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: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoulVoid
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)



I'm sorry , but you have absolutely no way of knowing which images have been cropped without the orignal RAW file to compare image sizes , so you made that comment without any evidence to back it up.

Please understand I am not flaming you . I am merely offering a sound explanation .

Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth' ! Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by tpg47
 





I'm sorry , but you have absolutely no way of knowing which images have been cropped without the orignal RAW file to compare image sizes , so you made that comment without any evidence to back it up.


i´m only stating his comments....(those that you didn´t read)




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 



You have been here long enough to know that it is unwise to quote unsubstantiated third party comments as the basis for your argument.

The explanation I gave was sound . Whether you chose to accept it is entirely up to you .

Peace.

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



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   


unsubstantiated third party
You mean the person that took the photos??...


The explanation I gave was sound
reply to post by tpg47
 


So what is your final explanation?
I would like to hear it please..

Thanks in advance..

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 @ 01:46 AM
link   
I have already submitted it .

You flame me for not reading comments made after the original article and for which you did not provide a link , but it looks like you do not bother to read comments made in your own thread .

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 @ 01:51 AM
link   
interesting photos (also cool snaps of lightning). ufos (if that is what they are) seem to be attracted to it, yet a lightning strike was postulated by some as a possible cause of the roswell crash.





posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   


I have already submitted it .
reply to post by tpg47
 


Thank you again for your opinion..

Peace..



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
There are lights on the ground that line up exactly with the dots in the sky. I don't know much about photography but I noticed this.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   

The photo taken has 327 pixels in a 6×10 photo, there are 8 UFO’s in the photo. The UFO’s are nearly 3 miles behind the lighting strike and Hot pixels from heat build up on the camera’s CCD from a long exposure did not create a false image of UFO’s. I enlarged the image 1500% and found the objects to be solid blocking out the sky behind them. The object were matalic as they reflected the flash of lighting, this means something real was there or light would not have reflected off of it. One of the UFO’s were behind an arm of the lighting bolt also giving credibility to the solidity. The distance also veried from the camera to each UFO, some close while others very far away. Conclusion, these UFO’s are just that and remain a mystery but are definitly not conventional air craft.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by shell310
 


The first it seems so.

But in this one??





posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


The photo taken has 327 pixels in a 6×10 photo, there are 8 UFO’s in the photo.

Wow. 327 pixels. See my avatar? It has 26450 pixels.



The UFO’s are nearly 3 miles behind the lighting strike

No way to determine the distance of points of light.


I enlarged the image 1500% and found the objects to be solid blocking out the sky behind them.

They are points of light. How do points of light block out a dark sky?


Conclusion, these UFO’s are just that and remain a mystery but are definitly not conventional air craft.

Conclusion. These are points of light on a digital image.

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

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



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Just to add to my earlier explanation ....
I have looked at all the available images and the first thing that struck me is the Aspect Ratio's of the images are wrong . Put simply , the images are far wider than the height would would allow in a standard image size , so this to me suggests that the images have been horizontally cropped.
Perhaps to hide the row of street lights that were reflected into the sky ?


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



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by tpg47
 





Perhaps to hide the row of street lights that were reflected into the sky ?


I was thinking that too,and now that you mention it..



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


The photo taken has 327 pixels in a 6×10 photo, there are 8 UFO’s in the photo.

Wow. 327 pixels. See my avatar? It has 26450 pixels.



The UFO’s are nearly 3 miles behind the lighting strike

No way to determine the distance of points of light.


I enlarged the image 1500% and found the objects to be solid blocking out the sky behind them.

They are points of light. How do points of light block out a dark sky?


Conclusion, these UFO’s are just that and remain a mystery but are definitly not conventional air craft.

Conclusion. These are points of light on a digital image.

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

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


So you´re ´The``Phage of ATS.

Nice to meet you



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



If you try to match the lights, one thing I forgot to mention was that I had to rotate one photo about 3 degrees to align the horizons, so there appears to have been at least that rotational camera movement between the photos. It’s significant that both the horizon and the dots aligned after this rotation: If the dots are in alignment with the horizon despite a camera rotation, that means the dots are not any kind of camera artifact such as hot pixels or internal reflections



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
It sometimes looks, to me, that there is a modicum of subdued desperation on the part of skeptics and debunkers to have certain types of strange phenomena or out-of-the-ordinary anomalies be anything other than what they are.

The starting point for many skeptical debunkers is not one of asking the tough questions or seeking plausible explanations with an open mind, but rather, believing that there can be no possible explanation or answer beyond that which is acceptable within a framework that they have constructed for the limits of their own, personal belief system. Therefore, nothing else can exist outside that box, and that is the measure by which everything must fit, otherwise the subsequent mode of debunking is incorporated: the attack on the person making the claim.

Skeptics believing themselves to be of a more reasoned rationale than anyone else, have such a cock-sure arrogance about their (obviously) elevated intellect and (even more obvious) level of deductive reasoning, that with unmitigated ease they will belittle intellect and reason in the person who offers up an extraordinary claim or piece of evidence for scrutiny. In Greg Archer’s case, his ability to operate under the dictates of his skillset in his field of expertise is even brought into question, as i have seen him answer certain queries or debunking statements over and over again.

Something the skeptical mind seems to have forgotten is that there are things that exist beyond the realm of explainable science. Maybe there is not an overt denial that those “other” sorts of things exist, but there is an underlying practical application of such.

In his book, “The Demon Haunted World,” Carl Sagan, wrote of his parents’ influence on his young mind, recounting that they gave him two invaluable things: the understanding of the importance of the scientific method, and an insatiable sense of wonder.

Certain circles of scientists and Skeptics – as well as the armchair scientist and skeptic – in my view, have lost the sense of wonder.

What I see in greg Archer’s photos is a light anomaly that defies plausible explanation. Questions can be raised and theories purported, but after all is said and done, what you are left with, is a light phenomena that does not fit into the practical possibilities. And once you have peeled away each of the plausible explanations – no matter how distasteful it may be to the skeptical mind – you are left with the implausible – at least as it is defined by current science or trains of skeptical thought.

Reengage your sense of wonder for things that don’t fit into the readily accepted or logically explainable: Planes don’t approach or leave in these patterns, especially during tumultuopus weather; there was no reflective glass between photographer and subject; it isn’t ‘ball lightning’; it isn’t pixel saturation or distortion or burn; it isn’t lights along a runway, road or distant hill; it isn’t a string of landing beacons flashing across on open shutter. All you have to do is look at the photo to understand it is none of these things – to do more is simply an exercise in futile debunking or an attempt to discredit. And for what end? To prove that nothing can stand outside the realm of explainable science.

I don’t know what is more disturbing: the possibility of what this photo could be, or the inane arrogance of the skeptical debunker.
reply to post by Phage
 



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



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SoulVoid
reply to post by Phage
 



If you try to match the lights, one thing I forgot to mention was that I had to rotate one photo about 3 degrees to align the horizons, so there appears to have been at least that rotational camera movement between the photos. It’s significant that both the horizon and the dots aligned after this rotation: If the dots are in alignment with the horizon despite a camera rotation, that means the dots are not any kind of camera artifact such as hot pixels or internal reflections


Im sure that Phage will answer this more eloquently , but lens reflections seldom line up to with their point of origin.
Take a look at my example image on page one .



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


Have you heard the motto " Deny Ignorance" ?
You have twice been given absolutely sound explanations and yet you blindly and closed mindedly continue down your path .
You are attempting to insult a well respected member of ATS with your juvenile snipes.
Yes there probably are things that can appear to be "paranormal" , but in this instance , it is sadly and obviously not the case , no matter how much you desperately want to believe to the contrary .

In your opening post , you asked for opinions .
Very sound and logical opinions have been given by several members and you have responded rudely to every one that was contrary to your own views , views that you neglected to mention in your opening post.





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



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


Nice rant.

These photos prove nothing.

They remain ambiguous, and all we can do is guess.

But one thing is for sure, they aren't evidence of anything...apart from being, like Phage said, some points of light on a digital image.

That's it.

You can assume them to be anything you want, it doesn't matter.

As for belittlement?

Take the blinders off to those in this thread mocking skeptics...



it's just a lens flare from the camera.





Didn't know white feathers could be so bright.





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





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



I see it all the time in UFO threads, clearly looking at things with skepticism scares these types to the point of mockery.

Why?

And why is using critical thought belittlement to you?

What part of it do you/they fear?

Is it because it challenges ones faith and beliefs?

How can you fully believe in something if you fear it being challenged?



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
These are long exposure to capture the bolts? I mean it is really difficult to click away and catch bolts precisely when he shutter is open. You can tell these are long exposure by the streaks of light on the roads on the ground (white headlights and red taillights). At night the flash of lightning though brief is brilliant.

I find it odd that both images capture the exact same row of lights with the one offset to the left. If headlights from cars are pointing at the open shutter while they are driving by on that road in the distance they may be the cause of the "anomalies".



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join