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: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


Is it also possible according to the picture that those lights were "cropped" into it? without the original photos, there could have been some

Photoshopping

that took place, right?




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockstrongo37
 






I know I'll be laughed at but I am thinking maybe they are on a range of mountians and that these may simply be lights on buildings on hill sides...at least the location needs to be verified and maps checked. Just because the cloud cover is there we can't assume that we are looking into the sky on this one. These may be a low cloud cover not out of the ordinary in a lightning storm.



There is no mountain there, only hills that reside much lower than the lights.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   


Right. He called NORAD.
reply to post by Phage
 


RIGHT. I have to believe in everything you say..cause





Why doesn't he just provide the RAW images?


Why you don´t ask him??..

And as i know you maybe be a respected member in Ats but you have been right so many times like you have been wrong.
And if i recall some threads where you get your ass handed to you, you just back out without no response.

So i thank you for your opinion, but please




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
And here is my point in Photoshopping...now you see MANY white flying orbs in the sky!

It's an INVASION! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!

Oh wait, the hills are where the UFOs are...NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 


Thanks for the .gif image. It was awesome to see some action (finally) on ATS.


However, something in this picture caught my eye, so I "print screen" and enlarged for better viewing:



If you noticed that the lightning strike appears to have a break in it leaving the white object in question free and clear from the lightning bolt. I am surprised no one noticed this before.

Hypothetically speaking, is it possible for lightning to do this? To separate and then rejoin itself on "the other side" of an object? This would defy physics wouldn't it?

Also, if these objects were in fact points of light or some reflection from inside the camera, how would it be possible that the lights wouldn't simply blend into and become a part of the lightning bolt itself?

Either these objects are in front of the lightning and have an external plasma shield protecting them from the lightning (as seen in my picture), or they are simply in FRONT of the lightning, and hence the bolt appears to be behind them and you can see their invisible plasma protective shield (like star trek).

Phage:

I would also like a response from you on this. You know quite a bit on this subject

edit on 20-7-2012 by Skywatcher2011 because: added note


Fist you find this..


Now you playing with photoshop trying to debunk the photo.
So what´s your take on this after all?
Can you make up your mind, please.



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


RIGHT. I have to believe in everything you say

No, you don't. But you seem to believe everything the photographer says.


Why you don´t ask him??

Because I really don't care about his images of spots. You on the other hand seem to care about spots but you don't seem to care enough to want to see the original images.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


Well, who knows... but for an attempt at a rational explanation it would help to know where he took the photos from.

Since it is stormy outside and a professional photographer would want to protect their equipment, something tells me this could have been taken from the inside of his home, possibly a kitchen window.

If that assumption is true than this could be nothing more than a reflection in the window he is shooting through -- kitchen recessed lights?

But who knows, we have no information from the photographer so it's all speculation -- the same reason Fox News picked up the story, ratings.


edit on 20-7-2012 by Kharron because: typo



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tpg47
Here is my opinion on what happened that night.

A supposedly "professional" photographer hears on the local weather forecast that there maybe some lightening that night .
So he sets off with his camera and his tripod to hopefully capture a few shots of lightening forks .
He takes the first couple of shots and then while viewing them on the LCD playback screen , notices a line of lens artefacts . He then realises that he has made a fundamental error . He forgot to remove the UV filter that was still attached to the lens.
He then removes the UV filter , fires off a few more shots that now contain no reflections, goes home and crops the images in an attempt to hide his mistake and to hide the point of origin of the reflections . He then tries to pass the images off as UFO's and then states " I didn't use any filters , as you can see in the later shots ".

After that he relies on gullible people to advertise his story.

I bet this is not too far from the truth !!!
edit on 20-7-2012 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)


So i see that you posted this same text on the site that had the photos


TerryG says: July 20, 2012 at 9:20 AM Here is my opinion on what happened that night. A supposedly “professional” photographer hears on the local weather forecast that there maybe some lightening that night . So he sets off with his camera and his tripod to hopefully capture a few shots of lightening forks . He takes the first couple of shots and then while viewing them on the LCD playback screen , notices a line of lens artefacts . He then realises that he has made a fundamental error . He forgot to remove the UV filter that was still attached to the lens. He then removes the UV filter , fires off a few more shots that now contain no reflections, goes home and crops the images in an attempt to hide his mistake and to hide the point of origin of the reflections . He then tries to pass the images off as UFO’s and then states ” I didn’t use any filters , as you can see in the later shots “. After that he relies on gullible people to advertise his story. I bet this is not too far from the truth !!!





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



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
there was a recent thread about a russian cosmonaut and intelligence officer that was disclosing russian ufo secrets and what he'd seen.

one fact that stood out was that he witnessed ufos converge on lightning storms, from orbit, appearing to use the massive amounts of electricity as a power source.

these pictures seem to confirm that theory.



I think if this was even the case, which IMO it is not, if they were alien craft getting there power from lightning they wouldn't need to be under the clouds to do so. They could just hover above the storm clouds and get the power from the sprites and stay completly outta our view. But i feel pretty confident in saying these are not ufos as they aren't even objects, but light reflections...

Peace



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


When it comes to proving/disproving claimed UFO sighting pictures, you need to keep an open mind.

Like I said before, there needs to be more proof that the lights in the sky are what they appear to be. If the photographer went back the next day and took a day time shot, that may add to evidence for there to be actual lights in the sky.

On the contradictory, those could be camera faults or widow reflections, there could be hills in the background which have lights on them, those could be lanterns, weather balloons, general aircraft, military aircraft, or finally there could be some Photoshopping of the still photo...like below (with extra work done on the picture)....



The point is that it would be great to have a hold on the original photo and type of camera used to figure out the legitimacy on the shot.

As much as my heart would say yes to believing that these are in fact UFOs in Colorado, my brain says we need more proof. And there you have it.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


And their answer to you ´´tpg47/TerryG´´ was:


Scotty Roberts says: July 20, 2012 at 11:47 AM Terry, I don’t take to criticizing people who comment on these posts, because we welcome all opinions and are an open forum to all who’d like to present their ideas. But in this case, I will make an exception. If you had actually looked at the photo beyond a cursory glance or taken even a modicum of effort to read some of the posts in this thread, you will have found, time and again, Greg Archer never once claiming that the subject of his photo was anything “extraterrestrial.” Many of the comments posted here have thrown out theories – some of them wildly fringe in their basis, and others asking questions about the photographer’s abilities, knowledge of his equipment, the weather conditions and the status of planes flying into or out of the area, etc., ad infinitum. It is posts like yours that raise my ire. No one here at Intrepid Magazine – nor has Greg Archer, himself – at any point ever claimed that this photo is anything other than a anomalous series of lights that appeared while he was shooting pictures of lightning. Archer simply put out the question as to whether or not anyone knew what might cause this effect BEYOND what he had already ruled out with his investigation of the weather, airport traffic and camera capabilities or possible foibles. And had you actually read his comments, you have found that he further stated that these lights were also visible to his naked eye for several minutes, not just something that magically appeared in his photos, post shoot. For you to comment as if you know precisely what happened, criticizing and casting dispersions on the character of the individual, without knowing him or first taking the effort to discuss with him what he did or what the level of his abilities might be is nothing short of pedantic arrogance, and an ignominious display of an inability or desire to engage in proper fact-finding prior to launching criticism. Here is my question for you: Why should I believe that you know what the hell YOU are talking about? Why ought anyone here put credence in YOUR presumptive criticism, when it is obvious that you did no homework or research of any kind into the photographer, his abilities, or any of the circumstances surrounding his photo? The biggest problem I find with skeptical critics, like you, is that you are already convinced, in your own mind, that you know everything long in advance of doing any substantive investigation into the thing you are criticizing. You are as hackneyed and blindly engaged in your skepticism to the same level of ignorant presupposition as the “gullible people” you decry with a brandishing sweep of your omniscient hand. And, excuse me, did you call ME gullible…? You don’t know me well enough to insult me or cast dispersions on my ability to think, reason, deduce and apply the scientific method. You have no idea who Greg Archer is, yet in your crass, dismissive judgment, you quantify his work, character, integrity and abilities based on nothing but your presumptive ignorance. On that criteria, alone, what even qualifies you to be a decent skeptic? I have found that there are small “s” skeptics and big “S” skeptics. I, along with many others, are in the small “s’ camp – we approach things with an open, yet questioning mind. We want to ‘know’ the answers, but we do not do what the big “S” skeptics, like you, do, and that is to dismiss questioning and make empirical statements such as, “No it isn’t.” “No it doesn’t.” “You’re completely wrong,” without application of research. Then you immediately move to character assassination, without so much as knowing a damned thing about the person you are ranking into the diminutive. Big “S” Skepticism has (as has Science, in many degrees), in proclaiming themselves better, more knowledgable or possessing of keener reason and more erudite insight, become the surrogate for religion, faith and any train of thought outside what they deem as acceptable science or mainstream thinking. In a very real sense, Skepticism and Science have established themselves as the “new religion,” especially when they – and you – spend so much time decrying, and so little time researching the questions that fall outside established academia. You, Terry aren’t simply wrong in your uninformed approach, you are an unmitigated arrogant idiot dashing out of the phonebox of ignorance, wearing the big “S” of Skeptic on your chest – your red badge of courageous belittlement, proudly displaying your brand of skepticism, based solely on the fact that you happen to “know what’s REALLY going on.” Oh, you are a Superman of critical thinking, alright. You, sir, need to do a little homework before blethering your brand of nonsensical know-it-all-ism and launching uneducated, beslubbering criticism of someone and something of which you know absolutely nothing. You represent the worst brand of charletanism out there: the bloviated form of self-elevating criticism that is no more solid in it’s research or presentation than the worst form of uneducated ass-plucking. You are welcome to post here, but do yourself a favor and know what you are talking about before attempting to bring the character of an individual into question. If I were you, Terry, I’d spend a little more time doing my homework before placing anymore bets.


You Sir just got got served

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 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


Btw, this guy just justified my position on this thread as not approaching it as a skeptic, but more like an optimist:


I, along with many others, are in the small “s’ camp – we approach things with an open, yet questioning mind.
We want to ‘know’ the answers, but we do not do what the big “S” skeptics, like you, do, and that is to dismiss questioning and make empirical statements such as, “No it isn’t.” “No it doesn’t.” “You’re completely wrong,” without application of research.

Then you immediately move to character assassination, without so much as knowing a damned thing about the person you are ranking into the diminutive.





posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


And their answer to you ´´tpg47/TerryG´´ was:

"Their" answer? Perhaps you should have properly attributed this post of yours, else it appears to be plagiarism
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Scotty Roberts says:
July 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM

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.

www.intrepidmag.com...-901



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
They are fueling up. Enough Said. The rest is just coverup.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Here it is with the dots lined up.


Makes me think it was some kind of reflection. Was this taken through glass?



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


And their answer to you ´´tpg47/TerryG´´ was:

"Their" answer? Perhaps you should have properly attributed this post of yours, else it appears to be plagiarism
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Scotty Roberts says:
July 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM

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.

www.intrepidmag.com...-901


As you may be reading mr ´´Mighty Phage`´

I´ve been ext.text almost everything from there,you flaming me cause i forgot to ex.text that one??
i never mentioned it was mine.

I wonder why you are atacking me instead of anwsering to some of the questions that have been directed to you on this thread.But i see that you both cover each others a..

Example:
reply to post by RoScoLaz


Thanks for the .gif image. It was awesome to see some action (finally) on ATS.

However, something in this picture caught my eye, so I "print screen" and enlarged for better viewing:



If you noticed that the lightning strike appears to have a break in it leaving the white object in question free and clear from the lightning bolt. I am surprised no one noticed this before.

Hypothetically speaking, is it possible for lightning to do this? To separate and then rejoin itself on "the other side" of an object? This would defy physics wouldn't it?

Also, if these objects were in fact points of light or some reflection from inside the camera, how would it be possible that the lights wouldn't simply blend into and become a part of the lightning bolt itself?

Either these objects are in front of the lightning and have an external plasma shield protecting them from the lightning (as seen in my picture), or they are simply in FRONT of the lightning, and hence the bolt appears to be behind them and you can see their invisible plasma protective shield (like star trek).

Phage:
I would also like a response from you on this. You know quite a bit on this subject

Thank you Kind Sir



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
well after reading the thread,

If its reflections, uv, green men, or as lovely jude said feathers,

the same conclusion,

Lightning Feathers.

New to science, more soon.

Love

Elf



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
They are fueling up. Enough Said. The rest is just coverup.


Please it is not alien crafts fueling up, are you completly ignoring all the posts that clearly point out what it could most likely be?

Do you ever consider the fact that this time you may just be wrong?
edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 


Look at the lights on the ground>Seems obvious to me.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulVoid
 

Easy to forget external quotes. Easy to forget a link to the source. Everyone makes mistakes.


I would also like a response from you on this. You know quite a bit on this subject
I know that using "print screen" and overzooming the image results in image artifacts. Just one more reason why the original images are needed.

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



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join