is it true this photo cannot be debunked?

reply to post by reject


I am tired of watching at grainy pre world war images. I have an 8,5 megapixel digital camera next to me. So does my neighbour and so does his. If these aliens are really hanging around here, hail to their ability to outsmart us all. And let's wonder for a moment, why are they here? Are they that bored?

reply to post by RSF77


Lens flares not obvious when the photo is cropped like that. In the whole photo you can see the windows causing them. Real event, bad photo.

reply to post by Sanndy

GET A ROOM

reply to post by Blue Shift


Good work on the Lago de Cote photo. It makes perfect sense, given the appearance of the anomaly.

reply to post by reject


yes, it looks alot like a Cymbal, from a Drum set too well, fake

reply to post by reject


First picture is an obvious fake. The big picture looks like an aerial view of some type of land and you can see small clouds..but no aliens sorry

The object looks asymetrical and distorted, but I guess it could be argued that this is an artifact of the propulsion system. Thats the problem with most UFO photographs, the quality is so poor as to make them inconclusive. One other photo that is similar to this and might interest you is the Trindade Island sighting in 1958. I believe that was found to have been hoaxed.

reply to post by reject


I have not read all the posts so if someone mentioned this already im sorry. I noticed in the big picture that the clouds have shadows under them. the ufo does not. can this be explained

reply to post by kommonsense


Yes i think it can... the UFO was added via photoshop.

Why do people keep chiming in that this is a "fake?" What do you mean? This was the actual photo, and the original was examined. And no, it's not a 600 foot cymbal.

The lake it is diving into is interesting as well. I was curious if a ufo that massive might hit the bottom of that lake before even being fully submerged. Many lakes are really not all that deep. So if you look up info on Lake Cote, you find that the bottom of this lake has never been recorded, by sonar, or any other means. It's incredibly deep. In fact, Jaques Costeau himself mounted an expedition to explore the lake. What he discovered was that Lake Cote is in the chute of an extinct volcano, which extended downwards in a twisted tunnel, making sonar ineffective.

So it looks like the lake would have no problems at all supporting such a large craft.

There have also been other sightings in the area, including a sighting by two people that said they saw a ufo flying into the lake.

reply to post by reject


I know you're discussing the UFO photo really but I just wanted to point out that the article you quoted is by a guy called Dave Masko. He rehashes old events and makes them sound sensational and as if they have just happened. He has submitted quite a few of these opinion pieces to huliq.com in the past. I did a thread on him and his sneaky ways.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As far as I'm aware the Cometa report hasn't been updated since it was finished in the 1990's, so the headline about scientists revealing the truth is blatantly false. I suppose the photo may remain 'un-debunkable' and a true UFO unless it is identified at a later date.

Originally posted by DrHammondStoat
As far as I'm aware the Cometa report hasn't been updated since it was finished in the 1990's, so the headline about scientists revealing the truth is blatantly false. I suppose the photo may remain 'un-debunkable' and a true UFO unless it is identified at a later date.

Undebunkable? Maybe. Unidentified? I can't identify it. But I see no reason to conclude that it's flying, or that it's even an object. It doesn't really look like it's either to me. For all I know it could be a reflection or a tiny piece of debris on the film for that one frame.

I think that's why some people are saying "fake" even though I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the image, and no reason to suspect an intentional hoax by anyone. Like I said earlier, there was no flying object there when this image was taken either and there was no hoax (even though it looks like a flying object; it looks more like a flying object than the image this thread is about):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6554174e811.png[/atsimg]

I think the people who conclude it must be a huge object on the lake also contradict the "flying" claim, (though I'd add I think they are wrong, I seriously doubt it's on the lake). So I don't agree we can call it a "flying object", I have no idea if that's what it is or not and the photo doesn't support that conclusion.

We can agree it's unidentified. That's about it.

Here's another little thing I put together to illustrate a few more of the problems with the image:

Originally posted by reject
The photograph is circa 1971. There were no PCs yet and therefore certainly no photo editing software such as photoshop

Although I think this photo was not altered (they saw the original negative), photo manipulation is as old as photography.

Anything in a photo can be changed, even in the negative (I have seen my sister doing that many times), using the same tools and techniques that have been used for more than 150 years.

Originally posted by awcgs
reply to post by Sanndy

 

GET A ROOM

That only makes sense when you say it to more than one person. I already have a room. I have several. What do you even mean? I should go get my own room because I do not just accept that this photo os of a flying craft?

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.

Good thing I never contended this plane was flying so there is no reason to prove that it is. Since I can clearly see it is a plane and not on the ground, I can assume with all that actual knowledge that it is flying but as you have not contended the picture is real, neither can I. Now if you want to tell me experts took that pic apart and proved it was not a fake plane, then I bet it was flying. That is what planes in the air are doing.

I can even see how that plane can fly and what propels it. None of that can be seen in this "UFO" picture. All you can see is a friggin circle from a long way up. You have no idea how far above the ground or below the camera it is and you do not know it is actually an object or that it is flying. You know none of those things.

Sorry if I just want to keep the UFO discussion grounded in reality as I thought ATS was for that but I can play along.

Wow! Zowwy! Zoinks! Leapin' Lizards! Amazing find. Star and flag. Great catch. This is the best picture of an obviously 600 foot wide flying craft. Hell I think I can even see an alien waving at me. Thanks soooooo much for this thread! You are the best!

Originally posted by EspyderMan
reply to post by Sanndy

 

So, it's still a UFO...Unidentified Floating Object (cause it's on water, not flying as you assume).

I assume? I never assumed anything. You are the one assuming this thing is on the water. I am more than happy to be convinced. Prove to me this is on the water.

I will wait.

Either way, is it something you have seen before ever? Something in that day and age that is common? Is there anything it could be besides something we cannot identify?

Yes, circles have been around a really long time.

Instead of arguing your point, prove it.

Get back to reality a minute.
Your claim: It is an unidentifed object that is floating on water.
My claim: I do not see any evidence of that.

Now you explain how I prove my claim and why you are free from proving yours. This should be great.

Originally posted by byeluvolk
However I do not think this is proof of alien or even advanced human tech. As with most pictures the quality and a frame of reference are sorely lacking. Do not get me wrong, I am a believer in intelligent alien races. I just do not buy the plethora of supposed pictures etc. that we are presented with as proof.

That is just not good enough. Have you not learned anything? I Believe in aliens. I believe in UFO's from other places. I believe in UFO's from unknown Earthly technology. The only thing I do not believe is that this picture shows anything compelling and for that I am apparently just no good. You say you believe in this stuff? No one cares. You have to tell them this is an amazing picture of an object that apparently is

Flying
Floating
and
Partly underwater.

You know, just say yes this is amazing proof and move on. Being skeptical is just no good in this forum whether you are a healthy skeptic or just a skeptic. You are supposed to just love it and thank them for showing it to you.

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by torsion

 

yeah, but if you look closely there's actually some symmetrical contour at the lit side;

Only that crazy alien technology could be symmetrical on one side.

Originally posted by Sanndy

Originally posted by byeluvolk
However I do not think this is proof of alien or even advanced human tech. As with most pictures the quality and a frame of reference are sorely lacking. Do not get me wrong, I am a believer in intelligent alien races. I just do not buy the plethora of supposed pictures etc. that we are presented with as proof.

That is just not good enough. Have you not learned anything? I Believe in aliens. I believe in UFO's from other places. I believe in UFO's from unknown Earthly technology. The only thing I do not believe is that this picture shows anything compelling and for that I am apparently just no good. You say you believe in this stuff? No one cares. You have to tell them this is an amazing picture of an object that apparently is

Flying
Floating
and
Partly underwater.

You know, just say yes this is amazing proof and move on. Being skeptical is just no good in this forum whether you are a healthy skeptic or just a skeptic. You are supposed to just love it and thank them for showing it to you.

SANNDY....your KILLING ME here! LOL! What good is any proposed concept or idea without skeptics? I hope you were just being sarchastic. LOL!

I myself have posted many things that may be logical but are short on proof. And even though I know these things are a reality...a person reading my post that does not provide proof...should remain a skeptic. i think it would make me sick to my stomach if everyone who read my or anyone elses posts and just believed them without question. Split Infinity