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: 3
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
look..

i seriously don´t want to take a leak on your thread.

but the argument:
'keep in mind, this picture was taken in 1981' doesn't have any merit whatsoever.

take a look at this fantastic thread authored by midwest.
it's about photomanipulation from the 19th century, that's the 1800's!!

here's the link, take a look... you'll be baffled.

at least i was


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 25-9-2011 by kn0wh0w because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Obviously man-made. We did and do have the ability to make flying saucers. The real aliens ships are of light structure, which I don't believe we can replicate except with holograms.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
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...


Interesting about the Cometa Report photo. It looks pretty convincing to me.

Do you have any background info on that photo? Where it was taken? Whose satellite took the photo?

Regards.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
reply to post by jimbo999
 


here's a nice enlargement:


www.totalizm.pl...


Thanks TIWWA! Yes, it's a really interesting crop.

Makes it look even more convincing as far as I'm concerned.

Cheers.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:07 PM
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.



You're joking of course I assume?? If not - you should know that's not a volcano. It's a mountain with a cloud above it - there are lots of mountain in BC. And there are no "Chinese lanterns' anywhere to be seen in this pic.

I don't believe in 'flying discs' either. I happen to know for a fact they exist. No belief needed

edit on 29-9-2011 by jimbo999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
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 .



Excellent point. That's just the way the human eye works. You can train your peripheral vision, but most people never do...



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GezinhoKiko
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)


Yes, the good old Avrocar! Unfortunately, it never managed to fly that well, and was scrapped by the US Air Force not long after the Canadian's built it for them. So I don't think the one in the pic is ours at all.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
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.


Thanks Karl. I will take a look.

2nd



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by quedup
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 ........


The pic is not touched up in any way - it has been analyzed by several scientists - one from NASA - and they both conclude the photo is genuine, and shows an object at a good distance floating in the air.

The same scientists also did extensive testing with frisbees and hubcaps etc and came to the same conclusion. It's not a small object thrown by someone nearby. Sorry, but you'll have to do better than that



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by wlasikiewicz
This is a good photo, thanx for the share.


Your welcome.

2nd



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
look..

i seriously don´t want to take a leak on your thread.

but the argument:
'keep in mind, this picture was taken in 1981' doesn't have any merit whatsoever.

take a look at this fantastic thread authored by midwest.
it's about photomanipulation from the 19th century, that's the 1800's!!

here's the link, take a look... you'll be baffled.

at least i was


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 25-9-2011 by kn0wh0w because: (no reason given)


Yes I've seen the thread. One big problem with your theory though: the scientists who verified the authenticity of this photo had access to the original negatives. here's no way they would miss such obvious fakery...



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by blazenresearcher
Obviously man-made. We did and do have the ability to make flying saucers. The real aliens ships are of light structure, which I don't believe we can replicate except with holograms.


Do you have any evidence to back up either of your claims? Please provide links if you can


2nd.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by djz3ro
 


That is a pic of exactly what I saw back in the 80's! That is so cool. I had searched to see if I could find any photos that were even close to what I saw back then, and there it is! Thank you!!



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by summer5
reply to post by djz3ro
 


That is a pic of exactly what I saw back in the 80's! That is so cool. I had searched to see if I could find any photos that were even close to what I saw back then, and there it is! Thank you!!


Your welcome. It's not that dissimilar to what me, my family, and 10's of thousands of other people saw in my hometown back in the 70's also. I've also witnessed a night sighting with other witnesses in the same exact provincial park that this photo was taken in the 1990's.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999
the scientists who verified the authenticity ... had access to the original negatives [t]here's no way they would miss such obvious fakery...

I was curious, so I downloaded and read Richard F. Haines's analysis of the event.

Richard doesn't really verify the event. He concludes he doesn't know what it is, but that his findings 'suggest' it is a physical object of at least 30 feet away from the camera. Okayish conclusion.

Calculating distance/focus ... Richard states the UFO was at least over 10, likely over 20 feet away to be in sharp focus. The assumption is the object is in focus and captured in camera. No questions are asked regarding how difficult it is to fake motion blur/defocus via altering a negative. There are scratches but not direct on the UFO.

Richard assumes some of the camera settings also. The camera is indeed a winding film model. Haines did experiment with the lens to check for scratches.

A second assumption ... Richard goes on to use a physics based handbook to gauge the properties of disc. Richard assumes the photo is real, and evaluates the material. No questions regarding the lighting of the object are really raised here. Richard checks for a double exposure. The camera isn't capable of taking a double exposure.

Richard does some work similar to digitally combining (to exclude) channels. Richard notes that blue-green sensitive paper increases the brightness of the sky but causes the 'dome' area to almost disappear. This should be similar to channel switching in photoshop or similar editor.


Apparently, the dome is not reflecting or emitting radiation in the red end of the spectrum


Interesting conclusion from reducing the red channel of an image. Richard concludes that this is because the item is emitting wavelengths primarily in the blue-green portion of the spectrum. No other possibilities are introduced.

Richard states that, through his computer work, no evidence of thread or line is above the disc. There is no reference to the compression that 8 bit color space introduces. This is partly because of the time and place this report was completed, so in part no fault of Richard's. Not perhaps the best way to investigate this though.


After inspecting the site it was clear that there was sufficient Rat ground to have flown a model airplane or thrown a frisbee into the air. Neither the photographer nor her husband admit to doing this


Richard visits the subject's home and concludes that nothing in their home indicates forgery. Richard states the photographer waited a long time before seeking information about the disc, and therefore is unlikely to be a hoax but ... notes that this is not a conclusive argument to support the contention.

The family did own frisbees. Richard believes the frisbees available don't exhibit the same reflective qualities etcs of the disc.

Richard notes that that if the disc was 10 - 50 feet in width it would have been 438 feet away. If the disc was directly over the mountain it would be 173 feet in width. Richard states a frisbee travelling would have produced a motion blur. He then concludes the object is motionless.

Richard states the negative has scratches, but not over the object.The photos had been developed before Richard saw them. So Richard's suggested conclusion vs an alternate ...

The object is quite sharp and saturated. It's probably not exactly above the mountain. So Richard would assume that the photographer and family couldn't see a 430 - 170ish foot stationary dark flying disc stationary in a bright blue sky. The family accidently photographed it.

The alternate ... the object could be an altered negative. Richard writes he recieve a color neg strip of two frames. Scratches present. The report does tend to at all times assume the negative is accurate.

No motion blur? Stationary object.
Interesting lighting? Object is certain material.
Sharp focus and no desaturation at distance? Must be very big object.

There's also a little bit of the Arthur Conan Doyle foley. Conan Doyle when investigating faery photographs taken by teenagers assumes they are too young to create sophisticated fakery. Doyle therefore rules out a whole bunch of possibilities immediately, and assumes there can be no fakery at all. The faeries were cardboard cutouts.

However, I don't believe from this report that Richard Haines in this stage of career ruled out all possibilities and could easily see through a hoax. Really very few possibilities were investigated regarding post driven hoax methods. Richard is clearly very smart for that time, but I wouldn't say his report 'verifies' this image. He investigated the techniques he knew at the time and comes to a suggested conclusion is what I would say.

Either way, jury is going to be out as usual. Just saying, it's probably worth reading these reports before agreeing with/assuming a conclusion. I'm sure there's persons who know more analog stuff than me who could call me names at this point.

Disclaimer: Pinke is tired. Pinke wrote this in one sitting and has not reread. Is nap time.

Report is here: www.scientificexploration.org...
edit on 30-9-2011 by Pinke because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-9-2011 by Pinke because: Fixing bits



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I just want to point out one thing, the fact that keeps getting brought up is "this was before photoshop!". Frankly that doesn't mean anything. Photo manipulation has been around almost as long as photographs themselves.

One of the famous pictures of Lincoln was an edited version of another famous photo of John C. Calhoon. This was in 1860.

So don't let the fact that Photoshop wasn't invented until the late 1980's make you think that it automatically can't be faked. Because it can.

More information here: www.fourandsix.com...
edit on 30-9-2011 by stevenreanimator because: added source link.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
If I remember correctly, Bruce Mackabee or some other professional ufologist examined the photo and negatives, and believed that no photographic errors or trickery were involved, that it was at least, as far as the camera was concerned, a 3-D object.

This is a classic UFO case, one of those cases that has remained interesting and open for decades. I believe, from everything I have read, that the object was likely real. What exactly it is, I have no clue. Top secret govornment craft, or ET vehicle? From the looks, given the apparant distance (it looks pretty far away) it's a pretty respectable sized object, way too big to be a frisbee.

As for why the people taking the picture did not see it, that is not unusual. The picture taker would have been limited by the camera. The others might not have been looking at that specific area, and only saw something move in the periphery, and thought little of it. maybe assuming it was a bird or plane.

Nice to see an old favorite, though. This tanks up there with the Trinidad island photos, i think.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join