Lost photo of UFO found

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

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   
edit on 17-8-2012 by chapterhouse because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hhott
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.


ill tear you apart paid idiot



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


Even the cheap scanners now have very high optical .dpi. I use a fifty dollar one at work for documents that has 4800 dpi optical from Epson. Of course nothing like the professional Epson I use here at home for photo reconstruction but it would be way better.

Exactly what does the paper label say? Just Konica 100 and nothing else? I'm looking for a list of papers to share and I'll post a link if I find a good one. I have a list for after 1976 I think but not pre 1970.

Most any workplace that has a scanner made in the last few years could do a good scan.

It is stamped diagonally KONICA and 100 but the two words a in a very faded grey tone, non-contiguous and are randomly placed at the same angles upside down.


Most old photos will have those watermarks in the back. I remember seeing those (and checking old family album will show it for sure) 20+ years ago.

I can be mistaken but I think it's the photo printing paper brand + ASA number. 100 ASA was the most common film used I think.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetaryStorm
 

Thanks.
After so much time and analysis here...and many pages, I still have not been able to find whether or not this image is a hoax; great analysis on all sides.
If it were a hoax from the mid-to-late seventies, how come it has never appeared in print or in the historical record before? I have yet to see this image anywhere else.
edit on 18-12-2012 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
at first glance , in my opinion, its a photo of model. Model seem closer to camera than the trees.

but as i dont know what object that is and it seem to be flying, then the term UNKNOWN FLYING OBJECT photo is right.. Flying saucer it is not...



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by milomilo
 


care to elaborate on why "it is not"?
if you have read the whole thread im sure your aware of all the anylisis that has been done within this thread.
so lets have a breakdown of why its not a flying saucer to you.




Model seem closer to camera than the trees.


expand on this statement please



edit on 19-12-2012 by GezinhoKiko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


Thats awesom and looks bonafide real. Thanks for the share.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
The Object looks like it's a model in front of the trees. It's closer looking due to being more clear then the trees, yet it's smaller then it should be that close. Just my opinion. But I read through 25 pages of this thread, it's very cool.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 

Thanks, AthlonSavage...It is still a real mystery, at least as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


So no conclusive proof of being real or fake.
That's good!

What ever happened with the bowl?
Last I heard ,it was of about the same opinion.

Peace,
K



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
it was real, i was there, i saw it all
dont believe me? were you there?



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 

Yes, I'm afraid the bowl has ended up in as ambiguous a position as the saucer. Plenty of great analysis and opinion, however. Happy doomsday and Holidays.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SPECULUM
 

I wish you were serious : )



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
A picture....of a picture! Sweet

Great evidence. I believe after seeing this. Only thing better would be a picture of a picture of the picture.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by SPECULUM
 

I wish you were serious : )


I'm not?
Were you there, did you see it?



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I'm of the mind that the government has had disc shaped aircraft in a prototype stage for the last thirty or forty years. I have seen too many pics of this type of aircraft to not think that they exist....I don't believe that they are aliens, though.

As in this kind of thing:
www.bing.com...=detail&id=588BC2F8FA8599FDD78C4F3418DB6EA222DDF3B2&selectedIndex =3

and who knows how many different kinds of disc type aircrafts the government has actually created?



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by SPECULUM
 

I wish you were serious : )


I'm not?
Were you there, did you see it?

No, I wasn't there taking the photo back then. Wish I was.
This was an old photo that I found among my dad's things.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by BSFC123
 

I agree, it could very well be something the military has developed...or, at least, retro-engineered from actual alien craft.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


NIce photo. Looks like a wedge shaped craft, or like half of it is missing.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


Whether or not the photo is indeed staged or faked or the real thing or whatever, I'm quite surprised that MUFON hasn't been all over this.





new topics
 
171
<< 39  40  41    43  44 >>

log in

join