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.

 

is it true this photo cannot be debunked?

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
The craft in the picture really reminds me of some of those objects floating around in the STS-80 video (tether incident). Cool find though, thanks.




posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


Never been too impressed with this photo simply because the light and shadow areas on the object don't correspond to the position of the sun and the flat edge of the "disc" is suspiciously parallel to the edge of the negative. Some kind of artifact I suspect created when the photo was taken or when the negative was processed.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Looks exactly like a weather balloon at high altitude. The dark dot in the middle is the instrument payload.




When this thing hits the edge of space it will flatten out on top like a saucer shape.

edit on 30-9-2011 by BIGPoJo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by torsion
 


yeah, but if you look closely there's actually some symmetrical contour at the lit side; like two capsule shaped tanks or air intake/exhaust. It kind of reminds me of a crab facing away


the lighting might look wrong unless it was self illuminated; it could be flashing the all too familiar chevron emblem...

also, its kind of tilted a bit. The fact it doesn't have a shadow could be attributed to the dark background that is the lake; its just not showing.
edit on 30-9-2011 by reject because:




posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


I believe the reverse is actually true.

The balloons flatten at low levels while they are rising fast, at higher altitudes they look like normal balloons due to the fact they aren't rising nearly as fast.

Imagine how a bubble of air in water is flat while it is rising to the surface, if you have a bubble of air (or whatever mixed of gas/etc) trapped in between two layers of separate liquid/gas, it will be round.

Here's some pictures to illustrate my point:

Bubble Rising

Bubble at surface

As the balloon is rising, it spreads out due to air drag. Less speed and less air in higher atmosphere = less flat and more round.

Here is a picture of a weather balloon at around 125,000 ft.

Now, for my main point:

Why should we listen to someone who obviously has no idea what they are talking about, talk about a subject that probably nobody knows what they are talking about?
edit on 30-9-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I just think it's as likely to be a whirlpool as a UFO.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
reply to post by Sanndy
 


So this airplane is not flying? Prove it is.


So to call this a KFO (Known Flying Object) is completely out of the question because you can't see it moving. Therefore it's not flying.

Derp.


Actually, it's Landing. This is easily figured out because of your own acronym. KNOWN Flying Object. We know what it is. Most of us know -basically- how it works. We know it can't just be suspended in the air floating, nor does it look damaged to cause it to be falling, so therefore it would have to be moving.

The thing in the OP photo is Unknown. We don't know what it is. If it even is an actual object in the frame or some sort of distortion. We have no idea what it is doing if anything if it actually was an object in the frame.

The main differences, other than the Known and Unknown nature between these two is the perspective of photo.

The plane is shot showing that it is, indeed, in the air because it was from a point below the plane clearly showing the blue sky all around it. The unknown 'thing' is shot from almost directly above. Since it is an unknown, we have no idea the true size or shape of it, or if it even was really there, and can therefore draw no conclusion as to what its vertical height would have been. For all we know it could even be just slightly Under the water, but close enough to the top to be seen from this angle making it an Unknown Submersed Object

So this 'thing' in this picture can only be classified as Unknown. Not Flying, not floating, or anything of the sort as we can't even tell if it's an actual object in the frame at all.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Looks exactly like a weather balloon at high altitude. The dark dot in the middle is the instrument payload.




When this thing hits the edge of space it will flatten out on top like a saucer shape.

edit on 30-9-2011 by BIGPoJo because: (no reason given)


err
except balloons can't appear and then disappear within a 17 second time frame?
also i thought it was conclusively decided not to be at a high altitude



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


This photo may be more interesting then:



Unknown? Check.

Flying? Check.

Object? Check.

Debunk? Nope, just forgotten.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Weird reading the thoughts on here.

The debunkers want to prove its fake, which is easy in the Digital Age. NO thing can be "really Real" any more.

The "believers" don't need any proof beyond a photograph or eyewitness report.

If I told you that I saw one would you believe me? With out "proof"?

Well I did see one once, I don't care what you believe.

And I don't believe what you tell me because I don't believe that I can believe anything anymore that I see in the Digital Age.

So all that means I'm seeing things and they don't exist, right?

UFO's debunked... case closed... court adjourned.

Back to the Dark Ages.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


What's to debunk? You want to debunk that it's a UFO? You seem to be drawing the conclusion that UFO means aliens. I assure you it does not and in fact means nothing of the sort.

The only way to 'debunk' something as a UFO would be to figure out what it is. One can't really safely say that even those are actual objects, though they are in the air which one would assume if they are an object they would be flying. If it's an alien spacecraft, that would also 'debunk' it as a UFO because it would not be an unknown flying object any longer...it would be an alien spacecraft.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


Right you are...

Ask anyone who ever lived before 1900 on this planet, and you would get a 100 billion Unknown Flying Object responses.

Some might be a little more imaginative and say, a winged chariot, or a great metal bird, or a huge floating wagon.

Sounds a lot like early responses to whatever they did see back when.

Of course, every single human on this planet knows this is "just" a jet.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dashdragon
reply to post by RSF77
 

What's to debunk? You want to debunk that it's a UFO? You seem to be drawing the conclusion that UFO means aliens. I assure you it does not and in fact means nothing of the sort.


Never said anything about aliens, did I? You don't have to assure me, every "skeptic" on this website says this exact same thing all the time.


Originally posted by Dashdragon
reply to post by RSF77
 

The only way to 'debunk' something as a UFO would be to figure out what it is. One can't really safely say that even those are actual objects, though they are in the air which one would assume if they are an object they would be flying. If it's an alien spacecraft, that would also 'debunk' it as a UFO because it would not be an unknown flying object any longer...it would be an alien spacecraft.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say they are objects.

In the end you can argue to the end of eternity what classifies as an "object" or what qualifies as debunked or unknown. The way I see it there was obviously something hovering in the sky that day, of course we can say over and over again we don't know exactly what it was, but then we get no where don't we? All in all, nobody can really even be sure that they even exist, so it's a pointless skeptical argument. The nature of skepticism is to not be fooled, and the opposite of being fooled is to know exactly. Skepticism is in a round about way a method of finding truth, not "debunking" every single concept and photo encountered as a weather balloon or chinese lantern.

I'll go out on another limb and say the objects in that photo probably weren't made by humans.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
There are a number of really questionable things about the image, including the way the "shadow" on the supposed disc doesn't match the angle of shadows on the ground nearby, complete lack of an underlying shadow on the water, no transparency in the water, and the odd brush-like, smeared fuzziness it has on certain edges. But I guess the thing that really turned the tide for me was when I was able to get a really good photo of it and determine that something was fishy with the "top" of the saucer cone.

There's a pretty apparent flaw of some kind which I think is a very small fiber or something that contaminated the actual film. Like a curly piece of hair that got in between the film and the glass plate, and separated the two with a little bubble of air. Anyway, I made this .gif to show the thing more clearly, but even if you look at some of the lower resolution images you can still see the blob, so it's not an imaging artifact. It just gets clearer with a higher resolution.

Is that enough of a debunking for you?




edit on 30-9-2011 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Meaning the "UFO" is a small picture of something placed in the camera lens.

Is that what you are implying?

Would those white streaks in your photo be discrepancies in the lens?
edit on 30-9-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
Meaning the "UFO" is a small picture of something placed in the camera lens.
Is that what you are implying?


No. It's like there was tiny little curly fiber stuck temporarily in-between the negative film and the backing plate inside the camera. Probably washed off either when the film advanced or during processing. Get a piece of transparent tape and stick a little piece of junk under it. It lifts up the tape underneath and creates a little "cone." That's what looks like is happening here.


Would those white streaks in your photo be discrepancies in the lens?


No, the lens is fine. The whitest streaks are scratches on the old print. The "brushy" streaks shown along the top of the thing (compared to the very sharp edges at the bottom) were possibly created when it smudged or slid during the exposure. I don't know for sure about those.

Either way, there's plenty wrong with the photo.

P.S. -- Here are the best images I found to work with:

Haines 1st Generation Costa Rica UFO Photo Analysis
Haines/Vallee Costa Rica UFO Photo Analysis



edit on 30-9-2011 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Nice photo and analysis.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
Looks exactly like a weather balloon at high altitude. The dark dot in the middle is the instrument payload.




When this thing hits the edge of space it will flatten out on top like a saucer shape.

edit on 30-9-2011 by BIGPoJo because: (no reason given)


Looks exactly like you have no clue what you are talking about.

The photo was taken a 10,000 feet.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
The original image has been rotated, that object was originaly on the bottom and is a tack to hold the map up on the wall and if you notice what is really the top has been cut from the photo and that would have shown a similar object there....However people will see exactly what they wnt to see no matter how much proof is against it.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
vague, far away terrain shots are never proof of anything. This is no exception, same old bs, people want to read meaning into random shapes and patterns when there are none and that's before even hoaxing, camera artifacts, dust, mundane objects etc come into play.
edit on 1-10-2011 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join