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.

 

UFO photo.

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I've updated OP with Google maps link, its like 100% precise, but 90%

Kindest Regards

Eric.




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by EricLintScD
I've updated OP with Google maps link, its like 100% precise, but 90%

Kindest Regards

Eric.


And the other pics?



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Ahhh, where's the rest of the photo? With a proper sized image it may be easier to explain the anomoly.
My bad! I shouldn't have had so much faith in my slow Internet connection and assumed it had fully loaded... Got full pic, now to analyze!
edit on 9/1/2011 by TOMFROMOZ because: Undeserved criticism.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TOMFROMOZ
 


That is the original image, isn't it big enough for you??

Kindest regards.

Eric.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by EricLintScD
reply to post by TOMFROMOZ
 


That is the original image, isn't it big enough for you??

Kindest regards.

Eric.


Can you please address my post? Why would you not present all evidence (photos) if you truly wish to get analysis?
edit on January 9th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I heard you, but like i said, im testing the water to see if these forums are actually worthy of these photos, they aren't crap, they are very clear and probably the best on these forums, so until i get a valid response i wont post another, please examine what i've already posted FIRST.

Kindest regards.

Eric



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by EricLintScD
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I heard you, but like i said, im testing the water to see if these forums are actually worthy of these photos, they aren't crap, they are very clear and probably the best on these forums, so until i get a valid response i wont post another, please examine what i've already posted FIRST.

Kindest regards.

Eric


Worthy? This is the best place online you can have UFO photos analyzed. Fakes and hoaxes are debunked. Real unidentified photos are debated, researched and picked apart in hopes of finding truth.

Just like in a court of law...you hold back evidence, the case is bunk and dead in the water.

You have tested the waters....now we are asking for the rest of the photos you have that show this unidentified object.

What kind of valid response are you looking for? You are telling us you have more evidence of this object...yet hold back.. Makes no sense.
edit on January 9th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I've posted a very very clear photo of a UFO, nobody has given me any good reason why its not real but calling it a hoax? on what account? this is the reason why i will not post any other until this one has been properly examined.

Kindest regards

Eric.

PS: i will be back online tomorrow to read the response and post another photo.


Kindest regards

Eric.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by EricLintScD
 


People call hoax early because we have had a few over the years. Withholding other photographs and info is really not helping your case. You seem to be confident of these pics, so giving us all the info will make the UFO buffs jobs easier. I think treating them this way will royally p*ss them off and they may be inclined to write you off. That would be a shame.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Read this complete thread...

You will not find better analysis anywhere online.....
ATS has the best members around that can figure this stuff out. And when one purposely hides evidence for whatever reason....it raises flags....why? Because we have all been down this road a zillion times.... [see above link]



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by EricLintScD
 


Oh man more pictures that can say any number of thousand's of words eh. It could be any number of things, and im sure many would say things from swamp gas to light reflections, to glares to pixel something or other, to its fake and edited, to it could be an alien ship in disguise as a cloud, those sneaky aliens eh.
But its definitely an unidentified flying object at this point. Anyways if you had more pictures why not post them all? Post the dam things if you have them.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EricLintScD
 



Hi there, is that a cam at the top right side of the photo? If it is, any chance you could obtain a copy as it may have recorded the object also?

Im not sure if this is a reflection but I'm sure a few more pages will tell!



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Interesting, 3 full jeeps witnesses ....
this could be a big thread



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by EricLintScD
 


What a cliffhanger! I can't wait to be teased a little more.

Here's some exif data (obtained from Jeffery's Exif Viewer)

I'm no exif pro, but it doesn't look like the picture was altered unless the exif data itself was tweaked.



Basic Image Information
Copyright: � Crown Copyright/MOD 2010
Camera: Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR
Lens: 6.4 mm
(Max aperture f/3.2)
Exposure: Not Defined, 1/111 sec, f/9
Flash: none
Focus: At 0mm
Date: September 29, 2010 12:00:00AM (timezone not specified)
(3 months, 10 days, 16 hours, 9 minutes, 33 seconds ago, assuming an image timezone of US Pacific)
File: 2,112 × 2,816 JPEG (5.9 megapixels)
2,811,625 bytes (2.7 megabytes) Image compression: 84%
Color Encoding:
WARNING: No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile: Windows and Mac web browsers treat colors randomly.
Images for the web are most widly viewable when in the sRGB color space and with an embedded color profile. See my Introduction to Digital-Image Color Spaces for more information.
Main JPG image displayed here at 16% width (1/39 the area of the original)

click to show histogram

Here's the full data:

EXIF — this group of metadata is encoded in 648 bytes (0.6k)

Aperture Value inf
Brightness Value 9.01
Compressed Bits Per Pixel 4
Copyright %a9 Crown Copyright/MOD 2010
Create Date 2010:09:29 00:00:00
3 months, 10 days, 16 hours, 9 minutes, 33 seconds ago
Date/Time Original 2010:09:29 00:00:00
3 months, 10 days, 16 hours, 9 minutes, 33 seconds ago
Exif Image Size 2,816 × 2,112
Exif Version 0210
Exposure Compensation 0
Exposure Program Not Defined
Exposure Time 1/111
F Number 9.0
Flash No Flash
Focal Length 6.4 mm
Light Source Unknown
Make FUJIFILM
Max Aperture Value 3.2
Camera Model Name FinePix F200EXR
Modify Date 2010:09:29 00:00:00
3 months, 10 days, 16 hours, 9 minutes, 33 seconds ago
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Resolution 72 pixels/inch
Shutter Speed Value 1/111
Software Digital Camera FinePix F200EXR Ver1.20
Subject Distance 0 m
XP Comment S22
Y Cb Cr Positioning Unknown (65535)
ExifTool

Warning [minor] Unknown APP14 segment
Ducky

Copyright
Quality 100%
JFIF

JFIF Version 1.02
Resolution 100 pixels/None
File — basic information derived from the file.

Bits Per Sample 8
Color Components 3
Encoding Process Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Exif Byte Order Little-endian (Intel, II)
File Size 2.7 MB
File Type JPEG
Image Size 2,816 × 2,112
MIME Type image/jpeg
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
Composite
This block of data is computed based upon other items. Some of it may be wildly incorrect if the image has been resized.

Aperture 9.0
Focal Length 6.4 mm
Shutter Speed 1/111


Assuming the picture isn't a hoax with altered exif data, I'd assume it's a lens effect until we see more pictures. I'll go ahead and echo the obvious concerns about the OP's avoidance and inflated self-importance as a red flag about this image.

Manufactured hoax? Doesn't really look like it. Maybe the purposeful misidentification of a simple explanation that isn't photographed well. Maybe a real misidentification.

Unfortunately, if it's not hoaxed, and not a misidentification, it's still an amorphous blob of light that gives no answers to any questions, so it's not very worthwhile in the overall investigation of UFOs.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Here's a close up:



I don't understand why you refuse to upload more pics, please upload all pics, from this image only is hard to make any real research, what is it do you want? only for people to say oh yeah that's a ufo, great stuff!!!! and so on? or for people to do real research and find out what it is, whatever the final outcome is?

Also, please don't go and say something like "because of the bad reactions from ATS members i'll not post the rest of the pictures and will take them to another site, bad luck for you, other site will get the privilege of examining my ufo pictures, won't you wish you had treated me better?". Please don't do something like that, i've seen that before, instead, just post the pics, you won't lose anything by posting them



Kai



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Perhaps he saw something different than the bright light in the photos.
Any chance of a few glimpses between the light flashes or a drawing
with some details.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by EricLintScD
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I heard you, but like i said, im testing the water to see if these forums are actually worthy of these photos, they aren't crap, they are very clear and probably the best on these forums, so until i get a valid response i wont post another, please examine what i've already posted FIRST.

Kindest regards.

Eric

How can you decide if ATS is worthy of analyzing your photos if you give us only one photo?


I think the very fact that most of us on ATS are asking for your additional photos of the object before passing judgment shows that we are "worthy" to analyze them. If ATS had said anything definitive about this incident based on only one photo, then they would NOT be worthy.

Your other photos may be vital in trying to figure out what the object is. With only the photo you posted, anything we say is simply wild speculation. More evidence is needed before we can get rid of the "wild" in "wild speculation".


edit on 1/9/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by EricLintScD
 


Oh man, your full of it aren't you? But I can help you out here, these forums are not "worthy" of the evidence you want to present if it is anything like the CRAP your OBVIOUSLY trying to push.

Best photos on these forums you would present my butt. Pedal your BS elsewhere, even the most open minded of our members can see straight through you, sorry. Get your attention someplace else.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


Calm down guy's, give Eric a bit of slack why don't ya..He will put the pictures up or maybe he will go somewhere more friendly. We have the exif data thanks to EsSeeEye. So, hold your horses until you have the full picture..(so to speak) goodnight.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Do you not understand that more pics only corroborates your story and helps your case be taken serious?!
Why would you not want to be taken serious. You have nothing to lose with providing more evidence.

And that comment about being worthy, I will ignore for now.




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join