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.

 

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

page: 5
35
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Both links not working. I understand spanish and portuguese, so dont need a translated link. If you have one working for me, I will read.

Problable? For both sides I think. NARCAP concider it an open case pending. So do I.


... some of the photos in the series were taken from inside an utility vehicle. Hermosilla states that the image with the UFO was taken outisde the car


I have no reason to doubt that they are telling the truth. Do you have any indication that they are lying?




posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Are you blind?

Those are quite blatantly not the same effect.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
read the thread.

there is not enough evidence to call this a ufo er even alien.

the sun was in the shot, there are possibilities of lens flares. it looks transparent, and it's not even a full ufo, it looks like half or maybe a third of what a ufo should be. the source of the picture is even questionable. i doubt the thing is even behind the clouds.

i noticed that there were no lens flares in the picture provided, maybe it was cleaned up or altered?
edit on 6-8-2011 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
FARSCAPE's Moya
en.wikipedia.org...





posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 
The link works fine. Here it is again... ¿LA MEJOR FOTOGRAFIA OVNI DEL ULTIMO TIEMPO?

This is the poorly translated summary...


If it is a reflection of what caused it?. We decided to compare some elements inside the car to see the similarities with the object. We found that there are no elements inside that are similar, ie a single element was responsible for such object on the image. In the picture you can see one of the car seats, and we wanted to compare the seating elements in order: The fabric of the seat has features that resemble what we call "belly of the object", ie the bottom. But the question we ask is what is the reason that change color?.

The reflections in windows retain their color, ie, locations may vary in light intensity, but the color change, thinking that the belly of the object out of the seat fabric, we can not explain it. Therefore, we do not think the seat fabric, which is gray, be responsible for the shape of the object, which is red. If you see the object, you'll find something like windows or light bulbs, is it possible to verify that this is a reflection of the seat in the glass?.

Well you can, but have difficulties when trying to explain this effect with the seam of the seat. Looking at the seam and compare it with windows or lights of the object, you can see a certain similarity, the problem arises when trying to explain the differences.


As I pointed out, they've ruled out the reflection explanation based on an empty vehicle. A family of five on a long day out would have bags, changes of footwear and other objects.

The object in the image has a texture that looks like woven textile.



I have no reason to doubt that they are telling the truth. Do you have any indication that they are lying?


C'mon. really? It isn't anywhere close to suggesting lies. It's more about the object looking like a reflection of something woven. Most people have no experience of lens flare, reflections or camera artefacts. Even fewer think of UFOs.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by vjr1113
 


Based on what you wrote in this post, I think YOU have not read the thread.

- No possibilities of lens flares;
- Looks solid;
- full ufo? Behind the clouds, maybe?
- Questionable? Why?
- Cleaned up or altered? READ THE NARCAPANALYSIS and you will see what you writing is nonsense.




posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Not working for me, but thats ok. All I wanted to talk about this case, I have already spoken. We have an analysis done by a competent and reliable agency and its up to each of us want to trust or not. As I said before, I respect your oppinion, but I will keep mine.

Have a nice weekend

edit on 6-8-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


I dunno...seems to line up quite well:



Forgetomori has questioned the witnesses statement that it wasn't taken from inside their vehicle...



Here’s one additional. extremely relevant point. As local UFO group CIFAE comments on, quoting the direct statement by one of the witnesses, Doris Hermosilla, some of the photos in the series were taken from inside an utility vehicle. Hermosilla states that the image with the UFO was taken outisde the car, but the UFO group comments that both the previous and the photo in question actually have fuzzy reflections suggesting otherwise.


Three things come to my mind as I see this photo.
1. Cirrocumulus clouds are small white puffy and rounded, which occur individually or in long rows. When appearing in rows, a rippling effect is evident which distinguish this type of cloud. These range from 16,000 to 60,000 feet AGL.
2. Stratocumulus clouds are a low, lumpy appearing cloud layer, and range in height from the surface to 6500 ft.
3. The position of the Sun does not appear to line up with the sunset appearance of the Cirrocumulus clouds.
IMHO bogus.
Please review my signature.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 

As a storm chaser, these clouds are absolutely normal. To those that know nothing about clouds and the weather of course they look strange. These are Cirrocumulus. Very common. Pattern is formed by the high altitude winds and jet streams.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
It is really strange that some ufos are tilted in a particular direction. I wonder how the occupants are able to hold ground inside if there are some. Any explanation for this?



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by LightAssassin
 


And if the image has been cropped?

I can't say either way if it has or not, but if it has then the "centre point" will be false.



Thats fine but it was the whole basis of your argument and you're now moving the goalposts to avoid admitting you were wrong.

There's nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong. I've been forced a few times to do so on this forum.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Hope this is a legit picture I believe in it not doubting it.
Good post



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Nice find OP! Don`t see how a lense flare could manifest it self in such a detailed way. Do we have any information on the camera used?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by radkrish
It is really strange that some ufos are tilted in a particular direction. I wonder how the occupants are able to hold ground inside if there are some. Any explanation for this?


The field (of unknown quality) created by the interaction between the ship and its occupants creates a kind of "mini-universe" that has its own frame of reference only partially intersecting with our spacetime. Its own up and down and sideways, etc. So to us it may appear to be tilted, to them, we're the ones who are tilted.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by radkrish
It is really strange that some ufos are tilted in a particular direction. I wonder how the occupants are able to hold ground inside if there are some. Any explanation for this?


The field (of unknown quality) created by the interaction between the ship and its occupants creates a kind of "mini-universe" that has its own frame of reference only partially intersecting with our spacetime. Its own up and down and sideways, etc. So to us it may appear to be tilted, to them, we're the ones who are tilted.


What blueshift is saying is that the object exists independent of Earth's gravity and place in space. I would assume that (if real) the object in question would remain free of Earth's "downward pull" for as long as it is in operation.

Also Chadwickus is a troll. I would even go so far as to say that there are multiple people using his account to debunk threads. His post count alone is suspicious enough. I understand alot of ATS readers have too much time on their hands, but when you have 9000+ posts devoted solely to denying every single UFO report posted in here, you leave little doubt as to your intentions.

The image crop in relation to the Sun excuse was clever though, I admit. How many of you did it take to come up with that?



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by yourignoranceisbliss
 


Bold claims.

I suspect you have nothing to back them up with either...

Typical troll behavior.



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by LightAssassin
 


And if the image has been cropped?

I can't say either way if it has or not, but if it has then the "centre point" will be false.



Thats fine but it was the whole basis of your argument and you're now moving the goalposts to avoid admitting you were wrong.

There's nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong. I've been forced a few times to do so on this forum.


Nothing at all, but I dont think this will gonna happen until the end of the world

edit on 11-8-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Sorry to track down again this old topic, but I have some interesting news about it:

Mr Haines forgot an essential thing to do IMO in every photo analysis: to check for the available image sizes that can produce the camera.
It says in Haine's report that the hi-res photo have an original size of (1741 x 1306 x 8) at 96 dpi resolution, however, this size is NOT a native camera size:



Source: Dpreview

...So, the only conclusion we can come at is that the photo was at least re-sized, (most likely cropped) and that the original size is bigger, possibly 2048*1536.
Therefore, and more than ever, the lens flare hypothesis could make sense:



1: Vertically re-sized to lined up to the possibly original size of 2048
2: Horizontally re-sized to lined up the possibly original size of 1536 (see note *1)
3: New center of the original photo, from the crossed lines 3' and 3'', also called "point reflection"
4: Center of the sun, from the crossed lines 4' and 4''
5: straight line from point 4, passing by point reflection 3 (through its center) and producing the lens flare by central symmetry.

Note 1: Oddly, horizontal crop here is not equal on both sides and can have various value. It depends in fact of the real original size of the original photo and of possible optics distortions.
The only way to have the lens flare perfectly lined up with the sun by central symmetry through its center is to have this crop configuration.
edit on 18-3-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Great post Elevenaugust, and great job to Chadwickus too.

This object is clearly an internal reflection, sometimes referred to as a lens flare.

The COLOR of the UFO alone should have been a clue because the object is the exact color of a standard UV and IR cut filter that is present in those cameras. What is happening is that sun is entering the camera, reflecting off the IR cut filter, and back onto the optical lens. So the reflection (UFO) is the color of the IR cut filter.

Here is an image of an external UV-IR cut filter. Notice the color:


Now here is an image of the camera that was used, a Canon Powershot A580. Notice the color of the lens:


Compare these colors with the UFO:


Besides the obvious fact that taking a picture directly at the sun or any bright light source will create a lens flare or internal reflection, this "UFO" is the exact color of a standard IR cut filter.

I can conclude with 100% certainty that the "UFO" is just a reflection.

The "analysis" by the "professional" should be highly scrutinized and his methods peer-reviewed. If he didn't conclude this object as being a reflection, I think his credibility is highly damaged.
edit on 18-3-2012 by UFOGlobe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevenaugust
Sorry to track down again this old topic, but I have some interesting news about it:

Mr Haines forgot an essential thing to do IMO in every photo analysis: to check for the available image sizes that can produce the camera.
It says in Haine's report that the hi-res photo have an original size of (1741 x 1306 x 8) at 96 dpi resolution, however, this size is NOT a native camera size:
If you google 1741 x 1306 you will find more generic photos (e.g. on Photobucket) with that particular resolution, most of them (all?) taken with Sony cameras with intact exif data. This leads me to believe that your assumption is not necessarily accurate.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join