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.

 

2 UFO photos daytime

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I have seen this almost exact effect as seen in your second picture. Unfortunately it was prior to having my digital camera, and I have moved 2 times since taking the photo, so I am unsure of where my negative for it is, but it was an effect of light and a passing dust particle while taking the picture. The reason I am sure of this is because I too did not see anything while taking the picture, and I know I would have noticed something rather huge in the sky when I was taking my picture. I do not just snap a picture (mainly because I started out in photography when you wanted to get you best pictures on film to not waste the film especially if you were limited by the amount of rolls you had with you), I have to see an effect I like to take a picture, and I liked the way the sky looked (very similar to the way it looked in your picture), when I snapped my photo.

I do not know of the ease that this can be reproduced to have an almost exact image as the one you have captured, you need the light source to be in the same position, with clouds covering the sky in a similar way and a stray dust particle to come in the line of site in the right manner. To have all things line up precisely would not be an easy task, but I suppose it could be accomplished, if someone was persistent enough to have a go at it.

I could be wrong about the dust particle floating right before the picture was taken, but due to the fact when I snapped my photo, and I was certain there was nothing there when I did, the dust particle seems the most plausible deduction.

As for the first photograph, I am not sure about it, it does appear to look similar to a bug, I have seen in other photos, not an exact match but very similar. There were already examples of this provided.




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 

hello there
most plausible deduction. its not a dust partical sorry dude if you find the picture post it Im looking for evidence here not just here say thanks anyway.




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


thanks for the reply mmm its interesting to say the least thanks anyway.




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ufosbri
 


The fact remains that you did not see it at the time of the photo which means it is more likely a small dust particle that would not have been seen at the time the photo was taken, than that it was a large object flying in the sky, or you should have noticed it at the time the picture was taken.

What happens when you take a picture of clouds with sun behind them, if an object is close enough to the camera, and is small enough to see the entire picture behind it, it will appear much as the object in your photo, illuminated by the sun from behind giving it a glow.

There are other things that can cause a similar effect, but you should have noticed these at the time the photo was taken as well, which is why I am leaning towards the dust particle explanation.

Why do you think you would have captured something else in the photo and not noticed it when you took the photo? Do you just shoot photos of the sky and not look in the direction you are photographing, this makes even less sense.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 


Hello there

Yes I do take numerus photos of the sky click click click and no Im not looking all the time Thats whats called random photos if the object is moving at speed then I would have not seen it to me its really high up in the clouds The clouds are about 2 TO 3 thousand feet so the object must be a good size but not that big mabe 30 feet in size just a gess.

I have taken thousands of photos of the sun and the sky The dust thing just does not do it for me, or sun glare, out of all my phots I have nothing like it or close to it and no one else seems to have come up with anything close to it whch leaves me to think

It must be somthing else.
Cheers.


[edit on 24/09/2008 by ufosbri]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ufosbri
 


Then what do you believe it is?
Most here have given logical probabilities of what it is.
Yet you just keep saying "nope, not that" "cant be that" and so on without providing us why these logical probabilities are wrong.

Please tell us what you think it is.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufosbri
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


hello there I had a look at your photo as you can see the sun is visible right.
In my photo there is no SUN for that effect.


What do you think that great bright light shining through the clouds, producing crepuscular rays and making that section of the picture so overexposed was then?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by ufosbri
 


Mate, there are signs of dust in your first photo too:



Or are all these UFO orbs too?



Always a chance the invisible craft might show up as an orb.
Not from another dimension but from the surrounding black light.
They give off more radiation in black light than in normal light
due to pressure waves and the bright light is evidently very
bright and not long lasting

I'm sure my observations are in agreement with others using
the same scientific discoveries of Tesla.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I have all ready said what i think it is 2 or three times on this thread.

It is a silver Disk 30 feet in size mabe bigger mabe smaller but there about the object is moving at speed you can see a contrail effect as it moves into the cloud.

As no won on here CAN GIVE EVEDENCE of something similar in a picture or somthing else that looks similar I have to go with the UFO.
No won can prove otherwize.


[edit on 24/09/2008 by ufosbri]

[edit on 24/09/2008 by ufosbri]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufosbri
I have all ready said what i think it is 2 or three times on this thread.

It is a silver Disk 30 feet in size mabe bigger mabe smaller but there about the object is moving at speed you can see a contrail effect as it moves into the cloud.

As no won on here CAN GIVE EVEDENCE of something similar in a picture or somthing else that looks similar I have to go with the UFO.
No won can prove otherwize.


And yet you didn't see these things at the time...


First one is obviously a bug near to the camera - due to the illumination level, the fact that flash was used, the out of focus effect...

Second is less clear, however the ring effect and slightly out of focus suggests a lens flare or similar artefact, or something (perhaps a drop of moisture) on the sensor or on/in/near the lens that has caught the sunlight.

Normally I'd spend some more time looking at the images, but given that the 'won' person who posted this 'evedence' already has their mind made up, why would I investigate further..?

If he is serious about the claims, then I would like to see the images taken immediately before and after the second image, and also several test images taken by the same camera pointed at the same angle to the sun, using the same zoom setting if applicable, to see if there any issues with the lens/sensor. The effect may not be visible except under a very specific lighting angle.

As he claims to be taking thousands of photos of this type, then providing samples with the Sun in the same position shouldn't be a big deal.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I can confirm that the photos aren't post edited. There aren't any digital signatures of programs of that kind. So the object or the phenomena is real but questionable.

[edit on 26/8/10 by defiler]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I will have a look to see if theres any more photos that day same place noprobs If so I will post them tomoro.

cheers



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by defiler
 


So we have the real deal here a photo of a possible UFO.

Niceone



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufosbri
reply to post by defiler
 


So we have the real deal here a photo of a possible UFO.


Ufosbri.....

You do not "have the real deal here a photo of a possible UFO."

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I'm getting more and more convinced that we're getting one pulled on us.

Hey ufosbri: It's not a UFO. You've been given analysis, and reject it out of hand, you're turn to explain to everyone why you have believe so strongly that it isn't a trick of the light.

After that, please report it to the major news networks and a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it can be professionally examined. But you won't do that, because you're not actually interested in the truth, you're interested in thinking that you've got some sort of proof (even if that proof doesn't actually push UFOlogy forward).

Congratulations, be sure to feel very good about yourself while everyone around you actually works toward something rather than sitting behind a camera that's full of nothing but a whole roll of denial.

[edit on 8/26/2010 by EsSeeEye]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by defiler
I can confirm that the photos aren't post edited. There aren't any digital signatures of programs of that kind. So the object or the phenomena is real but questionable.

[edit on 26/8/10 by defiler]


First, may I point out that I'm not disputing that the images are or are not edited. I suspect not.

But unless you had access to the original media (did you?), I sincerely doubt that you can verify that they are unedited. If you do claim to have some methodology of accessing a file on non-original media and verifying it is unedited, please provide the details of what you did to confirm that.

Happy to be proven wrong...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
I just took a look at some of the other work of ufobri.

...

...

backs carefully out of thread...

Have fun with it, guys.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


I will quite happly hand this photo over to anyone that wants to look at it whats the problem no big deal.

I have rejected othere claims Like sun Glare NO WON ON HERE can back that claim by showing some evidence Prove it thats all Im asking but Your not going to are YOU.
No one is claiming anything else just sun glare 1 person said the sun itself but thats about it sorry mabe a water droplet there ya go.
No won on ATS can prove its sun glare. am I right or wrong.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join