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.

 

Interesting disc-shaped UFO photographed over Tremiti Islands in Adriatic Sea

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
Ditto Maybe...MaybeNot

Not that I want to go by feelings, but, this one doesn't 'feel' hoax.
We might have a winner here...
peace


Silo13.....

Well.....

That's what we hope for, every single time!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Queenannie38.....



there is some pixelation around the object, but a little bit of the same size is seen at the top edges of the subject's head, so it might be something within normal limits due to light or heat or something.


I think that pixilation is within normal limits for this sort of digital photograph.

To me, it looks like the sort of pixilation that is caused by an area of "less information" interfacing directly with an area of "more information".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by queenannie38
 


the pixels look pretty much the same size to me but i dont think that rules anything in or out at the moment, but one thing i did notice is a very thin and faint line coming down and underneath the object starting from its left side, could this be a rope? and could my parasailing/parascending/paragliding theory be correct?
thanks
rich


RICH-ENGLAND.....

I think I can see what you mean by the "paragliding sail" shape & the "rope" hanging down from the left side, albeit extremely feintly.

But.....it's a bit of a stretch!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 28-6-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by the seeker_713g
 


The seeker 713g.....



..... far too many are too quick to whip out the hoax hammer


Yes.....sometimes it can be a little brutal around here!



just as one newer member has immediately called it fake without any analysis at all.


That’s the way might actually miss the real thing, one day.



I also do not see any trailing lines or surfaces/indications of it being an attached object such as a kite or para-sail


I think I can see an extremely feint line down from the left hand side in the zoom shot, as per RICH-ENGLAND.



there is no sign of any wake or waves from a boat in the blue waters behind the young man.


I agree.



Perhaps the OP can provide us with the exif data; that will bear weight on the study, as well as providing the raw image if possible.


I agree that will be useful, notwithstanding the EXIF data can be changed, as per my post on P1.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


hi MMN, just a couple of points on my theory, im not saying im right or wrong or anyone else is at this time, these are just my early thoughts and initial reaction to what i am seeing in the picture and following a logical path, first of all its a holiday resort and beach on a very hot bright sunny day, those places have allsorts of things going on like parasailing/ parascending/ kiteboarding/ kitebuggys and many other similar things.

although we cannot see a boat or wake or anything, my theory is that due to the angle of the object, if it is a parachute sail or kite, whatever it is attached to may be directly behind the guy or rocks in the picture so wouldn't be seen anyway, also at that resolution if the object is distant as i suspect and isn't photoshoped in then i doubt the picture would pick up the detail of a wake in the far distant waters anyway.

another observation is that if this was a real object and was something other than mundane then surely this picture would have been part of a mass u.f.o report/sighting that we would have heard about because there would be many pictures taken by many people at many angles because i suspect there's probably a very busy beach front down at the bottom of the rocks and it would be full of holiday makers with cameras, but i suspect the object is just something mundane.

personally i don't think its photoshopped and i don't think it's a deliberate hoax on evidence so far, i just think they accidentally captured a mundane object then got over excited, but as always we will probably never know for sure and will probably never prove it, but like you i always live in hope that one day the killer picture or video will surface that gives us the proof we all crave!, i just don't think this is it but interesting picture nonetheless and i hope we get a good discussion

thanks

rich


[edit on 28-6-2010 by RICH-ENGLAND]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The photographs remind me of this.

Again never expected to snap a UFO but it is there.Also added inverted snaps of the photographs below as for rope/cable etc.. I can not see any but then that's me.



[edit on 28-6-2010 by k3rm1t]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
As anyone tried to obtain the original unaltered raw image?

Im just not sure how analysis can be done on a clearly edited image (note the watermark/website). Altering it in any way takes away the authenticity of it. Maybe most do not care about this - but logic says, IMO: original raw image needed in order to analyze.

[edit on June 28th 2010 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


i just went on the website and was going to ask for them to e mail me the original but i can't find a contact and the comments box won't work for me for some unknown reason!.

thanks

rich

eeit ) ok i have now found a contact on that website and e mailed them to ask for them to send me the original un edited copy.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by RICH-ENGLAND]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
E-mail sent:
Dear Sir / Madam
My name is Blank of England and I am involved with a forum that specializes in UFOs, etc..
We read your story UFO Tremiti Islands / Found on by chance a picture and wondered if you have the RAW images available, or at least have the EXIF data to show that this picture is not an example buffalo. Photoshop was used.
If this is possible please email me could return all the information about its authenticity would be great as we are sure that this photo is real, but we need a backup.
Thank you very much


REPLY

Good evening Mr. [K3rm1t]

Send a copy of the original photo taken from the machine model MPEG4 DIGITAL VIDEO CAMERA MADE IN CHINA. The photo shows the date 2004 but is not trusted because the room was not set. Please "logically" to maintain the copyright of photos and not use it differently.


Ok this i just got back and no I don't make sense of it all I asked for is the raw photo/EXIF data either one just for them to prove it not fake before they publish it and that's what I got back.I have emailed them again as i was told before posting this reply it may well be language barrier.
Forgot Ignore the name not posting my real name but thats what i got back from the newspaper that published the story.

OK this I translated to Italian but anyone make sense of reply I have emailed them again.


OK OK I got the image who wants it please




Second Reply so I do think this is what the newspaper got sent.

Reply:
On right K3rm1t
But please...If you send to some one the photo write on the copyright @ildemocratico.com
The people are crazy and this is our business


Thank you.
Best,
Alessio

Many Thanks to ildemocratico.com for the photograph

Notice the date on this 2004/01/01 13:13
Now to me after so long why wait [ only thing i can think of is ''don't want to look a muppet'']
Still fact is there is no real reason why this is a hoax what have they [ original photo takers] got to earn from it 6yrs later.
Is it because more and more about UFOs are surfacing what would they have to gain etc.. so to me this is not a hoax[deliberate hoax]
But hey thats me lol


[edit on 28-6-2010 by k3rm1t]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by k3rm1t
 


Awesome! Great work! Did you happen to link him back to your thread here? Maybe he would come visit it



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 

Yes i left link and now got the photo without the newspaper website on it etc..
If someone wants to email u2u me with email I will send what I got sent.



[edit on 28-6-2010 by k3rm1t]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tharsis
Since it's impossible to determine where in the picture the anomaly resides, perspective-wise, I'm going to have to go with a bottle cap thrown at the subject for comedic effect.

Good shout.

It does say the photo was taken by two guys in between "a drink and a dip in the pool"...

Most likely scenario is that the guy has thrown his bottle cap and when they got the photo's back it just happened to resemble a UFO.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


i have to disagree, for the simple reason that if there's only two guys, one is sat down and one is taking the photo, it would be nigh on impossible for the photographer to throw an object at a guy that is at close range and then take a steady in frame picture of him and the thrown object and keep them both in frame and central.

i do think there's a mundane explanation but not that one!.

thanks

rich



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
We can see the direction of the sunlight (shadow cast by the man's left arm)...

Matches the direction of the light cast on the object:


... which tells me that this is definately a real object in the photograph.

However, it casts no shadow over the ocean, which means it must be between the man and the ocean (over that marina-type body of water between the rocks)



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by k3rm1t
 


good work on getting the photo k3rm1t, so no sign of photoshopping then, as i said earlier i didn't think it was.

now hopefully one of the photographic experts can chime in with something and maybe find some clues as to whether the object is close or distant, personally i think its distant.

thanks

rich



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND
 

Yeah I think you're probably correct, because if it was a bottle cap we would see its shadow cast on the man or the rock he's sat on. But we don't



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
As anyone tried to obtain the original unaltered raw image?


That's an excellent idea. Experience here has shown time and again that this kind of photo, particularly when the photographer says, "I didn't see anything when I took the photo," is usually that of a bird coming in at an odd angle and blurring because of the slower shutter speed of the digital camera.

You can see by the guano-covered rocks in the background that there are a lot of birds in the area, and they could zip and and out of the frame quickly enough to not be noticed.

IT'S A BIRD!

Or at least it is until somebody comes up with more positive evidence to the contrary, other than "It LOOKS like a saucer!" Birds in photos sometimes look like saucers.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by Blue Shift]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


once again i have to disagree, i think the shadow would fall behind the man or the rocks if it is a distant object and as i have said before because of the resolution of the camera and it being focused on the man, it would struggle to pick up the shadow of that object with any detail, if you look at the water and especially the distant water it is just a mass of colour with no detail at all, and again i think the shadow would be behind those far rocks and probably behind the man.

thanks

rich



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by k3rm1t
 


K3rm1t.....

Great work mate!!


I shall enjoy having a good look at all this later today.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND
 

If it was "distant" it would have to be a massive object. Estimating the distance of the ocean, I would say it would have to be at least 100ft in length, maybe more.




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join