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.

 

Cloaked Triangle UFO - Think I got one

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger


Sorry, but this is why UFOology is a joke!
How on earth do you jump to the wild conclusion that is a UFO, let alone a "cloaked" one?!



That IS the very definition of UFO ! unidentified, flying, object, .....

Thought the cloaked triangle bit is just the OP's own personal belief.

.... If you could see it's lights, ... then its not quite a cloaked UFO is it ??

Aliens = Fail.

As has been pointed out, it's not a true triangle, so it could be anything, to label it is only speculation.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by IntastellaBurst]




posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
I see the three dots. The thing is, any three dots, no matter the arrangement, will always form a triangle (unless they are on a single line).

These could be three plastic bags kicked up high by the wind. Or three motes of dust on the lens or inside the focal range of the camera, so they aren't well resolved.

Three dots are just that, three dots, unless you can show more than that.

[edit on 8/29/2010 by LifeInDeath]


The dots/lights would not move in concert if they were, and they wouldn't be so similar. It is obvious the camera was not moved significantly during the shoot.

I think the OP might have caught something.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by slane69]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by IntastellaBurst
 


Cameras, still and video, pick up much more at the ends of the spectrum than the human eye. Cloaked to the human eye is not necessarily cloaked to a camera. Considering the expense likely involved in this technology, if it does exist, there is likely leakage a the spectrum ends.

No one said aliens and a triangle seen on an oblique angle can look very different.

Not saying it is but not discounting it either.



[edit on 29-8-2010 by slane69]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
It looks interesting to me that the three dots form almost an equilibrium triangle. Aside from that I see no reason to call it a cloaked triangle craft.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by slane69
reply to post by IntastellaBurst
 


Cameras, still and video, pick up much more at the ends of the spectrum than the human eye. Cloaked to the human eye is not necessarily cloaked to a camera.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by slane69]


This is completely true, try pressing the button on a remote control and taking a picture of the end with a digital camera, you will be able to photograph the invisible infra red light quite easily, it shows up as a kind of white blue color.

I would also point out as a matter of stating the obvious that any three object (unless they are in a completely straight line) form a triangle, no matter what configuration you put them in



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Bah! you lack imagination, let alone good vision...
The fact that the three dots keep station with each other could indicate a cloaked object...or not....
What the bloomin hell are these thing anyways,,,,?they are at least three ufos if not one contiguous one...
We already have passive cammo which shows the view seen from the other side of an object on the visible side.and vice versa of course....
In other words its as if one were looking through the object and beyond it....so why not a cloacked ship?
Though it may be simply an intuitive call on the ops part its not inapropriate either....
Definately need some photo interpreting people over here....
good find!



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
If this is indeed a genuin, unbrushed image sequence...

you've just given DISCLOSURE another ticket to reality lol...

Those points of light are indeed moving, in sequence and in harmony with the flow around them... S&F for such and effort!



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I looked very closely though I could see any ufo or formation,unless you are talking about the red point in the first photo. Clouds maybe?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
Bah! you lack imagination, let alone good vision...
The fact that the three dots keep station with each other could indicate a cloaked object...or not....
What the bloomin hell are these thing anyways,,,,?they are at least three ufos if not one contiguous one...
We already have passive cammo which shows the view seen from the other side of an object on the visible side.and vice versa of course....
In other words its as if one were looking through the object and beyond it....so why not a cloacked ship?
Though it may be simply an intuitive call on the ops part its not inapropriate either....
Definately need some photo interpreting people over here....
good find!


The pics where taken for a HDR shot on my full frame Nikon D700 12.1 mp with a 1400 pound lens. The 3 images are bracketed -1 , 0, +1. So it's not an exposure issue or dust. I have adjusted the contrast on the over exposed image so you can see the formation. It's a cropped shot from the main shot but the 3 photo were all taken in RAW format which means a direct dump of the CCD. If someone would like the original raw images for studying then this can be arranged. They are about 16mb each. These are photographs I took.

This looks the same to me.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

These are genuine shots and not a prank! To appreciate the shots you must see the images in sequence so you can see the movement.

Why was this thread moved?

[edit on 30/8/10 by The Asgard]

[edit on 30/8/10 by The Asgard]

[edit on 30/8/10 by The Asgard]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by The Asgard
 

close but no "smoking gun" the dots of light do not form a triangle. yes i do see the three dots but as far as there reference to each other does not cut it, the ones i have seen all three point equal the same point a to b to c, or c to a to b, or a to c to b. keep looking your on to them.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by The Asgard
 

close but no "smoking gun" the dots of light do not form a triangle. yes i do see the three dots but as far as there reference to each other does not cut it, the ones i have seen all three point equal the same point a to b to c, or c to a to b, or a to c to b. keep looking your on to them.


Surley this depends on the viewpoint and the position of what ever it is? The thing could be on it's side, turning .... Wether a single object or 3 separate objects it/they move and they are on 3 separate frames. The good thing is on the full image there are lots of static objects for reference.

[edit on 30/8/10 by The Asgard]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Are the dots showing up on any of your other photos? Could be pixels are buggered up. Got one or two on my camera.

Equally though they could be fairies, aka dandelion seed. They have a way of looking kind of out of focus and far away. They're everywhere atm.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by wigit
Are the dots showing up on any of your other photos? Could be pixels are buggered up. Got one or two on my camera.

Equally though they could be fairies, aka dandelion seed. They have a way of looking kind of out of focus and far away. They're everywhere atm.


Nope there are no hot or stuck pixels it's only when you have a long exposure 2 secs with high iso that they will show up. I have 1 at iso 3200 after2 secs. I checked when I did some nighttime photography. These shots are at iso 200 I think with a fast shutter. They are also far too big for 3 pixels out of 12 million, you would have to be zoomed in a log way to say an individual pixel.

No seeds it's a long shot. I will post up a uncropped image later.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by The Asgard
 

I saw the three lights........it does look cloaked, or other dimensional - that has warped out.

interesting...........looks big too.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 

A closed mind and proud heart gathers no knowledge.

Really look at the photo.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Rights I have uploaded the uncropped images and joined the 3 dots with a black line. This should help the people who have trouble seeing the object. I was hoping to upload the full picture but the ATS server failed so I have limited it to 1600x

Please save out the 3 images. When you flick between the images you can clearly see the movement of the object. It looks big! Remeber the 3 frames where took about 300ms apart. While looking at some of my other shots took at the same time I found another object. I have uploaded this too.

These shots are genuine.

Media



[edit on 30/8/10 by The Asgard]

[edit on 30/8/10 by The Asgard]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by babybunnies
 

A closed mind and proud heart gathers no knowledge.

Really look at the photo.

seriously?
"cloaking"
is a Star Trek term,
Let's at least try to view this without Hollywood involved.

And then Zorg say's to Gorg "let's cloak the craft,.. but leave the lights visible."

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Lil Drummerboy]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by The Asgard
 


Hello OP, I am a believer in ET ufo's but I must ask . If You have the ability to cloak a whole spaceship , why would you leave out 3 distinct points on the outer edges of the ship visible ? I mean that is counterproductive to the assumption that you want to be invisible .



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thill
reply to post by The Asgard
 


Hello OP, I am a believer in ET ufo's but I must ask . If You have the ability to cloak a whole spaceship , why would you leave out 3 distinct points on the outer edges of the ship visible ? I mean that is counterproductive to the assumption that you want to be invisible .


To be clear I DID NOT see the thing with the naked eye. Obviously the sensor on the camera did. We see only a minute part of the spectrum. Could these points be giving of some form of energy that the camera is picking up?

Would be easier if I just said invisible rather than cloaked?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Good catch! The question is: What type of craft is it?

It's not exactly a cloaking device (as from the movies). It's a photographic imagery type device that transposes what you normally see above an aircraft, onto the bottom of the craft. Like a screen monitor. It is very high tech, but simple to do. Makes the craft appear invisible!

Here's a brief example for motion camouflage, which has since been demonstrated in ‘dog fighting’ male dragonflies. If an animal is able to maintain its position on a constraint line linking the moving target and a distant point its image does not move over the target’s retina. The illusion of zero apparent motion is created and the pursuer can mimic a stationary object located at the convergence point.

There are other examples available. Perhaps one of the easiest to use is the idea of the common "blind spot" when driving. You hear about people having wrecks all the time, and saying, "I didn't see them!" Well the principle is the same. If you don't know where to look, you won't see it.

You Asgard, looked in the right spot at the right time.

I would love to see the actual craft.


[edit on 30-8-2010 by Speedforhire]

[edit on 30-8-2010 by Speedforhire]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join