The El Yeso, Santiago, UFO. An Open Case Pending. Ufo Best Picture? (NARCAP Full Analysis)

reply to post by icepack


Yeh agreed, but I'm not sure what car model and age, therefore the design may not be what we call 'standard'. It definitely looks like a handle of some sort with that stitching.

I gotta get 2hrs40mins sleep until I gotta go to work...night.

reply to post by LightAssassin


No, I'm not.

Orange ufo...lens flare.

Box 12...reflection.

Two different things.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Wow, I am about to school you on what you schooled me on.




With the above picture, all the lens flares appear in the exact opposite of the photo.




The orange UFO, well, handle of sorts, is not opposite where the sun appears.

Or in other words, the line would need to cross through the centre of the photo, which it clearly does not.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8561370af102.jpg[/atsimg]

You need to get over the lens flare. Are you paid to be this persistent?

It could also be a mens leather dress type shoe...that has stitching like that.

reply to post by LightAssassin


I dont think you know this guy. He MUST have the last word

I dont even bother to discuss with him anymore.

And look that he loves to appear in my threads.

Originally posted by ken10
The two types of clouds in the pic seems at odds to me, I think it could be a reflection or a super imposed photo.

The reddish clouds are visible in Figure 2 and 12 through 15. If the camera was oriented
identically for Figures 2 and 12 then the reddish clouds are traveling generally NE and are
rotating (as much as 30 degrees) as a unit and are not fragmenting. Of course the photographer
could have rotated the camera between these shots. It seems unlikely that only 45 seconds
passed between these two photographs.

Read the pdf please.

ALL info you need are HERE

Not lens flare, not reflection.

yeah this could be a ufo. byt some of the close of pics it looks rather holographic dont ya think?
could be something to do with bluebeam who knows

This is NOT a reflection.. and here is why... When you take a picture from inside a car and you get a reflection off the glass the reflection is presented much closer to the field of view and would be a lot larger in this image. If you notice the object in question is small and distant. That would not be the case if it were a reflective artifact.

MR77

Thats probably the most ( i hope) genuine photo of a saucer i have ever seen... really looks legit! s+f

Interesting, a UFO high above the clouds lit up by the light of the sun. The leather pattern? Who is to say that we've conceived just about every pattern in existence. That's one of the pattern we know that we can relate it too.

Anyways this is what I think of when I look at the picture.


The drawing seems to be what I can "imagine" when I look at it.
I am not claiming it to be some alien spacecraft or whatever.





Any thoughts?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f316a52ca6c5.jpg[/atsimg]

This looks like a real genuine photo. This looks like a physical craft and not a light and if it were a light i would think its lens flare but this is a Saucer not a light. S&F for you.

reply to post by RUSSO


Best zeppelin picture, I've seen yet. I want a Zeppelin, so I can be on board and listen to Led Zeppelin
But serious, UFO as in "unidentified" no aliens.

Lol you people are as gullible as religious zealots. Lol

Originally posted by Anthony1138
reply to post by RUSSO

 

Best zeppelin picture, I've seen yet. I want a Zeppelin, so I can be on board and listen to Led Zeppelin
But serious, UFO as in "unidentified" no aliens.

Lol you people are as gullible as religious zealots. Lol

There aren't zeppelins in Chile, I've been in Chile and have many chilean friends. they have small size advertising baloons tied to the ground, but that's a different thing. If I'm wrong, please show me a photo. It is not a zeppelin just because you say so.

www.zeppelinpublicidad.com...

Anyway, I don't see a UFO in that photo, I think Chad has the closest explanation.

Definitely a reflection or lens flare.

The fact that no one saw it despite looking right at it confirms it.

I also suspect the original photo is cropped too which would perhaps lead to it being debunked.

reply to post by Anthony1138


And you are a lemming that cant read the NARCAP Full Analysis PDF

reply to post by RUSSO


Hang on, weve made up our own mind on the evidence yet were called lemmings, youve make up your mind on what youre told.

A touch ironic.

reply to post by Flyer



I cant believe. Some people here on ATS cant read the OP? READ the analysis.

I wonder if I have to copy and paste the entire content of the PDF.

This was PROVEN. NOT LENS FLARE, NOT REFLECTION.



Prove me wrong.

You cant prove it either way, you have to be very gullible to believe its real, especially as it doesnt look like a solid object and it was never seen by anyone despite looking straight at it.

reply to post by Flyer


Not solid???

...It is significant that if this object had mass...

These analyses showed that (1) There was a symmetrical, apparently solid object

Are you sure you can read?

reply to post by RUSSO


It is significant that if this object had mass

The photo isnt a copy of the original containing meta data, its been edited and resized by gd jpeg.

Lens glare.... CASED CLOSED

This one was easy.... as already demonstrated by Chadwickus.
You point a camera at the sun, and you can get all kinds of silly anomalies of the non-terrestrial type.