UFO over South Africa on Google Earth, very clear picture

page: 2
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Looks like Bob Lazar got hold off some element 115 and out for a test ride




posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
It's Bob Lazar's infamous "Sport Model" ufo from S4/Papoose Lake at area 51.






edit on 7/15/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: reordered photos



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Dalke07
 
well i have just copied over 100 photos of ufos from google earth and they do not look this good.Looks like a photoshop job to me.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dalke07

Sun position - reflection on object is similar to house shadow ..

I hope some can give us max. info of this picture ..
edit on 15-7-2011 by Dalke07 because: (no reason given)




Yup thats what I checked for first up well done



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
ummm what the hell??? isn't google earth supposed to be "serious"?? why would they photoshop that "ufo" there, just trolling, it's like NASA photoshoped some aliens on the pictures they take.
edit on 15-7-2011 by manticorex5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
It's Bob Lazar's infamous "Sport Model" ufo from S4/Papoose Lake at area 51.






edit on 7/15/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: reordered photos





Infamous to the majority famous to the few


I take it those ports on the upper deck are closed during flight, its an uncanny resemblance isnt it



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by imawlinn
Cracks me up! Every single piece of evidence brought forth is immediately called photosopped or cgi. At this rate even genuine evidence will be discarded. Until people open their minds to what is possible, disclosure will never happen. Besides, unless you have seen an actual alien craft first hand, please don't comment with "it looks to good" or " looks too obvious". Those comments just make people look ignorant, imo.





Well thats the norm these days but its a bit more modern than shouting swamp gas! balloon! chinese lantern! venus!



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I don't know about photo shopping. I got my BFA in photography and cinema in 1988. I would say it looks very real based on my degree from that time period. The shadows match that of the house's. The only way to know is to get a look at the very orginal image. People seem to have a problem with being presented with a possible real image. So many people are in denial. I saw something real in 2009, and I have my own denial moments. If you start to have tramatic dreams afterwards you probably saw something real. It is the way your mind copes with reality.
Otherwise the rational brain will say: no, I imagined it. Real objects mean you have to deal with the reality of something unpleasant is lurking around.
edit on 15-7-2011 by frugal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by frugal
I don't know about photo shopping. I got my BFA in photography and cinema in 1988. I would say it looks very real based on my degree from that time period. The shadows match that of the house's. The only way to know is to get a look at the very orginal image. People seem to have a problem with being presented with a possible real image. So many people are in denial. I saw something real in 2009, and I have my own denial moments. If you start to have tramatic dreams afterwards you probably saw something real. It is the way your mind copes with reality.
Otherwise the rational brain will say: no, I imagined it. Real objects mean you have to deal with the reality of something unpleasant is lurking around.
edit on 15-7-2011 by frugal because: (no reason given)


I never see so clear picture ..

I try to find some information but cant say this picture are hoax ..

We need more people here maybe some photo expert ..
edit on 16-7-2011 by Dalke07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Panoramic photo by Vasiliy Nikitenko

Taken 03:58, 20/09/2010 - Views 1,100

www.360cities.net...,13.89,110.0



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dalke07


lol

Check your self ..

34°21'12.33"S 18°29'24.02"E






As somebody said google take there mapping service very seriously that's not to say a rouge programmer hasn't slipped this picture in. On the other hand it could turn out to be the most important picture of a UFO ever taken if proved real. Very interesting although I think the shape is too stock ufo to be real I would have been more impressed if it had been a new shape design that we hadn't seen before.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
I have a fair knowledge of photo-manipulation and to be very honest , when I first saw this , my reaction was " it's too good " .
Then I uploaded the image into photoshop to get a better look . Now , here's where it gets very interesting .
If you zoom in to the UFO you will notice a degree of pixilisation around the edges . This usually appears when an object has been pasted ( albeit poorly ) into an image , so this rang alarm bells .
Now , and heres the clincher , If you look at the peak of the hill below the UFO , that too is showing signs of pixilisation.
So my conlusion is , if the UFO is not real , based soley on the amount of pixilisation , then the hill is not real either . Since we can say for sure that the hill is there and does exist , then the same must be said for the UFO.
My findings are based soley on the facts that I have to go on and until somebody can offer a better explanation , I have to conclude that the image is GENUINE.

Peace.

Terry



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Please don't forget flag, this picture need more people so all can see end discussion ..

I put some picture of playing with different option in photo-editor tool ..

Sharped on max, like some heat of edges or other disorders ..



Negative ..









edit on 16-7-2011 by Dalke07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by tarifa37
 


I don't understand this logic, it looks "too common" to be real? I'm not claiming the image is genuine as it's beyond my expertise but doesn't it add credence when similar objects are observed/photographed/recorded?

From my sole UFO encounter I can say it had far more in common with traditional UFO descriptions and images (metallic saucers and cigars) rather than new with balls of light, black triangles, etc.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   
360 panoramic photos have a unique problem, namely moving objects tend to blur or show up in different places.

Case in Point, recognise this guy?



The UFO, in theory should turn up elsewhere.

It is possible that it was moving too fast to be captured twice but if this was the case, it should exhibit motion blur and it doesn't.

Odds are it was added by Vasiliy Nikitenko.

edit on 16/7/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
360 panoramic photos have a unique problem, namely moving objects tend to blur or show up in different places.

Case in Point, recognise this guy?



The UFO, in theory should turn up elsewhere.

It is possible that it was moving too fast to be captured twice but if this was the case, it should exhibit motion blur and it doesn't.

Odds are it was added by Vasiliy Nikitenko.


edit on 16/7/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

Thats a crap theory .
Based on what you a saying , the guy in the hood should be in every shot too .
Maybe he was photoshopped by Vasiliy Nikitenko ?


edit on 29/05/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tpg65
 


Good to see you haven't a clue.

Re-read what I said.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by tpg65
 


Good to see you haven't a clue.

Re-read what I said.


No need to re-read . Your argument makes no sense .


Just because a guy turns up in two shots you automatically assume that the UFO should also .

Utter crap.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by tpg65
 


If it's moving IN THEORY it should turn up again.

If it was moving too fast to be captured more than once it should show motion blur.

If it was hovering, why aren't people staring at it taking photos of it???

Sorry if you can't bring yourself to look at this objectively.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Object looks like it is not moving or don't moving fast, like hi stop or slow in that moments ..

Why this guy has a hat, lol ..

That picture was making from more picture from different moment-side, your theory Chadwickus don't tell us nothing ..

Cant by positive how mach time past from first picture guy end second, object can by in split second faraway ..

Maybe guy was watching 10 min. lovely sea end change place ..



Some other picture from editor ..


edit on 16-7-2011 by Dalke07 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
32
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join