It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by davidbiedny
A single image, no corroborating sightings at the time, no intent on the part of the photographer to capture anything anomalous at the moment that the picture was taken (action of taking photo was not in response to seeing something odd and reacting), so all one ultimately has is a single image.
I personally feel there is little of interest or importance here. The term "grasping at straws" comes to mind.
What the...? Who abducted Unity_99 and put this imposter in his place?
Originally posted by Unity_99
She is reflected perfectly in the mirror with her ring, so that is quite a strong likelihood. On my list of possibilities/probabilities, diamond ring #1.
The object is within 60cm of the camera [as stated by Phage on pg1] due to the following data that tends to prove that ...
The EXIF data [as shown by elevenaugust on pg12 of this thread] details ...
With an aperture of 3.2 she needed a high shutterspeed otherwise the pic would be overexposed.
That lead to a very fast shutter speed of 1/1244.
Also it was set on face recognition [ie face detect], thus the focus point was in the mirror, to capture the self portrait.
Now this means although the focus range was set at auto it chose a very close point to focus onto and further proof of this is ...
The rocks just beyond the car to the left hand side are out of focus and yet everything closer than that is in focus.
The object itself is in focus due to being very sharply defined even when zoomed in and sceengrabed and saved as a jpg...
Therefor the object is most likely within 60cm of the camera.
Examples of assumed natural or misidentification explanations for the UO and reasons for dismissal:
1) Water or other debris on the lens / lens chip or fracture
- photo taken just seconds before shows no debris of any kind, nor do any of the subsequent photos after
-water droplet would not show correct alignment of the sun's highlight per a 3 dimensional external object
-object is in consistent focus w/ the rest of the shot
2) Camera defect
-No defects in any other photos, no evidence of aberrations in the image caused by bad write to chip or typical known glitch.
3) Physical object blowing in wind
-Object would have to be of extremely significant size
-Object displays symmetry, and structure not consistent with random blowing debris
-Witness relayed that this was an amazingly remote area, which involved lengthy drive on non-paved roads. Populace ratio to trash seems unlikely.
-absolutely no discernible movement blur whatsoever.
4) Weather Phenomena
-Object in photo is not attributable to any known weather anomaly.
5) Planetary body
6) Thrown object (hoax)
-Object again shows symmetry, and clarity which would be unlikely with a small thrown object
-Object displays distance hazing inconsistent with a small object in close proximity.
-Focus of object not consistent with small thrown object
7) Digital Composite (hoax)
-Object shows channel specific data not visible in the combined channel, or "normal" viewing mode. Such data is more visible in LAB color mode in the A channel with simple "auto level adjust" operation in photoshop.
-No evidence of composite edge, or poor alpha channel mask.
-Pixels of image seem consistent throughout.
8) Aviary Explanation
-Object does not resemble a bird in any way whatsoever
-While birds can appear to have highlights, they do not reflect the light per this object, nor have reflective properties
I cannot identify or explain the UO in the photo. Of importance to mention is that I am not familiar with every sort of high level and undoubtedly secretive aerial projects employed by any government, military, or private contractor and therefore cannot rule this out. I do find it unlikely, for the horizon alignment issue alone.
Wasn't very effective
Originally posted by Astyanax
Originally posted by 3xil3
IMO not a bird.
And yes im aware of what birds can look like when in flight
They are not blue and reflect sunlight
And not her ring
no light cast on that side of her the ring is not in sunlight.
If was it would reflect on the mirror not in the sky *her windows is obviously down*
And if was ring reflection off camera lense you would probably not even see her ring just a bright light on her hand from the refectionedit on 1-10-2012 by 3xil3 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Still Naive?
reply to post by LastProphet527
I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, that the video you linked here has been debunked. I'm not sure if I believe the official "debunk" of the video but I took it as plausible.
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
People put much to much faith in EXIF image data. I know several programs that can edit EXIF data. So saying that this is not photoshopped because there is nothing in the EXIF data that suggests it means nothing.
Im still undecided on what the object is or how it got there. But it looks to clear and bright to be very far away if it was a real object.
Its certainly not proof off anything at the moment.
edit on 1-10-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)
it was but focused on what it is definitely not. With that being said, please take the time to read the analysis before putting up some random post........it's an ultralight aircraft it this it's that.....
Originally posted by Nola213
You've convinced me, I'm gonna go with bird.