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 Hannah McRoberts UFO photo - one of the best pics IMO

page: 2
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
nice picture! sadly some of these pictures can be easily replicated with abit of skill and you wouldn't know if you were staring at the real thing or the fake ugh!




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroReady
 


I dunno - a weird, metallic, flying disc-shaped photo artifact?

I find that harder to believe than the obvious conclusion: a strange metallic flying craft. Unidentified.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by killuminatiXIII
nice picture! sadly some of these pictures can be easily replicated with abit of skill and you wouldn't know if you were staring at the real thing or the fake ugh!


Remember this pic was taken in 1981 - 7 long years before Photoshop was even invented!
So you can be pretty certain it was not faked with computer trickery. Also - the original negative was inspected by experts in Vancouver shortly after the photo was taken.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
When theres years before its possible to photoshop a picture, and there were negatives provided to the astronomers as well...im sure any fakery would have been aparent by now.
Trouble with being skeptical is it never freakin ends man....
You can start out just questioning some little thing like 9/11 o soomething, and soon yer calling bull# every time somebody sneezes.
Once you play the skeptic, yer stuck with it.
People dont know when to quit and just let it be what it is.
No explanations are nessessary, its a flying saucer plain and simple.
As the picture was taken accidentally and the saucer is incidental to it....
We just have to take what we can get......
Mc Minnville ore is another in this class, as is the 1937 pic of the ufo over the new Vancouver city hall.....
BC has had some very good sightings
Stan Fullhams radar sighting(one of the at least)was of a ufo that hovered over the south east of Comox airbase.
Northern BC has had some very intriguing encounters as well.
There is one pic...its of a sporty model with a split tail flying over some shipyards or docks....
digitals suck by comparison.....\



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
It doesn't look like a double exposure. Debunker Larry Robinson has declared it a "Silver Olympic Frisbee." But he also called the one on the cover of a the COMETA report a button, which is just bad debunking.

midimagic.sgc-hosting.com...



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


here's a nice enlargement:


www.totalizm.pl...



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroReady
I think it's kind of hard to believe that none of the people saw the thing when the picture was taken. To me it looks like it would have been pretty freakin obvious and hard to miss, but they say that no one saw it actually flying. It wasn't noticed till the film was developed. Seems strange given how sharp it is and how large it appears in the pic.

Leads me to believe that it's some kind of artifact which occurred during processing, and no one saw it because it wasn't there.


It is possible that the camera could 'see' in more than just the visible light spectrum, the VLS, is the limits of what we can see in. Video can see more than VLS.

en.wikipedia.org...

In explanation, the UFO may have been somehow only visible in say infra-red light. It's not the first event like that, one object was captured and not seen, but on video it was blindingly obvious.
edit on 25-9-2011 by smurfy because: Add link.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I sorry, but those clouds look positively fake, spewing from that volcano, they simple look like clouds.
And that UFO is obviously a tightly bunched group of silver Chinese Lanterns.

Why people believe in "Flying Discs" I shall never know.




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by gort51
I sorry, but those clouds look positively fake, spewing from that volcano, they simple look like clouds.
And that UFO is obviously a tightly bunched group of silver Chinese Lanterns.

Why people believe in "Flying Discs" I shall never know.



Come on, you can read can't you? It's not a volcano and an ash cloud, it's a mountaIn and those are regular clouds, the woman took the photo because the clouds around it reminded her of a volcano, i don't see it mysefl, it looks just like a mountain to me.

And we believe in them because it's been proven time and time again that there are sometimes discs flying around out there, to deny all the evidence out there is just ignorant!



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   


Why people believe in "Flying Discs" I shall never know.
reply to post by gort51
 


Only if you don't want to know.

The reason people believe in "Flying Discs" as you put it, is because they have been spotted by thousands of credible witnesses including pilots (who are trained to identify things in the sky), police officers, astronauts and so many more.

Debunk this case for me.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroReady

I'm sticking with a weird processing effect.


A weird processing effect?!

Really?

Like what, someone accidentally dropped their tiny cut-out of a UFO from a magazine and it fell onto the picture of the volcano - and magically molded together perfectly?

Or maybe if you wrinkle a picture just the right way, it looks like a space ship is in the background?

It's easy to say "Looks like a processing effect" - But not so easy to explain WHY.

Edit:

There are so many un-answered variables about the situation upon taking the picture. We don't know if the craft was floating, or in movement. We don't know if the craft was not visible to the human eye, but to the camera. Etc.

But to say some "error in the picture" is really funny to me, especially if it's based on "They didn't see it, so it's either fake or an error."

Basic psychology - Even provided that everything is stationary, the human eye to brain cannot register 100% of it's surroundings, especially when not expecting certain space crafts to pop in from a distance for a little photo op.

But you know what can? A camera.
edit on 25-9-2011 by ThinkingCap because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
good point thinking cap. Plus it wasn't just one random pic, it came from a set she took, she would have had to adjust a bunch of them according to the article. this is a part of that small percent that we can't explain away, which I always find so interesting!

corrected spelling!
edit on 25-9-2011 by research100 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Nice, this is a time in history when there were a lot of sightings and the evidence was good because the hoaxing was more difficult to pull off.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I believe this is real and I'll tell you why.

This photo to me is almost undisputable, its clear, its beeen analysed by forge experts and cleared, basically you can SEE it.

The fact that all these things are adding up to make this a definate ufo sighting/photo yet I b et hardly anyone in the world knows these photos exist leads me to believe its real. Its been covered up/swept under the carpet by tptb because they know its real. Ive watched countless UFO programs on TV and ive NEVER seen this picture, they always show debatable 'evidence' or photos. Where as this photo is clear as day and should be all over these tv programs..... but it isnt.

Wether its alien or military is un clear, wether this woman has got a picture of a UFO is clear cut game set matched YES.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroReady
 


i have a photo that i took in bulgaria whilst i was hunting for some properties to buy and renovate .
the photo was of the view from the garden of one of the properties over looking the mountains and country side
it was not for some weeks later that i loaded the photos on to my pc that i saw the object , it was a white fluffy ball type of cloud ,

when i took the photo i was not aware of anything other than the scenic view .

i will post this photo for you all to assess when my son calls round to help me.

the point that i am trying to make is that if her attention was focused on the mountain she would not have seen the ufo .



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
fantastic photo
good chance it is one of ours

en.wikipedia.org...

this is just an example of what was going on around the 50's so in the 80's we could of had anything and now i wouldnt even hazard a guess at what we have

edit on 25-9-2011 by GezinhoKiko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


Hey Jimbo, there's a good scientific analysis of the photograph here and some interesting points are made about hyperfocal distance, density calibration and linear/angular image measurements.
Cheers.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
If you compare both photos - you will see that the clouds are slightly different - if these pics were supposedly of the same shot there wouldn't be a difference!

They didn't have photo shop then but there were ways to touch up photographs by hand - the old war pics demonstrate this technique where you have a black and white pic and things like flowers of someones lips are tinted red etc.,

There was also the technique of someone throwing something up in the air while another person took the pic - the size of what ever your throwing up in air would create distance/perspective. (A wheel Hub and many other items have been used in the past.)

The Clouds alone mean I'm not convinced - could be wrong but ........



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
reply to post by jimbo999
 


here's a nice enlargement:


www.totalizm.pl...


The central glow of the Tesla engine perhaps.
Do not neglect such a theory of basic light origin.
Light from molecules and atoms being forced to have electron orbital shifts.
Done for years by masters of electrical force.
ED: Tesla though light came from atoms banging up against the tube or
ship hull in this case but consider the electron being pushed around by the
Tesla waves and jumping orbits. Tesla pushed electrons into the nucleus
for perhaps the first ever man made K capture.
edit on 9/25/2011 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
This is a good photo, thanx for the share.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join