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.

 

[HOAX]saw flying metallic disk in nashville... WITH PICS... and now my dog is sick[HOAX]

page: 35
74
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SaulGoodman
 


About his twitter account....it's all readily accessible just by googling his screen name. True about nothing mentioned about his dog, or this incident via his tweets. Funny, he retweeted an ATS story a few weeks ago. So, this IS indeed the OP.




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind

Your earlier ideas of humidity and clarity of the object really help explain the oddness of the photo - namely it appears too clearly to be a distant object. I thought about airshows I have been to and how planes flying at some distance become greyed out due to humidity. Even though the humidity was low in the photo the tower provides a reference point.


I used to make 3D (stereoscopic) images for a hobby, and had to study up on "depth cues", which is where that information came from. 3D landscape rendering programs (Terragen2, for instance) use atmospheric blueing and haze as one of their main depth cues for 2D images they generate. 3D images of that nature use parallax, but the atmospheric blueing gives an added level or "realism" to them. It's what makes the Blue Ridge mountains blue.

I added my methodology and the formulae I used in that post so that folks can check behind me for themselves, and point out if I made a blunder somewhere - which is entirely possible.






edit on 2012/4/12 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by MegaMind

Your earlier ideas of humidity and clarity of the object really help explain the oddness of the photo - namely it appears too clearly to be a distant object. I thought about airshows I have been to and how planes flying at some distance become greyed out due to humidity. Even though the humidity was low in the photo the tower provides a reference point.


I used to make 3D (stereoscopic) images for a hobby, and had to study up on "depth cues", which is where that information came from. 3D landscape rendering programs (Terragen2, for instance) use atmospheric blueing and haze as one of their main depth cues for 2D images they generate. 3D images of that nature use parallax, but the atmospheric blueing gives an added level or "realism" to them. It's what makes the Blue Ridge mountains blue.


Hey I visit the blue ridge almost every weekend ... and it does look blue on many days ...



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I don't want to bring up another bone-of-contention but didn't the planes (involved in 9-11 in the WTC) after they went through rigorous scrutiny and after extensive examination by professionals, didn't those planes not pass the sniff-test too? After all, we had an invisible plane at one point. So we know anomalies happen

My point is: you have a moving solid object, jettisoning in a gaseous atmosphere with static interference, being captured by an artificial apparatus (a camera) so how can that possibly---- with crystal clear accuracy---decide what we're seeing?


How 'bout this (just throwing this out there)....what if this was real? Okay?...with me so far? What if this was a real bonafided UFO exhibiting some gravitational invisible shield that we don't know diddly squat about. Can that at ALL be a possibility?

I ask because I cannot get into all this tech-talk about exif stuff. All I know is artificial equipment is never a reliable source. There are 'glitches'. That word comes up a LOT when looking at SOHO images and that's state-of-the-art equipment



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MegaMind
 


I took this photo from a mountain top just west of the Blue Ridge, and just east of the Cumberlands, near where I was raised. It's a good example of how using haze as a depth cue works. Various distances can be gauged by how hazy the landscape is at that point.




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by strafgod
Reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I never said it was reliable.



I have no desire to even read this thread now


Maybe that qoute is what gave you a deceptive result?

Ill trust this scanner as much as I will of the gullible and
hoax screaming member's opinions.
 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 


edit on 12-4-2012 by strafgod because: (no reason given)



Good point
but I meant the prior pages. I read the first three then the last five or six. So I guess I AM reading the thread. Maybe I'll give that device another shot after all



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

How 'bout this (just throwing this out there)....what if this was real? Okay?...with me so far? What if this was a real bonafided UFO exhibiting some gravitational invisible shield that we don't know diddly squat about. Can that at ALL be a possibility?

I ask because I cannot get into all this tech-talk about exif stuff. All I know is artificial equipment is never a reliable source. There are 'glitches'. That word comes up a LOT when looking at SOHO images and that's state-of-the-art equipment


It's possible, I suppose, but not likely. The reason I say that is this: I don't think anything is impossible on the face of it, but the camera takes a picture of what it sees. It just records the photons that hit it. It's unlikely that a shield around a UFO would clear the atmosphere between itself and the observer, in a straight line, without affecting the surrounding atmosphere as well. If it extended all the way to the observer, and the object were farther away than the tower, then it should have cleared the haze between the observer and the tower, too.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by strafgod
 


In that link you shared, what does: Click Here To Renter More Text To Analyze mean? Is that a typo? Was it supposed to say Render? Or Re-enter?
stealthserver01.ece.stevens-tech.edu...



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


I can tell you this i would never post UFO pictures again its to frustrating mine were never debunked i gave then everything they wanted down to the raw footage ..But i stayed with my thread to defend it right to the very end ..Was it a UFO i don't know sure looked like it to me i can tell you this its hard to sit and read insults and your thread ripped to shreds when you know what you saw in your heart was very intriguing and amazing to look at..peace,sugarcookie1



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I'm sorely tempted to post a photo I took last August of 5 helicopters chasing a round "something", and let the debunkers shred it if they can, just for fair play. I have no idea what it was, so it's "umidentified" to me, but that doesn't mean that no one can figure it out.

There's no reason to fear examination - something might be learned from it. The thing that holds me back is the file size - 1.2 MB, which is too big to post the original at ATS, and the fact that both the gizzy being chased and the helicopters were far enough away to be "fuzzy". You can tell the choppers by the gross shape, but the thing being chased, not so much.

I dunno. I'll think about starting a thread on it, if I can figure out a way to distribute the original to the folks who are sure to ask for it.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 


Quite possibly the longest sentence I have ever read but I agree 100%.
The question is,will there ever be "proof"?
The answer is of course NO!

In order for there to be proof there needs to be evidence that is accepted as fact.
If people are going to refuse to accept evidence then it will never be proven......to THEM!
If enough people refuse to accept the evidence then a norm is established and those who go outside that norm
get quickly dealt with by the majority.

What we have here are people who WILL NOT accept ANY evidence period.
No matter how good it is, it will be picked apart and labeled a hoax by someone!

We, as a whole, are truely not ready for any type of disclosure.
I firmly believe that, depending on how it was carried out, diclosure has the potential to create mass panic and record suicides the wolrd over.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Screwed because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2012 by Screwed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
After all, we had an invisible plane at one point. So we know anomalies happen

None of the "no-plane" 9/11 madness analysis has been applied to the original high-resolution videos. Everything is relying on multi-generational compressed and recompressed YouTube/Digital videos of indeterminate origins, quality, frame rate, and resolution. Some of those same "semi-invisible" anomalies can be seen in just about any older video on YouTube -- even some of our early ATS News videos before we perfected our process.





In other news... this thread is still going?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by amongus

Besides the dog, the OP IS actually pretty big in the independent music industry. Someone did research, and found out the OP is Sol Philcox. Google him.....he Does have quite the following and talents as mentioned.

Unfortunately, hoaxing ATS isn't one of them.



Why in the world would he intentionally run the risk of ruining his good reputation? Did he offer up his real name or was this found out, afterward?

From my experience with those who have seen or experienced this phenomena...people who are usually successful or talented musicians aren't usually pranksters.
I know that's a huge generalization but I've found musicians to be over-all, very focused individuals who are true to their music/intent. This truthfulness usually doesn't get cast aside just to pull a prank. Not to this degree anyway.

Again, I know that was a broad assessment but that is overall, what I've found to be true. Not saying there can't be an exception or two.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Screwed
The question is,will there ever be "proof"?

This thread is as close as I've seen:
O'Hare Airport UFO Sighting -- UPDATE: Photos & Analysis

We have a cell phone photo that has survived expert analysis, and has been confirmed to be the right object, position, and weather conditions by eye witnesses.

Also, not long after the O'Hare event, we received these...
More "Anonymous" Chicago UFO images

Which shows photos that have also stood up to expert analysis, and exhibits the same characteristics of the object seen at O'Hare.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I've liked every single post you've posted
except this one line:


Originally posted by Screwed
We, as a whole, are truely not ready for any type of disclosure.



We are absolutely ready for disclosure. It's the discussion that we're no good at.

Beside, there are natural born debaters. Hell, there are even committees for just that type of temperament. I think forums in general attract debaters. So this is probably a poor example to gauge the general public against.

But we are SO ready for disclosure because living among Humans is getting nearly impossible.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien



But we are SO ready for disclosure because living among Humans is getting nearly impossible.




I'll drink to that!



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   




That WAS a great thread! But, I'm biased



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Does anyone know how his dog is though?

edit on 13-4-2012 by mainidh because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mainidh
Does anyone know how his dog is though?

edit on 13-4-2012 by mainidh because: (no reason given)


The op dropped off of his thread a mere two hours after starting it. So, no...nobody knows.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by amongus

Originally posted by mainidh
Does anyone know how his dog is though?

edit on 13-4-2012 by mainidh because: (no reason given)


The op dropped off of his thread a mere two hours after starting it. So, no...nobody knows.



Yeah but how many hours until he was drop-kicked off this thread though? (serious question)




top topics



 
74
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join