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: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Let me dig through my photos and see what ive got and thanks for the reply




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


thank you stirling ..Its ok if people dont belive the pics are real i know they are and thats all that matters..thanks for the warm words



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


So then why arent the stars in the background distorted as well? They look pretty clear to me



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
there are some very good and intelligent answers guys


all i can come up with is that you did say the object was stationary yet the stars are in different positions in the different shots, i know stars move duh lol however not that much unless the photos were taken over an hour maby even an hour and half i dunno, OP can you shed some light please ty and nice pics



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by iversusvsversusi
 


thank you iversusvsversusi
and yes there is alot in the skys to see cool nights seem the best.. right now its to cold to be out lots of snow here i cant wait for spring so i can get out again and take more pics



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by simples
 


the pics were taken within mins of each other



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I have other pics up also on another thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 


I am far from doubting your pix and i am far from been an expert but can you think why in your opinion it mite seem the stars move?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Here is a reconstruction of what OP would have seen in the sky...



Time UFO took to Maneuver between photos.

First Frame:
22:12:03

Second Frame:
22:13:05

Third Frame:
22:13:16

From the times we can be 100% certain it wasnt a comet, astroid or meteor, these wouldnt stop in mid air for 11 seconds...
edit on 16-1-2011 by Itop1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by simples
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 


I am far from doubting your pix and i am far from been an expert but can you think why in your opinion it mite seem the stars move?


The stars don't move, they just fade in and out, this is due (i think) to not enough light reaching the camera sensor, kind of thing... if you zoom in, all the stars are there just very feint.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 


If you find them, please post them without resizing or any other processing.

Thanks in advance.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by Hellas
 


So then why arent the stars in the background distorted as well? They look pretty clear to me


I explained that before.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
About the stars in the photos, can someone point to where they are and their movement?

I think that most of the things I see are hot pixels on the sensor.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I would also like to add that this object is NOT blurred, i would have found this straight away using photoshop if it was, which is very easy to detect a blur, these are just very bright, not blurred.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by simples
 


I have no idea (sorry) im no expert on this stuff all i did was take the pics



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Why lie about using a shutter trigger? To me that says something about the legitimacy right there. I'm not trying to be confrontational right here, but Sugarcookie, why not just come out and say, "Yeah, perhaps I should have used a manual trigger, or a different camera that is compatible with one." Not, " I made my own custom shutter trigger."

Lol, come on.


It's those little details that make me want to ignore this, because if you can't even be honest about your story, how am I to accept your pictures as honest?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I will be more then happy to if i have them.. im waiting for my hubby to get home and he can sort through all the pics ,,thanks



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


thank you so much and that is what i saw



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Looking at the images with some photoshop image filters and stuff, I cannot see anything anomalous or indicative of manipulation. Good scores in JpegSnoop (class 2). The images have been resized via some editing program.

They are 800x600 pixels, but the camera does not have that as a default resolution: www.fujifilmusa.com...

However, I do not see any sign that the images have been edited besides saving them at a lower resolution. There are no obvious signs of cut-n-paste or anything of that nature. All in all, the photos aren't really that spectacular. They clearly show *something*, but... not much of something.

2sec exposure with a shaky camera would have rendered the stars in the background invisible or given them little faint trails from the longer exposure. This image does NOT look like it was taken with a shaky hand! We can see some background stars despite the intense brightness of the object in question - in my opinion, the camera would have had to be still for the background stars to show up behind the quite bright object. Furthermore, the stars are in the same exact spot in each photo. This tells us that the camera was on a tripod for the duration of these shots.

It looks like the object is either emitting its own light or a very shiny (but "fluffy" object, it doesn't look like it would be a very solid object if it is just reflecting light). Without any reference besides the stars, it is difficult to assess the size and elevation of whatever this is. However, with the stars in the background, we know this is either 100% sky (no land or anything else visible), OR a photo of something on land in the dark and there are some lights on in the distance. It really looks like sky to me, though, based on the texture and color gradients. Don't think its a photo of a mountain or field or dark countryside. It would be very difficult to convince me that this is anything but a photo of the night sky, all things considered.

My personal, more subjective thoughts: This is an object moving in the sky, emitting a pulsing light at a frequency 1.5 Hz or below (we see up to 3 light emissions per 2 seconds exposure) and moving about. It could also be a steady light which either morphs shape, or just rotates around as it moves so that we can see more of its shape. The light is bright and fairly uniform, indicating a scalar (at least not vector or directional) emission of light. Could be anything. I don't see anything that tells me that this is something mundane or something stranger. It seems to be a real photo of something that is really there, but the object emitting photons is not visible and it really could be anything. A grouping of chinese lanterns, an extradimensional light entity dancing about, or a few cotton balls with a really nice flashlight pointed at them.

It's not a hoax IMO, it's a set of legit pictures of something which we cannot identify but which does not lend itself to any particular identification.

Can you elaborate on what you saw with your own eyes? Did it look like an amoeba morphing? Or did it look like a single, solid and unchanging object rotating as it moved? Were there any sounds or flashing/pulsing lights? Did it look like an amorphous blob for the duration of the sighting?

Thanks for posting these great pics! I would have uploaded images of my photoshop tinkerings, but honestly there is nothing to see there. No extra detail shown or additional info to be gleaned from photoshop besides that this looks like a totally unedited (except for resizing) photo of some light source in the sky.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SaosinEngaged
 


Im not going to come out and say anything and i really dont like being called a lier thanks for the reply



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join