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.

 

The Clearest UFO Photo You have ever Seen?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
being new to this site I Love this thread! Its the sort of thread that should be 'stickyed' Kudos to and a flag to the starter of the thread.

Some of the older images with 'damage' to the surface of the image are of most interest to me as being a professional photographic restorer I know how hard it is to achieve that sort of effect. Usually even the best restorers leave signs that they've been there. Photographs taken before computers and digital photography were available are by far my favourite.




posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



What's the story with that one Zorgon?



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project-Sign
I think this is quite good.

i.imagehost.org...

Easily fakeable however, and probably is, but it's a good one.


Its an iphone app



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
This is mine, I was 15 at the time..it was undoubtedly something other than an everyday aircraft of the time. I found this report a couple of years back and was very surprised the someone else witnessed it.

Its the one and only sighting I've experienced.

www.nuforc.org...



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
The Belgium Triangle case has some fairly good photos. But what makes it a credible case is that it's backed up with military radar information,
Are you talking about the radar information that said the UFOs were flying underground? That's impossible, right?

This is a case where radar data supposedly confirmed visual sightings, when it fact it doesn't, quite the opposite. Not only are the radar data bad, but the pilots didn't even see the UFOs.

The UFO files documentary starts at about 1 minute into this video:



And Haines says the photo isn't a forgery at 7m but then at 7m45s, someone shows how they reproduced the photo, implying that Haines might be wrong.

The revelation about the bad radar data is at 8m20s and continues at the beginning of the next part:




posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by wisintel
I would love to start a photo collection thread of the most credible clear UFO photos you have ever come across.
There is quite a collection here:

www.ufocasebook.com...

Some are more credible than others but credibility is in the eye of the beholder so who knows what you would find credible. You may want to have a look.

This is my favorite since I know it's not a fake, but it's been identified as part of an airplane since this was taken:


That's from the Oldfield film.
edit on 17-11-2010 by Arbitrageur because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
What's the story with that one Zorgon?


Oh that little thing? Its taken out of the window of STS61... It's one of those things Jim Oberg likes to call 'space debris'




posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The analysis of the Radar data is wholly and completely flawed. The professor who teaches Radar courses to the people who operate them in Belgium has a completely different view on it all. Why would you ask an astro physicist how to interpret Radar data? You might as well ask them to explain DNA as well.

As for faking the photo, well of course you can fake any photo, so what? The attempt at copying the photo was done years afterwards when computer graphics had moved on a considerable amount and as Haynes points out, you can't do it down to the grain level and remain consistent. There were some quite lengthy sightings of the triangle where no radar return was seen at all.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   


Well I guess that isn't really a UFO



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
check these ufos out and an obduction in process to. www.youtube.com... Also, www.youtube.com... and don't forget the captured grey. www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
The analysis of the Radar data is wholly and completely flawed.
Even the pro-UFO organization SOBEPs eventually agreed that the first 8 radar lockons were caused by EM interference, but after admitting they agreed those 8 were bad, they still wanted to hang on to #9 as "interesting", is that the one you're talking about? If so, I'll give you that, however it seems like quite a stretch to hang on to #9 as interesting instead of realizing that if there were problems with radar lockons 1-8, that the confidence in what #9 tells us shouldn't be real high.


As for faking the photo, well of course you can fake any photo, so what? The attempt at copying the photo was done years afterwards when computer graphics had moved on a considerable amount and as Haynes points out, you can't do it down to the grain level and remain consistent. There were some quite lengthy sightings of the triangle where no radar return was seen at all.
Yes, there were sightings not backed up by radar data, but what I was disputing specifically was the claim that radar data back up sightings in any way...they don't. The pilots never even saw the radar objects (apparently because they weren't there, as SOBEPs agreed they were mostly the result of EM interference). Why would SOBEPs agree with the analysis if it's so flawed?

Regarding the photo being faked, the most famous photo discussed in the video is suspect because nobody seems to know who the photographer is. Anonymous photos (or videos) simply aren't as credible as photos or videos with identifiable sources (Not that we can trust every photo where we know the source).

Of course none of this proves it's a fake as you said, but there are plenty of photos out there where the source is known where we don't have to guess why the source is anonymous. I would also say that people have been faking photos since the at least 1950s, so you don't need photoshop to fake a photo.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by nite owl
check these ufos out and an obduction in process to. www.youtube.com... Also, www.youtube.com... and don't forget the captured grey. www.youtube.com...


OMG...
...you actually believe those are real...
This is your answer, people, as to why there are people on youtube who fake UFO videos...THIS POSTER and the majority of the UFO..believers...



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Wasn't that proven to be a piece of heat shield or something Zorgon?

IRM



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
reply to post by zorgon
 


Wasn't that proven to be a piece of heat shield or something Zorgon?

IRM


Yes it was.

Piece of thermal insulation tile floats near the Shuttle Columbia



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Project-Sign
I think this is quite good.

i.imagehost.org...

Easily fakeable however, and probably is, but it's a good one.




I protest this thread on account that even if you had a real picture of an ET craft, a viable argument could still be made that it is terrestrial, on account that there's no publicly available ET craft for use as a reference point.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
The one in my avatar - Nashville, 1986 or 89, can't remember.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by subby
The one in my avatar - Nashville, 1986 or 89, can't remember.


Impressive, but that was proven a long time ago to be a disco light set-up.

DISCO FEVER



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Well I guess that isn't really a UFO


It's really not very clear, either. There's very little contrast to the thing, such that it looks like it could be just flat cut-outs or forced perspective, and almost no detail. I mean, look at that far right underside dome. You can actually see where it's pasted onto the photo.

Also, knowing the Nazi/German proclivity for documentation and taking very good photos of everything, I find it difficult to believe this was taken by anyone in Germany.
edit on 18-11-2010 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The chasing Aircraft achieved weapons lock on even if they did not actually make visual contact with the object. In fact they made several weapons lock ons with the object and every time they did, the object simply skipped out of range. I don;t know what you are trying to prove but you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that, at least 2 ground bases and 2 aircraft tracked the same object performing the exactly same manoeuveres in the sky over Belgium. it really doesn't matter if it was once or a hundred times.

Your ..even they admit the 8.. is a complete and utter red herring. They took all the anomalous radar reports for a certain period to check if any might be the objects that were being reported visually but NOT being seen on Radar. The data for the multiple tracks is a completely separate set of data.

It's just typical of this whole subject that when the leading expert in a field in a given country says one thing there's a whole slew of people happy to accept the word of those who have northing to do with that field at all.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by subby
The one in my avatar - Nashville, 1986 or 89, can't remember.


Impressive, but that was proven a long time ago to be a disco light set-up.

DISCO FEVER



Wow. That website is pure disinfo. Not one fact or any real evidence that debunks the photos. There is talk of photos that reveal background props but where are they? They don't exist. There is talk of blown up anaylsed evidence but where is it? It doesn't exist. Seriously, I'm not falling for that.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join