Daylight Photographs Revealed of UFO Over Vancouver Island

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by SolidGoal
 




Its a shame we can't see the "black helicopters" in his pictures.
It would have helped us estimate the position and size of the UFO.


I agree that it's a shame we can't see the black helicopters that he describes.

One would think that he would have taken pictures of those too...?


When verbally info is given without evidence to dress up images with claims of so and so one would have think what the agenda behind this is. Why not show or take photos of these black helicopters?

If one is to claim they spot something unearthly (in their opinion) and only supply a photo with a story of viewing for so long or it had jets chasing it or helicopters came to investigate, they are seeking attention or will eventually try cashing in on the UFO phenomenon.

If a person was to completely believe they caught something spectacular on film I think they would document as much as possible, from what happened from the time they woke that morning to the sighting and till they fell asleep that night or the next day depending on how one was to react.




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


As a former resident of that region I know for a fact that those are not mountains. The mountains in any direction (there are plenty to see) are not visible above the cloud cover, and the object in question is well above the cloud cover so could not be a light on the mountain.

I remember looking towards Port Angeles on numerous occasions and seeing "lights on the hills" but they would be much lower than the object in question.

As for it being a reflection, it is possible, but highly doubtful.

Thanks sharing your opinion though.
edit on 18-9-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)


As a former resident of the area, your are completely and utterly mistaken. Did you actually go and check out the original photos posted on Ken's site? Because they clearly show the mountains rising behind the sea (and the "lights").

Thanks for sharing your opinion and showing that you are not interested in analysis of potential mundane explanations for the photo.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


I cannot find the pictures on his site so perhaps you can kindly link me


As for you thinking you are correct, the pictures I provided clearly show that the object is WAY above any mountain ranges. As I said, I am familar with that area and there are no mountain ranges that high within view.

Please prove me wrong.

I mean really, this isn't Mount Everest we are looking at.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


how are you calculating the altitude of the light ?



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


I cannot find the pictures on his site so perhaps you can kindly link me


As for you thinking you are correct, the pictures I provided clearly show that the object is WAY above any mountain ranges. As I said, I am familar with that area and there are no mountain ranges that high within view.

Please prove me wrong.

I mean really, this isn't Mount Everest we are looking at.


The website is www.worldufophotos.org...

Once you open up the flash app, go to Gallery 7.
Note: I couldn't open the site in Chrome. It worked in Internet Explorer. It says that pop-up blockers should be disabled.

I'm not sure why you think the "object" is way above the mountain ranges as all you can see in the clipped photos is the water and a hazy backdrop (which isn't the sky, just hazy mountains). I see the point you are making about the perceived "altitude" or angular height of the lights, but from the photo on the site, I am guessing that the photographer has zoomed in on the horizon to magnify the distant lights/reflections - to get a better photo. That would explain why the lights look higher than you think. On the larger photo, you can actually see the ragged edge of the treeline at the top of the mountain on the actual horizon (above the lights/reflections).

If the distant mountains are actually the Olympic range in Washington, that is pretty far so the photographer must be really zoomed in. Checking Google Earth, from Dallas Road the only other option would be that the photographer is looking west towards Metchosin or Colwood.

edit on 18-9-2012 by bluestreak53 because: additional info on accessing photos



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 




how are you calculating the altitude of the light ?


I am calculating the altitude based on the fact that the picture was taken from Dallas Road which is at sea level and the perspective of the object being WAY above the cloud cover, with no mountains in site (they would be visible in broad daylight above the cloud cover if existent) leaves me no choice but to conclude that this object is way higher than the previous poster is saying.

I'm still waiting for their pictures that "clearly" show this object to be a light on a mountain. The othe poster cannot be familiar with the area considering their perspective of the situation.

In the small chance that this person proves me wrong with these "pictures from the website" I will gladly admit that I am wrong.

ETA:

The said poster has provided the link so I will review within the next hour and post my response.
edit on 18-9-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


For some unknown reason I am unable to open the "Flash app" from the browser I am using at my work desk so could you perhaps upload a picture? If not it will have to wait until I get home before I can comment.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Wow windows on a mountain eh? Given the distance of the mountain, those windows must be several hundred feet wide? LOL no...its not that

reply to post by bluestreak53
 



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Yea no skeptics/trolls just throw anything out and it always sticks, even if its ridiculous! ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IT REALLY IS!

reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Anyone else think it looks very similar to the Myrtle Beach lights?

www.youtube.com...
edit on 18-9-2012 by zayonara because: (no reason given)


edit on 18-9-2012 by zayonara because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATSZOMBIE
Wow windows on a mountain eh? Given the distance of the mountain, those windows must be several hundred feet wide? LOL no...its not that

reply to post by bluestreak53
 




Have you never heard of telephoto lenses? Almost all cameras come equipped with a zoom function. And both images might be clipped from a higher resolution image.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATSZOMBIE
Yea no skeptics/trolls just throw anything out and it always sticks, even if its ridiculous! ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IT REALLY IS!

reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 




And what is it that "IT REALLY IS"?



edit on 18-9-2012 by bluestreak53 because: added image



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Thank you, the picture you provided does add some new perspective on the situation, and I have no shame in admitting that I was wrong. The newly provided picture does show that the object is below the mountain range on what appears to be near Port Angeles.

The pictures in my OP were not as clear and lead me to believe that the ocean surf was actually the cloud cover so once again thanks.

I do feel you were a bit "confrontational" to my original response to your first post as there was no disrespect intended but that's okay since I have thick skin and am used to dealing with these type of posts. You misunderstood my doubt of your analysis as me being stubborn and perhaps my unwilling to admit I am wrong.

As your picture proves, the object is beneath the top of the mountain range so it could very well be something easily explained such as a large light.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Thank you, the picture you provided does add some new perspective on the situation, and I have no shame in admitting that I was wrong. The newly provided picture does show that the object is below the mountain range on what appears to be near Port Angeles.

The pictures in my OP were not as clear and lead me to believe that the ocean surf was actually the cloud cover so once again thanks.

I do feel you were a bit "confrontational" to my original response to your first post as there was no disrespect intended but that's okay since I have thick skin and am used to dealing with these type of posts. You misunderstood my doubt of your analysis as me being stubborn and perhaps my unwilling to admit I am wrong.

As your picture proves, the object is beneath the top of the mountain range so it could very well be something easily explained such as a large light.


Thanks. I only responded the way I did because I felt you were being dismissive (and confrontational). But you have suspended judgement until seeing the photo and acknowledged that the lights/reflections are below the mountain horizon.

It does go to demonstrate that a "UFO photo" often can be misleading, if it omits important contextual information.

As I said, part of what made me wonder if it was something fixed on the mountain was the description that the light was stationary and just "faded out".

I should emphasize I am not saying that IS what the image is, I just proposed it as a possible explanation. As I said in my original post:




One thing I wondered is the "lights" might actually be reflections of sunlight off windows on a building, situated on the mountain. I have seen that effect before in coastal BC and it can be quite dramatic. That would explain why the "lights" seemed to hover and then eventually faded as the angle from the sun changed.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


No worries and thanks for the clarification. It is very easy to misunderstand one's tone via text so no hard feelings I hope.

Now that we have established that the object is below the mountain range, it is most likely a light that is stationary as I have seen these various times across the Strait. The person who submitted these photos seems to have over exaggeraged/glorified the incident.

The more I look into this the more I think this may be a non event. I have a feeling that the weird looks of the object have to do with the camera exposure speed. I'm no expert on that stuff so perhaps I did not word it properly. If we had video footage of an actual moving object I would be more impressed. As of now I have no choice but to consider this nothing more than a large reflective light on the hill side.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


I think you will see a number of lights around the sides of the ship.
A these secret ships should have these devices that direct the horizontal flight.
One force is levitation or altitude control.

Some how no matter what shape there is a saucer mechanism inside.
edit on 9/18/2012 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


As a former resident of that region I know for a fact that those are not mountains. The mountains in any direction (there are plenty to see) are not visible above the cloud cover, and the object in question is well above the cloud cover so could not be a light on the mountain.

I remember looking towards Port Angeles on numerous occasions and seeing "lights on the hills" but they would be much lower than the object in question.

As for it being a reflection, it is possible, but highly doubtful.

Thanks sharing your opinion though.
edit on 18-9-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)


Actually in this picture, you can see the mountain line (barely, but it's there). The line starts about 1/2 to 1 inch from the top of the picture.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Thank you, the picture you provided does add some new perspective on the situation, and I have no shame in admitting that I was wrong. The newly provided picture does show that the object is below the mountain range on what appears to be near Port Angeles.

The pictures in my OP were not as clear and lead me to believe that the ocean surf was actually the cloud cover so once again thanks.

I do feel you were a bit "confrontational" to my original response to your first post as there was no disrespect intended but that's okay since I have thick skin and am used to dealing with these type of posts. You misunderstood my doubt of your analysis as me being stubborn and perhaps my unwilling to admit I am wrong.

As your picture proves, the object is beneath the top of the mountain range so it could very well be something easily explained such as a large light.


Also if there are any roads on that mountain, it could be the reflection of a semi truck or an RV. Only way to debunk this or not is to go back to the same spot on another day and see if it appears again. If it does then it's likely a building. If not, then a car/truck/RV etc can't be ruled out.

My grandparents live in Mesquite Nevada. There are a few small roads on and around the mountains that literally surround that town. When a car or cars drive on those mountains, sometimes their lights look larger than they appear even with the naked eye, mostly because there is nothing else lit up around them. Just my theory on this though.
edit on 18-9-2012 by DragonFire1024 because: add/clarify



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Clearly mountains on the background:



There's also the Highway 101 (Olympic Highway) that goes behind Lake Crescent up to 1000ft above sea level.



So, yes, most likely the sun reflection on a car/truck whatever passing on the road.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join