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.

 

Two of the best? The oddest UFO entity photo's.

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Great video... I somehow hadn't actually ever seen that photo before.

Both of those pictures are incredibly interesting to me, I'm going to have to do some more research on them. Neither one has been debunked?




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by swordprince
 

The first picture is contentious, but has never been proved false.

The second picture has had no argument put against it whatsoever.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silver Star
reply to post by swordprince
 
The second picture has had no argument put against it whatsoever.

There have been plenty over the years,that`s where I remember the cereal box toy story.
Her`s an old thread on it also!
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


The video is so wrong it's hard to know just where to start. First there is no ridge. to claim there is is absolute bunkem . it was taken on a Marsh land. Marsh lands are , by definition, flat, or they aren't Marsh lands. The horizon is about 100 yards maybe even further than that. Go to 1.34 in this video and that is actually the place the picture was taken. See how far the horizon actually is and how totally and utterly flat the area is.



Secondly their attempt at guessing the height of the figure completely ignores known rough estimates. The head is usually somewhere around 1/8 the height of the body in total. Then if it is male the torso is proportionally, usually longer than the upper thigh. That estimation is way out.

The figure is apparent on only one frame between other pictures of the young girl in the same pose in the same position. Kodak themselves have pronounced that, as far as they can tell, the picture is genuine., That is, there are no signs of tampering with the photo during the printing process.


Given that, the conclusion is that, either the figure is floating in mid air, or is some ridiculous height around 20 ft tall.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whateva69
I'm going to read more about the first picture, but I'm having trouble reading that print on the link..its killing my eyes. It could be a badly burnt grey


If your using a pc, Hold down the Ctrl button and hit the "+" a couple times - it will make the text larger.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by Fingersoup]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silver Star
reply to post by tappy
 

I have to admit that the goon looks inflated, like a balloon or something, but i find Mr Stapletons account to be convincing.


[color=C6AEC7]I agree, sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I totally think his account of what happened is convincing, I was trying to say that I dont think a `normal person` standing behind the wee girl would look that size, you know? Thats why I dont think it is a `normal person`



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Haha, the monkey video was pretty neat. I noticed everything else except the background changing color. Kinda what happens when I zone out playing video games...



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Right - I've finally got round to watching the videos. I'd never seen them before so thanks for posting them


The Jenny Randles one is very interesting, it does seem to lend more credence to this being something unexplainable especially because of the mention of the cumberland spaceman in the government files. And Jim Templeton comes across as a very down-to-earth, Northern fella, he's not the type to make up something for publicity or anything like that. Straight-forward, no-nonsence type, you know?

The video trying to `debunk` the spaceman is interesting and of course worth looking at because it's good to see all points of view. I'm not convinced with the fact that it really could be a man, despite the superimposed example - for one thing I don't think that's really a hill behind the wee girl, and for another the guy would have to be tipped over at an angle, doesn't look natural to me.

As for the clothes, I'm not ruling out that it could be a scarf or hood but it still doesn't look like it, and the negative pictures in that video aren't conclusive either way, IMO.

The other comment that the marsh is flat and not a hill - I agree. I think Jim Templeton was probably crouched down / or kneeling to get the shot of his daughter - and if you do that, the horizon will appear higher up. That's why in the last video, when the news reporter is standing on the marsh, it looks much flatter than in the photograph, because of the height of the observer.

Tappy's conclusion - still unexplained. And still just as interesting.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 




The video is so wrong it's hard to know just where to start. First there is no ridge. to claim there is is absolute bunkem . it was taken on a Marsh land. Marsh lands are , by definition, flat, or they aren't Marsh lands. The horizon is about 100 yards maybe even further than that. Go to 1.34 in this video and that is actually the place the picture was taken. See how far the horizon actually is and how totally and utterly flat the area is.


I am not sure I understand your point correctly, but if you are saying that the figure has to be standing far away in the horizon, that is not correct. The figure can very well be standing just a short distance behind the girl, the horizon doesn't really have anything to do with it. I am also aware that marsh lands are flat.

(As I said, I may have misunderstood you, so please correct me if I read your post wrong.)



The figure is apparent on only one frame between other pictures of the young girl in the same pose in the same position. Kodak themselves have pronounced that, as far as they can tell, the picture is genuine., That is, there are no signs of tampering with the photo during the printing process.


I never claimed the picture was tampered with, and neither does the guy who made the video I posted. It seems we all agree that the pic is real.



Given that, the conclusion is that, either the figure is floating in mid air, or is some ridiculous height around 20 ft tall.


I disagree. I think the figure IS a man, and that he is standing firmly on the ground just a short distance behind the girl. I don't understand why you think the "spaceman" is floating in mid air. And 20 feet tall..? Do you estimate that height because you assume that he was standing far away from the girl, somewhere in the horizon? What makes you think that? Do you see something in the picture that I am missing?

I am not out to pick a fight with you, I respect your opinon. I am just trying to understand your reasoning.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by drift393
The first one reminds me of some of the weird roots from the fleece flower plant. link to human looking roots

The second pic has always been of interest and intriguing.

edit for posting image link in wrong spot.


[edit on 6-7-2010 by drift393]


WTF?! I've never seen that before, simply incredible, i don't know what to make of it.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tappy
 

Ive just been digesting the information too and the videos and links are quality stuff.

Thanks everyone for the information about the second photo, the critical viewpoints were enlightening.

I would love to see other images like this but i dont know where to look.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Right, I've had a wee look for that photo I mentioned on my first post, and finally found it


OP if you don't mind I'll post it here, don't want to detract from your original photos and reason for thread, but as I said it has some similarities to the cumbrian spaceman one.

Here it is (hopefully this link work)

Husband Ghost photo

There is also info. about the photo here

ghost photo info


Again it's an interesting one, although whether it can be debunked I'm not sure. Must admit, I get a wee bit scared by this one, something about the man's face doesn't sit right with me. But then again I get scared easily so I dunno


[edit on 7-7-2010 by tappy]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   


I'm not sure I buy that guys story.

How is this man in the background with his back turned to the father and daughter a "space-man"?

Both pictures scream hoax.

- Lee



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tappy
 

Again it's an interesting one, although whether it can be debunked I'm not sure. Must admit, I get a wee bit scared by this one, something about the man's face doesn't sit right with me. But then again I get scared easily so I dunno

- I Quote!



Brilliant Tappy!

I'm glad you understand the vibe i was going for with this thread. Some pictures grab your attention straight away - that this is one of them.

How many more must be out there? I've not seen this one before. It definately has the 'X Factor', if you know what i mean.

Beautiful!

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Silver Star]

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Silver Star]

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Silver Star]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Silver Star
 


Thanks
Glad you like this photo. I can't remember where I first saw it, but as you can see it does have the resemblance of the cumbrian one.

What do you make of it? I mean, can you see an explanation for it?

Ohh and, I'm sure there are more good ones like these to be found




[edit on 7-7-2010 by tappy]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 


I personally don't see a man with his back to the camera - could you explain more of what you do see? I think the `spaceman` is too large and high up to really be a real person.

It's good to have discussion of it though, that's what this thread is all about



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tappy
 

Ultimately, it comes down to wether you trust the witness or not because, as many people point out, anything can be faked.

But some things have a ring of truth to them and it is these that im always more drawn to.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   
The first picture maybe a person with leprosy?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


I'm with you. When i first saw this picture i wondered why it was refereed to as the &Floating or 25 ft Spaceman". It is only when you realise that the horizon is not a few feet away but, in all probability 100+ yards away you realise why. The foreshortening effect from where the picture was taken is quite a large one.

I've asked people to do this before on here. Get a camera find long flat piece of land, road, kneel and then look through the view finder or just use your eyes to check how the foreshortening effect is exaggerated. If the figure is anything like in proportion as it should be, it means the figure is actually, either 30-40 yards behind the girl and huge or floating.

If you go to google maps and stick Solway Firth into it, then zoom in on the South side of the Firth, you can see the road and just how far the horizon would be and how flat the landscape is there.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tappy
 

He doesn`t look too happy does he,maybe she was sitting
with her new man?

I love pictures like this,whether they are optical illusions,
double exposures or picking up on something that our
eyes cannot I have no idea..cool though!


[edit on 8-7-2010 by Elmer_Dinkley]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join