It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


UFO photographed over Area 51

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:13 PM
If it were over the hills in the background, the depth of field would show them in focus, wouldn't it. They seem to be out of focus which would suggest that the object was close to the camera.

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 05:24 PM

Originally posted by timetothink
If you go to the source link and read the comments, one person said one of the images is marked as being photoshopped.

Yes, I checked it using EXIFTool and one of the image got some IPTC tags in its EXIF data, but not from Photoshop but from PICASA:

Here's the sequence with the hour and the original size for each photo, taken off the MUFON CMS:

1- The sequence is not the same of the one that can be seen in the MUFON report
2- The second photo was modified using PICASA, probably to enhance contrast/hue/luminosity, but also to cropped down its size from 4608*3456 to 4303*3448
3- There are respectively 61s between shoot 1 and shoot 2, and 14s between shoot 2 and shoot 3. be continued!

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 05:43 PM
The second photo has a stop sign close to the object. Close enough to get an estimate of the angle of the top of the sign to the end of the shadow, about 46 to 47 degrees. Taking this angle and applying it to the object shows a shadow at that angle on the desert floor.

The object's shadow is closer than the stop sign itself. So it's a small object, pretty close and maybe two to three times the height of the stop sign. .

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 06:22 PM
Here's a graphic:

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by gguyx

The shadow of the stop sign and the shadow of the object do not line up. Unless we have 2 suns?

Even the 2 suns theory doesn't work, because each object would have 2 shadows.

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 06:33 PM
The sun is behind the photographer, slightly to the photographers left, so the two spots can not be shadows from the object, unless the object was behind the photographer and it certainly looks to be in front.

It appears from the three photos that the object moves to the left in pics 1 and 2, but moves to the right in pic 3. Compare the hillside in the background, which shows the camera has been panned to the right. It could be a second object in pic 3 I suppose.

There is a large dark shadow on one face of the hills in the background?

One thing that does look wrong, is that in pic 3 there does not seem to be any sunshine reflecting off the objects surface, unlike the first two pictures.

I now stand back and await others far more educated comments.

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 08:21 PM
In my opinion the shadow of the stop sign is in a different position than the shadow of the UFO,they do not match up.In the first photo,there seems to be two shadows of the UFO.I dont think the UFOs shadow is being cast at all.

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 10:36 PM
Hi, "real UFO" fans.

In the photos:
as we all know, the sun is about 45* over the horizon,
behind the photographers, maybe a little to the left, and
the STOP sign shows it pretty well !

Sooooooooo because the sun is so HIGH in the sky,
the person who "photoshoped" the UFO, SHOULD HAVE
put the ***bright spot*** seen on the UFO, ON TOP OF IT !!

Blue skies.

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Originally posted by snapperski
You can see the tiny shadow on the ground, i believe this may be a silver frisbee, or a hubcap being tossed in the air.

I don't see a shadow in the first two photos though, and in the third, there are two of those spots on the ground - not sure if they are shadows, but i may be wrong - correct me please.

I agree, it might not be a shadow, it could be a rock or something else. It is in the other photos and just looks to be something on the ground. Shadow or no shadow it still looks fake.

I call Hoax anyway. I have other issues with it. If I was there and that happened I'd take hundreds of photos. Everybody has digital cards now so why not a bunch of photos of helicopters, cars following, and the saucer?
edit on 18-11-2012 by furono because: Added thoughts

edit on 18-11-2012 by furono because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 12:10 AM
Sometime you have to chortle, you really do, Ignoring the veracity of the "object" in the photos, the "shadows" are most likely our old friends.."insects" flying in the view of the camera lens. If you blow the pics up there are a couple not just one.

You have to chortle because,, had anyone posted these pics with those blurs on them and said..."Wow, what are these objects I didn't see them when I took the photos?".... People would have been all over them with the old "It's insects"

To see people trying to debunk the supposed object using shadows, which are almost certainly not shadows rather bugs, is wholly chucklesome..

As to the object itself.... Can't really say, could be CGI, could be real, could be something perfectly normal seen from a strange angle. Oh and drones, the vast majority of drones are not secret at all, they are made from standard, off the shelf components and anyone with the wherewithal can make one. Their missions might be secret at times, the technology is anything but, ergo, very little reason to have them in Area 51.
edit on 18-11-2012 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 12:24 AM
reply to post by C-JEAN

One photo shows the bottom of the object and is dark in appearance.

In the photo I used above, the object is angled with the closer edge down. Take a metal mixing bowl or a hubcap with a convex top, stand with only one light behind you and above left (approx 45 deg), make sure your eye is lower than the bowl. Angle the shiny bowl/hubcap's edge closest to you lower and you will see a very similar effect found in the photo.

As for the shadow, all I did was measure the angle horizontal from the top of the STOP sign to the end of its shadow, and then applied the same angle from the object to the ground. The line went directly to the oval shadow in the picture. Sunlight travels in basically straight lines this far away. So the angles have to be parallel.

Now I might be off a little, but not very much.
edit on 18-11-2012 by gguyx because: additional

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 04:32 AM
Now, let's try to better define both size and distance to the camera of this object.

In the testimony, the guy said that they were stopping at the "black mailbox", which is not visible on the photo.
So, looking at the position of the stop sign, the roads, the distant mountains on the background, we can reasonably assume that the guy who was taking the shoots were close to the mailbox.

Using Google Maps and Streetview (it's hardly visible on the aerial views, but it's there), one can gives a good estimation of the distance between the mailbox and the stop sign:

It's roughly 20m/65ft.

Next step, using my favourite software and this methodology, is to calculate the possible sizes/distances to the camera of the object in the 3 images:

So, the angular size of the object is comprised between 1.009 and 1.417°, meaning that object's diameter estimation is, for a distance of 20m/65ft comprised between 35 and 49cm and less if it's closer:
- between 26 and 37 cm for a distance of 15m
- between 17 and 24 cm for a distance of 10m

It can't be further away of 20m, as, at least in one shoot, the shadow of the object is visible on the ground, making the object to be closer than the stop sign, as shown by 'gguyx' above.

All of this is consistent with the hypothesis of a small metallic object thrown in the air between each shoot.

edit on 18-11-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by elevenaugust

With respect can't you read? Or do you just post on a thread without bothering to take into account that which has already been posted. There are no shadows of the object, what you think is a shadow, is a bug in front of the lens

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 07:11 AM
First and third photos have the same shadow, it's just dirt or a mark on the ground, you can see from the tyre tracks near it.

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:27 AM
I'm gonna say that those are oil stains on the gravel from previously parked vehicles...... Don't know where the UAV's shadow is ???

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 04:12 PM
I'm going to put it out there again that there is no shadow of the object on the ground. I don't know what the "spot" is, most likely a ground shadow from a rock or a parking lot stain (good eye cookiemonster). An insect in front of the lens was also mentioned, which is interesting.

I am not an expert, granted, but I'm willing to say the spot on the ground is not a shadow of the object. I'm also willing to say the shadow of the object would most likely be oval in shape due to the angle of the light and on the other side of the street in the brush, where we can't see it. My two cents...


posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by elevenaugust

Those are some good photos worthy of closer examination whether its real or not
Thanks for posting them s+f

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 03:23 AM
reply to post by elevenaugust

Looks to be a definite hoax or possibly a goverment drone that is probably taking better pictures of you than you are taking of it. "They" have you on file now.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 04:24 AM

Originally posted by knowledgehunter
reply to post by elevenaugust

Looks to be a definite hoax or possibly a goverment drone that is probably taking better pictures of you than you are taking of it. "They" have you on file now.

Umm, really?

A "DEFINITE" hoax, OR, a drone?

If it's a drone, there is no hoax, so how could it look to be a "definite hoax"?

Anyway, The pictures all pass Error Level Analysis, meaning it was not "Added" to the photos. The photos are indeed authentic.

What you see here is a genuine UFO -- could be a drone, could be a manned craft. By the way, again, you cannot see the shadow of the object, so that rules out "Tossing a metal disc" into the air.

Check it yourself at foto forensic.

The only anomaly is rainbowing, which is caused by the program the photographer imported the images with. Nothing was "Touched up" in the image except the second image, which is applied to the entire image, verifying the hypothesis that it was only used to enhance the contrast of the image.

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 04:48 AM
crap looks so fake...

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in