzz
 


The other red circle is only leaves. There are no linear continuity, only the illusion of one because of the "mass" of the leaves.


[edit on 9-6-2010 by Aresh Troxit]


I agree with Aresh here, my eyes tell me that there is shadow of the leaves on the object (yellow arrows on the above post), and that "there are no linear continuity, only the illusion of one", like sometimes when we think that we can see the dark side of the moon at night. Here it is even accentuated by the shape of the leaves.



[edit on 10/6/10 by DAMOo]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Nice effect! Can you do one with the double exposure behind an object? Because the object in the MUFON picture is not in front of the tress...

And as I say in previous post, double exposure will light up your object compared to the surrounding image, which, again, is not happening on the MUFON pic.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Nice effect! Can you do one with the double exposure behind an object? Because the object in the MUFON picture is not in front of the tress...

And as I say in previous post, double exposure will light up your object compared to the surrounding image, which, again, is not happening on the MUFON pic.


I think what we're seeing in the SOTU photo is that the object has blended with the background. A dark matte object will blend more easily than a light reflective object.

I'll continue my experiment outside tonight when it gets dark.

Anyone interested in ghost photography should read this article.

www.alexnolan.net...



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


I'll wait for you to post your test pictures!



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Checking the direction of the light on the "object" by the shadow on the lower lip clearly shows that the light is coming from a different direction than that of the flash.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I'm looking at that object and something keeps nagging at the back of my mind. Finally got it, birdfeeder!

Ring at the bottom for the birds to stand on, funnel-shaped seed holder, hole for the birds to eat through, and a strap at the top to hang it with.

Not an exact match, but here's one with the ring and strap :
www.backyardchirper.com...



[edit on 6/10/2010 by eaglewingz]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
One of the things that make the notion of interstellar [this Universe] aliens visiting the planet is how often it is associated with other [high strangeness] paranormal activity.

I wonder if advanced civilizations/beings might use manufactured 'paranormal' events to hide their own existence? A little very high tech David Copperfield so to speak.

Sort of hiding in the noise of fabricated occult & other 'events'.

Certainly an excellent way to undermine someone's credibility.

Also perhaps their technologies sort of dredge up other, usually buried strata of reality, which brings them into our observable surface realm.

Or thirdly, maybe the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis is more correct.
That is to say there almost certainly are intelligent beings/civilizations elsewhere in the Universe, but [mostly?] what we are seeing are other kind of beings that live in some parallel, proximate domain. Although it could be that there are one or a few actual extraterrestrials who do travel between stars & do stop off here from time to time.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join