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: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Sure...but how would it get on there? Someone manually set up the camera for that? Is it a special version of the camera for those on official MOD business? A MOD special edition camera?




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Not sure but i thought those guys drive on the other side of the road..

Aren't their steering wheels supposed to be on the right side of the vehicle?

like i said..not really sure..



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by baddmove
Not sure but i thought those guys drive on the other side of the road..

Aren't their steering wheels supposed to be on the right side of the vehicle?

like i said..not really sure..


In the country of Turkey, drivers drive on the right hand side of the road. I would assume that the vehicle is set up for that style of driving as well.
For a complete list of right side left side driving countries see this site.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 



See...this is a photo taken with the SAME camera....notice...no copyright information on it...

EXAMPLE HERE


Now that's truly surprising.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by spikey
 


Sure...but how would it get on there? Someone manually set up the camera for that? Is it a special version of the camera for those on official MOD business? A MOD special edition camera?





Your guess is as good as mine i'm afraid.

If i had to imagine a scenario (being ex-army myself), i would say that a C.O. or NCO, would make it clear that all personal photographic equipment would be subject to checks for security purposes.

It may also be possible that any images taken with personal equipment would be required to pass through an MOD or base censor, again for security, in case anyone happened to take images of equipment or troop movements that would be considered sensitive or privileged..

Guessing, but considering Turkey borders Iraq, this might have something to do with it.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Well it does not happen for US Military....so who knows.

Something really only the OP can answer for us



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Lying about being banned from image shack.

Tampering with the links.

Faking the exif data on the images.

Wildly inaccurate dates in the claim compared to the exif.

Times of images (midday) in conflict with the shadows (dusk or dawn).

Using the 'bait and wait' technique.

Finally jumping ship.

Is it just possible that EricLintScD has been yanking our chains?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
source


By making some changes to your camera, you can embed your copyright information into your photograph at the second the image is taken, no need to do anything on your computer.

...

Fortunately though, as Flohr pointed out in his article, most cameras come with software and drivers to help you set up the camera. Most of those applications have the ability to to add author, copyright and other information.

That way, when the camera writes its regular Exif data to the image, it also writes the photographer information in, ensuring that it is added before the image leaves the camera. This leaves no room for human error and eliminates a step before putting the photo on the Web.

Needless to say, if you’re a photographer that enjoys putting photos on the Web, this is a step you should take immediately.


It looks as though if you use the software included with the camera anyone can add the copyright info to their images. It would make sense if this was a MOD owned camera that they would do this.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


Thank you for finding that and posting it! Helps a lot!



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I've been playing with the two pictures in photoshop CS5 for about 15 minutes now. The second image seems VERY suspect to me. Its casting a shadow....on the sky. It looks photoshopped in my opinion. Just looking at the pixel level, the pixels seem different underneath the "ufo".

I still have questions after looking closely at the pictures:
Why is this bubble/force field/whatever it is, different in the images?
Why is the "ufo" so off center in both images?
Why aren't either of the guys in the 2nd image looking at this "ufo"?
Oh and if the times in the exif data are correct, why are there only 2 pictures? You'd think someone would snap more than 2 pictures in that amount of time.

Nice try Eric. I'd choose a more gullible forum for your next hoax attempt.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Lying about being banned from image shack.

Tampering with the links.

Faking the exif data on the images.

Wildly inaccurate dates in the claim compared to the exif.

Times of images (midday) in conflict with the shadows (dusk or dawn).

Using the 'bait and wait' technique.

Finally jumping ship.

Is it just possible that EricLintScD has been yanking our chains?


Quite possibly....it is seaming like this is the case...
but why fake the MOD copyright??
A lapse of judgment? bad idea thought it would help his case??

It also has to be said for anyone who didnt read the whole thread...
the copyright questions was brought up well before his last post to this thread...
so either he thinking about a answer or he is just ignoring the question



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by spikey
 


Well it does not happen for US Military....so who knows.

Something really only the OP can answer for us


Well, it wasn't like that for me either, but then again the Army and I parted company in '86, and i wasn't fighting two wars at the time, so things might be very different by now.

Best thing is as you say, the OP should make it clear exactly why that information is there.

Failing that, are there any current or recent UK squaddies reading who would know whether or not this is a requirement these days?

Do images that you take on active duty have to be given a once over and ok'd by a censor at all?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
It looks a little bit like the one i saw long time ago when i was a kid, maybe like 15-16 years ago (10-11 years old). I never forget that....object i saw. Plus i wasn't the only one who saw it, my friend did, and one man from the neighbourhood too. It moved slowly, made no sound, flying above the trees, and one thing i remember is that the light...it didn't illuminate the trees. It took, maybe like..10-15mins before it flew too far to see. It wasn't very big either, maybe like a 2 Chevy Suburbans in line.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
But were there even British troops in Turkey this past September? That is the first questions that would need to be answered. Those do not look like troops - as they are wearing civi clothing. That is not a military vehicle.
edit on January 10th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


Not to be off topic, but, i did a google search for "Turkish army jeeps" and i didn't see any like in the second pic..

turkish army jeeps



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
But were there even British troops in Turkey this past September? That is the first questions that would need to be answered. Those do not look like troops - as they are wearing civi clothing. That is not a military vehicle.
edit on January 10th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)


I dont know if we can find that information, but I will state that my best friend is currently serving overseas for the USArmy, and while in Iraq a few years ago, multiple times had 'leave' in Turkey. By no means proof of any kind, but perhaps an explanation of civi clothing and vehicle.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by baddmove
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


Not to be off topic, but, i did a google search for "Turkish army jeeps" and i didn't see any like in the second pic..

turkish army jeeps


Finding the same stuff on my end, I am having a hard time finding militray vehicles that look like the one in the pic, but it may not be military, could be a civilian vehicle used on leave, or a personal vehicle that the mod employee had shipped over for personal use, I have seen that as well.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
But were there even British troops in Turkey this past September? That is the first questions that would need to be answered. Those do not look like troops - as they are wearing civi clothing. That is not a military vehicle.
edit on January 10th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)


Drawing a blank on British troops in Incirlik, i'll keep looking, but i did find this bit of information that may be another clue (or not)

It's a video diary from a soldier who was stationed there in 2008, in his video clip description, he says:

wn.com...



A Turkish soldier was inadvertently filmed approximately two minutes into the video. It's supposedly illegal to photograph the Turkish military.


Might be why they check or censor soldiers cameras..if they were in Turkey then that is.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Soldiers also do training in Turkey. I know one of my family members went for 6 weeks for training last year.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Its probably just a tourist hired jeep.




top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join