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.

 

Morphing UFO Pictures you can even see the stars around it!

page: 10
30
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Blazer
 


all i know is they were removed the topic was getting to heated




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crayfish

Originally posted by tetsuo
Tearman, your gif, I just realized, shows the hot pixels as moving position within the image. This is not possible if they are actually hot pixels. Did you stretch out one of those two images? What about the 3rd frame in your animation?


The hot pixels are moving because Tearman centered the frame upon the object to make it stationary. In the original photos the hot pixels were staying in a fixed position and the object was moving, in Tearman's animation the object is staying still and the hot pixels are moving. That allows us to see what else is staying still in relation to the object and identify those as stars and not hot pixels.


To confirm what Crayfish has posted...



I realigned 2 frames so that the UFO was in the same spot in each frame. I discovered that in the realigned frames, several dots also appeared in exactly the same position relative the UFO. Because none of those dots appeared in static positions relative to the original alignment of the frames, I concluded that they likely were not hot pixels. Only these objects had a fixed position relative to the UFO in both frames.

There were several other pixel sized dots which were located in the same spot in each unaltered frame. Those dots appear to move in my animation because of the realignment. They did not have fixed positions relative to the UFO.

I think that there is a strong possibility that the object could have been the planet Jupiter, which was at mid-elevation in the eastern sky at that time; however, the OP's (presumably factual) statements seem to contradict that conclusion.

edit on 19-1-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 


this was not the planet Jupiter i know were Jupiter was in the sky and it wasnt venus either this was something totaly diffrent planets dont shot up into the sky with in mins..thanks for the reply



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by sugarcookie1
this was not the planet Jupiter i know were Jupiter was in the sky
Where was Jupiter in relation to this light?


planets dont shot up into the sky with in mins..thanks for the reply
The problem is that your photos show us a fixed light in the sky, not a light shooting up into the sky.

What we have in the photos really point to something like a planet.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
It was close to Jupiter but not that close ..yeah i wish i would have caught the thing shoting up into the sky but i didnt i was lucky to get what i got



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
First of all, let me just say that i am not doubting you or your photos.

I remember taking photos just like this as a child when i was about 10. I moved my camera side to side, up and down etc. while looking at a half moon. The resulting image was almost identical to your images.

However, one of the first images contained a star in the background, the star was perfectly normal. Could have been photo shopped, but could be a legit photo of a ufo.

In the future, try to get a video of any ufo's you see



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Do people really think this is jupiter? Why would jupiter show up in green on a camera? I mean the object appears to be green in color to me but maybe I'm wrong about.



I mean that's a photo of venus and jupiter from Nat Geo and neither of them look similar to the object's color in the orignal poster's photos.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Reptius
 


Lower quality cameras can produce chroma noise in green or purple. Pretty common.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by moldy4
 


hi moldy4
thanks for the reply..If you look back on the posts you will see there is no phoptoshoping invoved with these pics that was a proven fact ..



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Reptius
 


hello Reptius

thanks for the reply..well i dont belive it was a planet but i know in my heart what it was so thats all that matters



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
My friend,


Originally posted by sugarcookie1
reply to post by moldy4
 


hi moldy4
thanks for the reply..If you look back on the posts you will see there is no phoptoshoping invoved with these pics that was a proven fact ..


I absolutely agree


Though I still stand by the " Camera Movement " theory. We only have a few images to indicate that this was the cause. Having said that, we were not there to see it " shoot up into the sky " like you said it did so that leaves me believing that it was indeed camera movement.

Pity you didnt get it all on Video though, that would have been awesome to see


Be safe be well

Spiro



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiro
 


thanks for the reply..I wish i had a video camera cuz i would have done it that way instead of pics maybe this summer i can afford to get one ..right now im not takeing any pics way to cold outside plus snow up to my butt

have a wonderful night!



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Excellent images OP this is possibly the same thing I photographed on the 11th of NOV/2010. These were taken during the day in WNY check it out! abovetopsecret.com...

Great pics man!



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by cygnusX
 


I don't see why you say that, it looks nothing like your photos.

How can you compare a light in the night sky with some reflective object during the day?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by cygnusX
 


thank you for the reply i went to check the pics you put up on your thread but it wasnt working..I doubt they were the same as mine ..mine was taken at night..



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Dude comparing the pos that it may be the same object but at night ....not sure whats up with ATS and all these people who get real uptight about everything posted. It was a suggestion!



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 


Hi OP! If you scroll down a bit on main page/thread one member has cropped them for quick review! Also this member has posted them there with photo/meta-data at full size. Download and Review. Here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
In my original post on your thread I was stating the possibility of the same type of object but at night, due to the changing in shape and size.

What part of the country are you in?

Thanks!
edit on 5-2-2011 by cygnusX because: Just to say thanks



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by cygnusX
Dude comparing the pos that it may be the same object but at night ....
The object in your photos looks like some kind of metallic sheet twisting in the wind, the photos in this thread are from what looks like a planet, affected by camera shake during a long exposure.

Sure they can be compared, but in the same way we can compare a toy train with an orange; they don't look like the same thing in all aspects.



not sure whats up with ATS and all these people who get real uptight about everything posted. It was a suggestion!
Sure, it was a suggestion, but, in my opinion, an inapplicable suggestion.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Dude, give it a rest its not that big of a deal!



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by cygnusX
 


It's not, but I like to make things as clear as possible, to avoid misunderstandings.




top topics



 
30
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join