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.

 

Some intriguing images snapped by a photographer in Colorado ..,

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   




The Daily Weird UFOs Is the Media Ignoring a Stunning Set of UFO Images? July 12, 2012 12:09 am Greg Newkirk 9 Comments Some intriguing images snapped by a photographer in Colorado have been causing a quite a bit of discussion online this week, but the real question is why they haven’t been causing more commotion in the media. Professional photographer Greg Archer took a few shots of a lightning storm over Castle Rock, Colorado on the 6th of this month, but the most striking objects in the photo aren’t the streaks of lightning tearing through the sky, but rather the mysterious lights hovering uniform high above the tree line.


So are those plasma balls,camera artifacts or what???

Article Here
edit on 20-7-2012 by SoulVoid because: (no reason given)
and the rest of pictures Here also..
edit on 20-7-2012 by SoulVoid because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2012 by SoulVoid because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2012 by SoulVoid because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


They seem to be in some sort of formation so I'm guessing someone will come along and state emphatically that they are giant seagulls that are being lit up because of the lightning flashes reflecting off of their white feathers.

Not my guess tho.


Good pic.

Peace




edit on 20-7-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Nice pic! I have no clue what they are (logically). They certainly look to me that they shouldn't be there and they don't look like a bunch of birds caught in a storm, but you know how that goes.

My guess is others will say... Lens flares, birds being struck by lightening, a bunch of folks trying to re-enact a Benjamin Franklin kite/key scenario, or dust particles stirred up by the oncoming wind.


Regardless of what it is, it is an awesome pic!



edit on 7/20/2012 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Oh come on Jude it's just a lens flare from the camera.


Didn't know white feathers could be so bright.

edit on 20-7-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   


My guess is others will say... Lens flares, birds being struck by lightening, a bunch of folks trying to re-enact a Benjamin Franklin kite/key scenario, or dust particles stirred up by the oncoming wind.

reply to post by Manhater
 





Oh come on Jude it's just a lens flare from the camera.



1. This was a 10 second exposure, but the dots do not show any appreciable motion blurring.

2. A second photo was taken about 5 minutes later. After rotating that photo about 3 degrees, the dots are seen to be in precisely the same position relative to each other.

3. Although the dots in the second photo haven’t moved relative to each other, they have moved to the left relative to the horizon, so there was some slow motion.

4. The 3-degree rotation of the horizon proves that the camera was rotated slightly in the second photo, but the dot pattern is still aligned with the horizon, not the image frame, indicating that the dots are not any kind of camera artifact like hot spots or internal reflections. (If they were camera artifacts, they would have rotated with the camera.)

5. Another photo from the same spot in daytime shows that the dots were up in the sky, not on the side of a mountain as some proposed. I agree that these photos aren’t exactly “stunning” but these facts rule out all of the explanations I’ve seen so far such as planes, ball lightning, and hot pixels.


......

edit on 20-7-2012 by SoulVoid because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2012 by SoulVoid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
reply to post by jude11
 


Oh come on Jude it's just a lens flare from the camera.


Didn't know white feathers could be so bright.

edit on 20-7-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)


Hey, you didn't hear me say it!

I was just doing a little work for those that will come later...


Peace



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Hi.
I may be able to offer an explanation .
I am an avid photographer and have seen similar effects before.
You can wager that any photographer using a DSLR camera , who knows his stuff , will have a UV filter permanently attached to the lens . This lens filter can cause reflection problems when shooting at night . See Below.



Now it could be that the lights that have caused the similar reflection in the OP's post were out of shot , or conveniently cropped .

Please don't be swayed by the fact that the OP's pictures were taken by a pro , because he could be a wedding photographer for all we know , who is obviously unfamiliar with taking night shots. Photography has many fields in which one could be considered a pro . It doesn't automatically make one an expert.

Just trying to keep it real . Any decent amateur or any pro photographer will back up my explanation
edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by tpg47
 





Hi. I may be able to offer an explanation . I am an avid photographer and have seen similar effects before. You can wager that any photographer using a DSLR camera , who knows his stuff , will have a UV filter permanently attached to the lens . This lens filter can cause reflection problems when shooting at night . See Below.



Greg Archer says: July 7, 2012 at 12:59 AM . Forgot to mention, this picture was not taken with a UV filter or other filter attached if that is what your suggesting caused these “reflective lights.”


You should read first and then,,,

edit on 20-7-2012 by SoulVoid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
What tpg47 said, or, internal window reflection from shooting photos through a window.

Regarding the term 'professional photographer', most actual professional photographers don't need to put their company logo on their pictures so large it fills up 1/4 the photo.
Methinks this is an amateur photographer, as evidenced by the overly gigantic company logo where a real pro wouldn't need such, or have something 50x smaller.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 
I've been following the comments since the pictures went out a couple of weeks ago. Hot pixels, passing light aircraft with strobing lights, mountain roads and loitering alien spaceships have all been used to explain the lights in the two images.

A 'Roger D' overlayed the two images and the lights matched up exactly, but he also noticed a slight rotation and shift to the left. Greg Archer, the photographer, was going to get back to him about whether he moved the camera at all. The images have been cropped to an unknown extent.

Hot pixels would appear to be the best explanation so far, but this is challenged by Greg saying he also saw the lights with his own eyes.

Greg Archer has been a helpful commenter and replied to most of the questions and points. One thing he hasn't done is post the RAW images where people can begin to rule out the usual suspects. I can't think of any good reason not to upload the RAW files because quite a few of us have done it ourselves and it's a 2 minute job.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


They seem to be in some sort of formation so I'm guessing someone will come along and state emphatically that they are giant seagulls that are being lit up because of the lightning flashes reflecting off of their white feathers.

Not my guess tho.


Good pic.

Peace




edit on 20-7-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)


Moreover, they could also be weather balloons measuring the lightning storms, or better yet, some random chinese lanterns



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   


What tpg47 said, or, internal window reflection from shooting photos through a window.
reply to post by Druscilla
 



Greg Archer says: July 7, 2012 at 5:48 AM I wouldn’t risk compromising my integrity to show you the light reflections inside my house while shooting through my bedroom window. The publisher has seen the full frame perspective of these photos and he is well aware these pictures were not taken through a window. The pictures were taken from a field. Professional Photographers typically do not like to put any more glass then what is necessary between them and their subject. This picture is cropped down some in order to assist viewers in recognizing the lights, of course this compromises the quality of the photo to some degree.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 



I'm sorry but I cannot see anywhere in the original article where the photographer states that he wasn't using any kind of filter .

I take thousands of Cityscapes at night , every year and I always leave my UV filter on , mainly to protect the lens and because it takes only a few minutes to erase any lens or filter reflections and I can testify that given the right conditions , these artefacts will show up often.

edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


Professional photographers don't cover 1/4 of their photos with gigantic logos either.

This guy seems dodgy.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoulVoid



What tpg47 said, or, internal window reflection from shooting photos through a window.
reply to post by Druscilla
 



Greg Archer says: July 7, 2012 at 5:48 AM I wouldn’t risk compromising my integrity to show you the light reflections inside my house while shooting through my bedroom window. The publisher has seen the full frame perspective of these photos and he is well aware these pictures were not taken through a window. The pictures were taken from a field. Professional Photographers typically do not like to put any more glass then what is necessary between them and their subject. This picture is cropped down some in order to assist viewers in recognizing the lights, of course this compromises the quality of the photo to some degree.




What was I saying about the image being conveniently cropped ?
I rest my case.

EDIT maybe the RAW and uncropped file reveals a lot more than the photographer would like us to see . Hence the reason for not submitting it , because to me , those lights look very much like reflections from a row of street lights that have been cropped out of shot .
edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tpg47
 




I'm sorry but I cannot see anywhere in the original article where the photographer states that he wasn't using any kind of filter .

Read his comments please here
edit on 20-7-2012 by SoulVoid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   


What was I saying about the image being conveniently cropped ? I rest my case.

reply to post by tpg47
 


You should really read first..

The only one that´s cropped is this one




The other 2 are not..
edit on 20-7-2012 by SoulVoid because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2012 by SoulVoid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 



Thank you for the link , but I merely gave an explanation based on the original article and years of experience and I'm not really interested in comments made after the fact.

Regards.


edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   


Thank you for the link , but I merely gave an explanation based on years of experience and I'm not really interested in comments made after the fact. Regards.
reply to post by tpg47
 


Thank you kind Sir for your ´´expertise opinion´´.

And about the comments, they are his comments..

Thank you again



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   


most actual professional photographers don't need to put their company logo on their pictures so large it fills up 1/4 the photo.


Professional photographers don't cover 1/4 of their photos with gigantic logos either.
reply to post by Druscilla
 


That´s all you have to say in your posts??

Thanks anyways


edit on 20-7-2012 by SoulVoid because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join