Lost photo of UFO found

page: 41
171
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
This thread just showed up this afternoon in "recent posts," and somehow I missed it back in Nov/Dec. After the first few (6 or 7 pages) I saw the photo differently than any of you. It has been a very interesting thread and a good read, with very few of the decorum breaches that tend to infect these UFO pic threads.

However, my other reason for persistently reading all 40 pages was to find the other person or people who would see the photo as I see it, and no one has. So, perhaps I'm just really weird (which we mostly knew anyway), or maybe I need new glasses again although my prescription is only about 4 months old and I AM wearing them.

Surely at one time or another most of you have seen an optical illusion like the 'vase or two faces' or 'pretty young lady or old crone'? Sometimes you can't see the "reverse image" when you first look, but then once you see it, sometimes it's hard to "unsee" it and see what you saw when you first looked at it...

Well, about my 2nd or 3rd time of viewing the OP's photo, I saw something different, and even in all of the edited, altered, colored, filtered, blown up, contrasted, etc. versions I can't UNSEE what I see.

And, without any further unintentional buildup of suspense, what I see is a mountaintop through a hole in the clouds/haze/fog. I see a treeline, a bare slope above the treeline, and then a mountaintop or portion of a mountain peak either partially obscured by haze/clouds or possibly snow-capped. As I said, it took me a few good looks at the photo to see it that way instead of seeing it as an object in the sky, but now that I have seen it as a hole I have a hard time seeing it as an object. The "irregular" bottom edge now makes sense as a treeline, and the "lopsidedness" of the top portion is no longer anomalous.

Here are a couple of examples of the phenomenon I am referring to:






Please don't tear me apart, I myself have seen a UFO more than once and I don't doubt they exist, nor do I claim to have the definitive answer for what the OP's photo is. I'm just presenting a different point of view to see if anyone else can see it as I do.

Thanks.




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 

I can appreciate your fresh perspective...I understand what you're describing, however, I can't seem to find it for myself. Perhaps I've been too long with this image and my own preconceived viewpoint.
Thank you for sharing some fresh analysis.
-TAT



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Dmvr79
 


Hi, can you please direct me to the similar story you found making the rounds on the Internet?
Thanks.
-TAT



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
If it was a billy photo wouldn't he have put have made this public with the others?
If I was him I would of put this one out rather than the others.
So that's why its not his.

Is there any indication that it could be wire standing it up from the ground underneath the craft/object. Take the dark trees they would hide it any sign of wire, why must it always be hanging from something. also wire wouldn't need to be straight it could have bends in it.

some food for thought.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by amraks
 

Hello,
The theory of a wire was previously discussed in this thread...and, I believe, it has been discounted as a possibility.
Thanks,
TAT



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Hiya buddy, I cant upload the Bitmap or Tif image files of the hi res scans on ATS..Here is the hi res jpeg you Emailed me..

It is the best of the bunch anyway..



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by lewtra
 


I really appreciate your help. Thank you, lewtra.
-TAT



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Did your dad witness this UFO he was sent?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by amraks
 

Hi,
No; At least he never spoke of it.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Fantastic pic IAMTAT and great contributions by all here.

I was wondering if the person who e-mailed bruce maccabee has had any reply?
I and i assume many others here would love to hear his results.
The only contact info i can find for bruce is this brumac.8k.com...

Send him an e-mail TAT and see what he says
lets not let this thread die.

also just want to say if that is fishing line then its very thick sea fishing shot leader

i mean you could use 2lb line to hold hubcaps up. Why produce such a great UFO pic then kill it with such THICK line?
Anyways TAT thanks for bringing us this pic



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by GezinhoKiko
 

Thanks for your input...as well as the site for Mr. Maccabee. I will try to send him an email directing him here.

I have also sent an email to a Mr.Clifford at MUFON for the second time; sending
him some high-resolution images of the object along with a message directing him here to have him read this thread. I have yet to hear back from him.

If others here have any expertise in photo analysis or know of contacts who might help with this, I would ask that they might please direct them to this photo and thread.

Thanks.

-TAT



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by GezinhoKiko
 

This morning, I have written an email to Mr. Maccabee at the website you provided. However, it appears to be a pretty old site, so I hope we'll hear back from him.
I'm really suprised that I haven't had more interest from MUFON and the rest of the UFO research community on this image. I really don't know what more I can do at this point.
Thank you, again.
-TAT



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
UPDATE:
Still no response from MUFON.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thanks for the link, Roswell is so very interesting, these reports that are surfacing are great, I should read more about the actual reports, fascinating.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by dashdespatch
 


I recall photos here in the UK from the 70's and on being either glossy or matt, a particular matt paper being very matt and with a canvas grain.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I've read every post on this thread. While I think curious4ufos analysis is very strong, Pixel Pushers hubcap comparison is very strong as well. Also, while curious makes a strong case for leaning that the size of the UFO is greater than a hubcap, it does not definitely rule out a hubcap.

What I haven't seen (and lack the skill to do) is some comparing the angles of the canopy of the UFO to that of the hubcap in Pixel Pusher's example.

The UFO canopy and the hubcap canopy look like this:

_
/ \

What is the angle of these lines ( / and \ )?

If the angles match the hubcap I think it would be a strong case for the hubcap.

The probablity of a UFO looking like a hubcap and having the canopy designed with the SAME angle as a contemporary hubcap would be REALLY long odds, to say the least.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by elitelogic
 


I like your angle on the angles. I would love to find out if comparing the actual hubcap angle and the craft's top angles is possible.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Wow IMTAT and others thank you for the best 40 page read I have ever read on this site. This has to be one of the most productive threads ever. I don't think the picture is a UFO. I just don't think many of the late 60's early 70's are because they all seem to sync up to some sort of mythical saucer... I barely bother reading on stories involving saucers because I think that the metal saucer is mans interpretation developed by imagination feed by a poor description of the first national story on UFO sightings. I weed through most that data and look for more interesting things.

So I quickly dismissed the object in the image being a UFO. However, I kept reading and I have to say that I find the story of the image and the events that followed here far more interesting. First I think your father knew the pic was just some fun, I suspect it was friends example of a UFO pic, part of the UFO fake pic phenom of the 70's where lots of people played with taking pictures to emulate a UFO pic. I suspect your father was aware of this and the "circa 1970" is the clue. It was part of many pics that had lost most organize value by the originator of the image. The probably knew your dad would get a kick out of having a UFO pic and he might have had a chuckle and packed it away. This would explain his lack of communication on the subject and your lack of knowledge of the picture.

What made me really like this thread was seeing all the involvement by ATS members. I learned a lot about the group and how crowdsourcing can be productive and fun. While I personally don't think the photo is real, I think this experience you had and those of us that read it was fun and worth the memory created by this photo.

Great thread.
Thanks.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ragedizzer

What made me really like this thread was seeing all the involvement by ATS members. I learned a lot about the group and how crowdsourcing can be productive and fun. While I personally don't think the photo is real, I think this experience you had and those of us that read it was fun and worth the memory created by this photo.

Great thread.
Thanks.


Thanks, ragedizzer,

I couldn't agree more with you about the experience of seeing all of the constructive and informative invovelment by the members here.
This thread was one of my first and most positive experiences here. Regardless of the inconclusivity of the photograph posted, I am proud of the civility and enthusiasm on both sides of the real/not real issue. I think it disproves much of the criticism ATS sometimes receives.

-TAT



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 

That's the sports model.





new topics
top topics
 
171
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join