Lost photo of UFO found

page: 43
171
<< 40  41  42    44 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SBMcG
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.


MUFON contacted me about it...but I was advised on this thread to not send them the actual photo, as people have never received them back.




posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by SBMcG
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.


MUFON contacted me about it...but I was advised on this thread to not send them the actual photo, as people have never received them back.


You have a hi-def scan. If it were me, I'd take my chances and send them the photo.

This thing is either real or not. Worst case scenario for you is it's proven to be a fake and you don't get it back.

Along the way, you had a hell of a ride and can take your file to any Kinko's and have a print made that is better than the photo you gave MUFON.

In any case, I for one am grateful to you for sharing this pic and your story with us. You have comported yourself with integrity, dignity, and class all along the way.

And for what it's worth -- I think it's real.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by chapterhouse
 

I agree. Now that I look at it, it looks almost exactly like a ridge of trees with a hilltop behind it. The only thing that bothers me about this explanation is that the outline is so sharp. If it were a hole in the clouds, I'd expect to see other areas around the hole that would show a hint of trees or mountain or a different color. But that I can tell, all of it looks the same color. Other than that, your explanation is just right. I mean, what's the alternative? The alternative is that it's a spacecraft? LOL. How is that an alternative? My mind cannot unsee the mountain/trees now, either. I think it's because I just can't imagine that a spacecraft is in the photograph. It seems far more likely that it's NOT.

If the object wasn't the same color as the trees in the foreground or the hilltop behind it was a different color than the trees covered in fog/cloud then it'd be harder to accept it as such.

I gotta say again this explanation is the best one. Sorry to be a party pooper.

Occam's Razor says it's a ridge of trees with a hilltop behind it through a hole in the clouds. Among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.
edit on 21-12-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by lewtra
 

That HQ scan/image of the photograph just highlights the robustness of the tree/hilltop through a hole in the clouds explanation. See, more information has in fact verified it.

IMHO, no further explanation is needed. I'm done here.



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I think I've seen this thread before here on ATS.......................................................................................
2nd



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Auburn2012
 

Good contribution, but I see a lot of straight edges in your "reconstruction". How can you be sure that those other straight edges aren't also a byproduct of the same cut/paste effect?

Have you seen the ridge/hilltop through a hole in the clouds explanation? It would seem to imply that the "object" is not an object at all, but an illusion created by a hole in the clouds.

I wish ya'll luck. But I think this is explained.
edit on 21-12-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Interesting photo.

I remember from the 70's that there was big news of UFO sightings in PA.

For several weekend nights, my parents took us to a high mountain where there was a park, along with many of their brothers and sisters and friends. There were many other strangers there as well - as in crowds of people. Everyone had binoculars and their eyes to the sky in hopes of seeing UFO's.

I was so young that along with the other children, we were more interested in playing on the swings in the park. But I remember that there was much excitement among the adults.

I wonder if this picture is from those sitings during that time?



posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Here's another try replacing some of the colors to get a better idea of the irregularities, particularly in the bottom. It doesn't seem to be hollow, like a hubcap. Interesting that the colors on the bottom of the thing are also found in the trees and stuff on the ground, possibly indicating a reflection of color.




posted on Dec, 21 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
I wish ya'll luck. But I think this is explained.

I don't think that's a good explanation, as for it to be the top of a mountain it should much farther away than the trees, so it should be affected by all that atmosphere between the camera and the mountain top, appearing as if in a thin (at best) fog.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Here's another try replacing some of the colors to get a better idea of the irregularities, particularly in the bottom. It doesn't seem to be hollow, like a hubcap. Interesting that the colors on the bottom of the thing are also found in the trees and stuff on the ground, possibly indicating a reflection of color.



The reason the image looks off from top to bottom is because at the moment the photo was taken the craft moved as it was quickly leaving.

argue it all you want, but this is a real photo of a real spacecraft



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPECULUM
The reason the image looks off from top to bottom is because at the moment the photo was taken the craft moved as it was quickly leaving.

I disagree, there's no visible motion blur.


argue it all you want, but this is a real photo of a real spacecraft

Even if it was a real craft, how can you know that it was a spacecraft?



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SPECULUM
 


I disagree. It is a Billy Meier fake. It has been proven again and again to be a hoax. There were several pieces of footage that had merit in that film but you chose to isolate the one that was totally bogus... very interesting.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari
I disagree. It is a Billy Meier fake.

Really? Could you please provide some evidence of that?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


a photo of a photo.... well at least you didn't take a picture of a picture on a computer screen.

ah necro!
edit on 22-12-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari
reply to post by SPECULUM
 


I disagree. It is a Billy Meier fake. It has been proven again and again to be a hoax. There were several pieces of footage that had merit in that film but you chose to isolate the one that was totally bogus... very interesting.


One thing I know for sure about this photo is that it is NOT a Billy Meier photo. I have spent hours searching for this exact same photo on the Internet as part of the historical record...and it just can't be found. It has never been published before. If it was indeed a B.M. hoax...it would've been published somewhere.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by votan
 

Please read into the thread...I have posted High-resolution scans.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I don't believe all of billies pics were fakes. I do believe he may have faked some later because of all the attention he was getting.

As far as this photo?, during the 70's many of the sitings and photos taken looked similar
And i still believe these were space craft with occupants of unknown origin, and not of any secret government black program



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by SPECULUM
The reason the image looks off from top to bottom is because at the moment the photo was taken the craft moved as it was quickly leaving.

I disagree, there's no visible motion blur.


argue it all you want, but this is a real photo of a real spacecraft

Even if it was a real craft, how can you know that it was a spacecraft?


Now wouldn't that depend on which way it was leaving? lets say it was moving away, not left, right or forwards
Plus you would be dealing with flight characteristics of something of superior advanced technology, beyond our grasp of thinking...like the blinking in and out many Ufo's do? ive seen them do it first hand at close range so at least i know anyway


true, they could be dimensional craft



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPECULUM
Now wouldn't that depend on which way it was leaving? lets say it was moving away, not left, right or forwards

If it was moving away it would have motion blur all around it.


Plus you would be dealing with flight characteristics of something of superior advanced technology, beyond our grasp of thinking...

As far as I know, that doesn't change how light reacts, so it would appear in a photo in the same way anything else appears.


true, they could be dimensional craft

An aeroplane is a three dimensional craft.


edit on 22/12/2012 by ArMaP because: missed an "a"



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

NVM the original comment was intended for a completely different thread. I have no idea how it ended up in this one. will remove it. I don't understand how that happened. If you notice I mentioned footage, this thread is about a photo found.. wow. No idea how the reply for the other thread got in this one.
edit on 22-12-2012 by NephraTari because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
171
<< 40  41  42    44 >>

log in

join