It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFO photo taken by Australian Council Worker (2004)

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I already know. What would a lifting body be doing just hanging around the countryside? I just thought the indistinct shape of whatever it is looks like the shape of a lifting body.




posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


And I just saw your photos of birds. That does seem to be the best explanation. And I usually don't agree with you.
edit on 12/28/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: typo



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


A bug on a windscreen? Hmm.. it doesn't make sense as the object looks "in motion", don't get me wrong, I'm open to all explanations as to what this object could be. It just doesn't look like a bug squashed on a windscreen.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


Thank you for enlarging - it is not a bird. I live in rural area and see large birds from time to time - this is not a bird.

Much Peace...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


Thank you for the enlargement - that is not a bird.

Much Peace...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Not necessarily squashed...i just have the impression that the object is/was very close. I am not a photo pro, but i'd say even a bird at the assumed distance should turn up more clear. (But then this is also speculation since we dont have the data eg. exposure time of the shot etc.)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Comparing the photographs of birds and the enlargements provided by posters - there is no light or energy coming off the bird but there is an extension of light? from the enlargements.

Until someone with photogrpahic technology that can clean up the enlargements - I cannot be swayed from believing the object is metallic and with rounded parts. No discernible head with beak in the enlargements.

It would certainly be easier to accept the bird theory - but - even the bird comparisons are still blurry and need to be clearer to make a definite call. If people need to believe it is a bird - so be it. I say unidentified and I am leaning towards a metallic craft.

Much Peace...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


I totally agree with you on the possibility that this object is very close to the camera, I am pretty sure I expressed my concerns for this in my original post. Something doesn't add up (in my mind at least anyway) as to why the object looks close, it's weird (for me) to say the least.


Originally posted by Amanda5
Comparing the photographs of birds and the enlargements provided by posters - there is no light or energy coming off the bird but there is an extension of light? from the enlargements.

Until someone with photogrpahic technology that can clean up the enlargements - I cannot be swayed from believing the object is metallic and with rounded parts. No discernible head with beak in the enlargements.

It would certainly be easier to accept the bird theory - but - even the bird comparisons are still blurry and need to be clearer to make a definite call. If people need to believe it is a bird - so be it. I say unidentified and I am leaning towards a metallic craft.

Much Peace...



I'm with you on this.
edit on 28-12-2011 by Violence because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Violence
 


A thought I had within a short time of studying the photograph you posted is that Melbourne and the area around have a history of sightings.

Maybe there is a reason why sightings are sometimes collated around a particular area. I am a Teacher and I have Students disclosing to me and drawing diagrams - sometimes their parents as well. I am not arrogant enough to think we humans are the only life form in a bloody vast Universe.

Need some technology to clean up the images when they are enlarged. Great photograph and great post. Thank you.

Much Peace...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Amanda5
 


Heres the best I can do with an enlargement . As I played with the contrast and light it really looks to me like it is reflective surface.




posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
The U.S. has also been working on small robotic "BIRDS" for the purpose of RECON. There is a directive...and you guy's can check this out....that before the end of this decade...large portions of U.S. Military air, ground, sea and other vehicles must be robotic.

The percentages of USAF craft that must be robotic is astounding as well as Army convoy transport vehicles...over 50% must be robotic by 2018. One of the primary reasons...besides money...is that robotic craft that can make manuvers that would kill a pilot will be soon on carriers. Split Infinity


Now that seems even more likely than it being a bird. I've seen photos of these new bird shaped drones, and I'm sure they have stuff up there we haven't seen in the media yet.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


Thanks for taking the time to do that. We're going to have a lot of split decisions around here as to whether the surface of the object in question is actually reflective. I'm under the impression that it is in fact reflective.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Perhaps we're not seeing it's angle of approach correctly. Maybe it's coming at the camera like this:



Could be an average everyday blurry plane.

ETA:

I can't draw on a computer so well. Sorry.

edit on 12/28/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: eta



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


A big thank you. It certainly looks clearer. I see a round object that is metallic and there is a dome on the top. I do not see a bird - more so now you have kindly cleaned up the enlargement. There is a light source coming off and this effect is absent in the bird comparisons.

Great effort - thank you again.

Much Peace...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


A big thank you. It certainly looks clearer. I see a round object that is metallic and there is a dome on the top. I do not see a bird - more so now you have kindly cleaned up the enlargement. There is a light source coming off and this effect is absent in the bird comparisons.

Great effort - thank you again.

Much Peace...



This ^

And I'm surprised Phage hasn't been back to defend his debunking attempts with the "blurd" photo.
Just from seeing how he posts in other threads, I thought he would have defended his attempt more than once. I look forward to seeing what else he has to say, since so many people look to him as the be all and end all of UFO debunking.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Look at the second blurred picture of a bird in flight on this blog. White feathers can appear to be metal highlights.

Its just curious everything is in focus except the thing in the sky, on a bright clear day when a still photograph would have a fast shutter speed. One would think a distant craft in the sky would also be clear, even going sideways. Never seen jets take off at just a couple thousand feet?

Although the jpeg image artifacts look consistent throughout the photo, doesn't rense.com raise any suspicion that it's the only (once again) source of this, and I love the passing train excuse for a solitary shot. Even if a train went by a distant object could still be shot again, however a bird would be long gone.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


rense.com is the only source I can find that still had a proper link intact. I remember seeing this on the news years ago, and in the Herald Sun (newspaper) it just seems the links don't work any more for this article on their website. They've been archived or something.

Alas I do agree, (and I was waiting on this) that link you providing looks similar, in regards to the reflective surface.
edit on 28-12-2011 by Violence because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Look at the second blurred picture of a bird in flight on this blog. White feathers can appear to be metal highlights.

Its just curious everything is in focus except the thing in the sky, on a bright clear day when a still photograph would have a fast shutter speed. One would think a distant craft in the sky would also be clear, even going sideways. Never seen jets take off at just a couple thousand feet?

Although the jpeg image artifacts look consistent throughout the photo, doesn't rense.com raise any suspicion that it's the only (once again) source of this, and I love the passing train excuse for a solitary shot. Even if a train went by a distant object could still be shot again, however a bird would be long gone.


I have to agree that this bird shot

birdingblogs.com...

look awfully similar.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Violence
 


Didn't realize this wasn't current. An image like this would find a lifespan on rense.com. I've seen a lot of photos at air shows on clear days with jets not very distant in focus, I just can't get over the fact a supposedly distant flying saucer should be out of focus. That to me suggests something smaller and closer than a flying anything in the distant. Why are all of these interstellar spacecrafts seemingly so small?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I wish I had the answer to this haha..

I respect your input though Illustronic, you're one of few I respect around here.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join