I need your help with two images

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Looking at the initial photos of the aircraft.....I'm finding it hard to believe that it is a F-18 utilized by the US or the UK....the air intakes alone would suggest that indeed that the aircraft is not an F-18 but perhaps a UK 'Typhoon' or something similar.


seekerof




posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   

To me the jet seems to have only one tail like an f-16.


Yep, I agree, my money's on the F-4 Phantom... Still enough has been shown to cast serious doubt on this being genuine...great find Pantha!



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Count the 'hardpoints' and re-analyze the existing air intakes.....
This (below) is my bet.....at least something similar to....

From:
Typhoon EF-2000 Eurofighter


seekerof



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   
The bookmaker open the bets :

How many pages of discussion about to determine the model of the plane on those photoshop pics ?

I say 5 !


[edit on 2-9-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]


jra

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Those "U.F.O.'s" look so obviously fake... to me anyway. They look like a modified photoshop lens flare, it's not even funny. CG lens flares stand out so much compaired to real life lens flares. Real ones tend not to have a thin pink ring around them. You also don't often get that pointy star effect either. I've had it once in one of my sunset photos, but it wasn't that sharp and pointy.

Looking at the photo that pantha found. Compairing the area where the shadow from the clouds are on the mountain side to the one with the "U.F.O.". That spot looks like it's been messed with. Possibly removing the shadow from it to make it appear differnt. It just looks funny to me. Something isn't right about it that's all i know. Also, it's not too hard to replace one sky with another. Some photographers do this to make there photos look better. Another thing is the "light" emitting from the "U.F.O.'s" down onto the surface of the mountain. That really doesn't look right at all. Looks like some one just painted white onto the rocks. A white light (or pure light) would only make the surface colour a brighter version of that colour. It would not turn it white like that unless it was super bright and over exposed on the film, but it would make the surface "blown out". meaning that it would be nearly solid white and glowing. You would not see any surface detail in that spot.

Well that's my long (and hopefully coherent) analysis of these photos. I don't personally don't consider them authentic at all.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Nobody gonna ask why a person or group from a British university is investigating these pics.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Thanks for all the comments guys and gals, but it really was nothing, just a lucky search and i was never expecting to find the actual mountain in question.
I look forward to seeing DrJims future posts in this thread to hopefully find out the conclusion to his investigations.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
Nobody gonna ask why a person or group from a British university is investigating these pics.


They asked for our assistance and we gave it, it's a friend of Simon's so no reason to question, i'm sure we will receive further info about them in due course.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by weirdo
Nobody gonna ask why a person or group from a British university is investigating these pics.


They asked for our assistance and we gave it, it's a friend of Simon's so no reason to question, i'm sure we will receive further info about them in due course.



A friend of Simon who used to work for the govt and we are best placed to google search the net and make assumtions on aircraft that a 15 year old could guess at.
Think l will believe the media about the state of the British education system.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Alright I am going to take a different course on these pictures. First off, the orbs appear to be giving off an extraordinary amount of light. These pictures were taken during the day but in both pictures the orbs brighten the landscape greatly.



[img] img84.exs.cx...[/img]

Another thing is that on the second picture it appears that the plan is emitting a third orb. This makes me wonder if the orbs are some kind of weapon. But I discount that idea due to the change of direction but who knows it may be possible and I just cant fathom it. The other thing is that the distance and direction of the orbs and the plane in both photos appears to be the same almost like the orbs are pulling the aircraft. Could it be an experimental propulsion system?



Another thing I copied the letter from the Government and posted it here just in case it gets removed.


i received this e-mail yesterday from someone over at the air force asking for permission to use my photographs in some training program they're working on over there. i have edited these e-mails for clarity.
please read attachment in regards to gaining permission to allow the 36th intelligence squadron of the us air force use of your photos in training material. if you have further questions, you may contact me via this e-mail address or the phone number below if you have any questions.

thank you for your time and help with this matter, your contributions will help the united states air force with a computer based training program.

attachment:

1. in an effort to ensure our warfighters are familiar with friendly as well as foe weapon systems, the 36 is has been charged with developing threat recognition training materials to include posters, videos, web pages, etc. our products are for official department of defense (dod) use only and do not generate a profit. to date, we are the sole government source for threat recognition training materials and we maintain over 10,000 products that are utilized by 300+ agencies worldwide.

2. one of our jobs is to find as many photos as possible of worldwide weapon systems and supporting information. weve noticed you have taken several exceptional photos and we would like permission to utilize them on our web pages for the background for use in our computer based training program for an indefinite period of time. we realize many artists request copies of their published works, however, due to the confidential nature of our business we will be unable to provide this to you.

3. if you will allow this, please send written permission and any stipulations to 36 is/inv room 33, 34 elm street, langley afb, va 23665, attn: threat recognition branch. if you have any questions, contact my threat recognition branch chief at (xxxx) xxx-xxxx.
and here is my response:
i am deeply flattered that you have taken an interest in my photographs. when i first got your e-mail, i have to say i was quite excited about being published. however, i have given it some thought and talked with some of my confidants on the subject, and i regret to inform you that i cannot, in good conscious, allow any branch of the military to use my photographs.

my general stance of non-violence prohibits me from aiding the military in any way. the fact that i would not be able to receive a copy of the final product because of it's classification adds another layer of certainty to my decision. and finally, just last week i granted permission to an war protest rally to use some of my other pictures in their brochures and pamphlets. allowing you to use my pictures for military training would make me into a hypocrite.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   
#2 interests me.

2. one of our jobs is to find as many photos as possible of worldwide weapon systems and supporting information. weve noticed you have taken several exceptional photos and we would like permission to utilize them on our web pages for the background for use in our computer based training program for an indefinite period of time.

Strange coincidence.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Actually looking at the photo of the plane again, I kinda thought it was 2 in the second picture and forgot there was only one to begin with...

It kind of looks like it's just firing a missile off maybe?



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bangin
.......we would like permission to utilize them on our web pages for the background for use in our computer based training program for an indefinite period of time.


Yes, it's what I was trying to get at earlier when I said this:


Originally posted by AgentSmith... If it wasn't for the fact he didn't give permission, I would have said that it must be an illustration in reference to an article on identifying and engaging UFOs. So maybe they just went ahead and used them anyway, in which case how did they end up on the public domain?
If they are illustrations relating to engaging UFOs, then it's an admission that they take this seriously.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Here is another interesting note. Inside Big Bend National Park is a Military Airfield that was closed in 1943. Could the military still be using the Johnson Ranch Airfield for covert operations?

www.nps.gov...



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo

Originally posted by Koka

Originally posted by weirdo
Nobody gonna ask why a person or group from a British university is investigating these pics.


They asked for our assistance and we gave it, it's a friend of Simon's so no reason to question, i'm sure we will receive further info about them in due course.



A friend of Simon who used to work for the govt and we are best placed to google search the net and make assumtions on aircraft that a 15 year old could guess at.
Think l will believe the media about the state of the British education system.


Well for a 15 year old, you're still very childish.

If you have input, like the question you wanted to ask, you don't need the permission of anyone here...and don't forget to go to the toilet before you set off to school........



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Just a thought between the two pictures the second image l believe is of a differant aircraft.Reminds me of the Russian Flankers.It looks like the air intakes are under the front cockpit.And it has the same amount of weapons pylons.LINK TO PHOTO



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   


I beleive that this may be the same area that is in the pictures in question. I don't know for sure because the Picture doesn't lable where it is and is labeled by "Window into Spring".

There is also another picture called "Fog in the Window" which leads me to beleive this place is called the Window.




[edit on 2-9-2004 by BlackJackal]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   


Here is a clip of where The Window is located.

And here is a link to the full map.

www.nps.gov...



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   
DrJim:

If you extracted these two pictures from the browser cache then why aren't the others extracted? Seems that if you're goin to look at two pictures, you would probably want to look at all the others.

Also, if you were analysing these pics I would assume you are using photoshop or something equivalent and not a browser.

If a browser was used, then were these pics accessed via the net? Can they be accessed again?

I also find it strange that the first pic of the orbs do not contain a flame/plasma trail as in the second pic.

If you're not concerned with the "originality" of the pics then are you just testing ATS's plane and geographical spotting skills?

My 2c worth


Cheers

JS

[edit on 2-9-2004 by jumpspace]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
It's also clear that the sky has been altered. Look at the outlined area. It's been added, cloned or smoothed out. The lower part of the sky is pixelated.





[edit on 2-9-2004 by kinglizard]






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join