UFO photographed over Area 51

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Actually, it is a shadow from the "object". Take a look at photos 2 and 3.

- Photo 2 shows the object on the left....but look at the ground at the bottom just off center, you will see an "oil stain"....and not the tire track "circles"
- Photo 3 shows the same "oil stain" under his right armpit (with a dark spot below that)...however, there is now a shadow for the "object" at the top of the tire track "circles".

I can get all fancy and highlight with arrows and circles when I get home....so you can see exactly what I see.




posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Please, don;t both on my behalf because you will be wasting your time. I've already studied the photos carefully and you're wrong, the "object" casts no shadow and any workings you might provide will be mathematically flawed so please don;t waste your time.

edit on 19-11-2012 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 


Yes, it's a real photo -- of a hubcap or other small hubcap-like item.
edit on 19-11-2012 by gguyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Not a waste of my time. It's for all the readers who want to know what it ACTUALLY is, which is just a shiny disk thrown by one of the friends. But if believing it is a giant UFO they captured, along with "insects" makes you all happy smiley, more power to you.
edit on 19-11-2012 by gavron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GArnold
 


It makes me think of a picture I saw yesterday on the Mufon site. Tell me if you also think the shadow feels wrong. I gazed at it for at least 20 minutes and feel that the angle of the shadow is wrong if you compare it to the shadows of the trees. The angle of the ufo's shadow should be reversed, now it's parallel! What do you think? Here's the picture(and an rgb noise is easy to add to make the ufo look like it's part of the picture):
www.mufoncms.com...

It would be too good to be true, but to post that and have a serious report on Mufon? What a waste of time. Hoaxers piss me off!



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


what if it's just a surveillance drone. They got followed by a blue truck and then, this. The lady got sick because she was nervous.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sebHFX
 


It would be a really weird type of drone though!



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


The only people believing, are the people so far, who have managed to make the maths up as they go along. I've already worked out the almost exact height of the sun, given the date and time is accurate, the Sun's azimuth with relation to magnetic North and the length of the shadow at ground level multiplier.

Given that, before you swan off up the creek without a paddle I'd actually sit down and ask yourself do I actually understand even the basic maths involved in trying to show anything about this series of photos? For instance, given lens aren't flat, and the only "known fixed dimension" in any of the photos is the height of the road sign to within a few inches, then how does that affect the rest of the calculations given the lens' own inherent properties.?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Insect, close to the lens? LMAO....ffs, some of you would rather believe the most unlikely crap than to face the boring reality.

Verdict: Hoax. Tourists taking photo gag and suckers on ATS swearing on their life it is the genuine article. Typical.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective
Insect, close to the lens? LMAO....ffs, some of you would rather believe the most unlikely crap than to face the boring reality.

Verdict: Hoax. Tourists taking photo gag and suckers on ATS swearing on their life it is the genuine article. Typical.


Funny that, cos not one person has actually said anything about aliens, merely it's an unknown, as yet, object in the sky. You find that actually is the very definition of a UAP until such time as something can be proven. I must assume you work for the FBI in criminal profiling as you seem to be able to be so precise about people and their motives from three photographs. I'm amazed, given your prodigious talent, you have time to spend waffling away on these boards. On the other hand, I could give you a quick "profiling" on the sort of person who uses a psychopathic mass murdered as an avatar and quite what that says about them...
edit on 19-11-2012 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by gavron
 


The only people believing, are the people so far, who have managed to make the maths up as they go along. I've already worked out the almost exact height of the sun, given the date and time is accurate, the Sun's azimuth with relation to magnetic North and the length of the shadow at ground level multiplier.


In other words, you know where the sun was when his friend threw the hubcap in the air for the others to photograph. Got it!

Maybe you should do a little research on the camera they used, and what it is actually capable of. Then, by all means, convince us it has taken photos of "insects". I won't hold my breath for your reply though...



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Why don't you stop trying to be so witty and actually show the good people of ATS your workings for your conclusions. I see a hell of a lot opinion and as yet, not one single genuine piece of actual calculation that has any relevance to the photos,

Like, lets say the road sign is 96 inches tall, then you will of course be able to tell me, given the time of day on the photo and knowing where the sun is, in its' track across the sky how long the shadow on the floor is. Then having worked that out you will be then able to explain to the good people of ATS the problem that creates with judging distances in the photo. We will of course, for the purposes of this calculation assume that the floor, is to all intents and purposes a flat surface as the evidence from the photo does actually suggest it is pretty much that, flat.

The fact is, this forum is full of people willing to post first and not ever actually bother thinking as you already "know". If you can't see the "insects" then I suggest you pop down the opticians and have your eyes tested or you could show me some photos of oblong hubcaps.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Like, lets say the road sign is 96 inches tall, then you will of course be able to tell me, given the time of day on the photo and knowing where the sun is, in its' track across the sky how long the shadow on the floor is. Then having worked that out you will.


The shadow is the size of the hubcap, which has been thrown by one of the photographers friends.


My guess, one similar to this:
edit on 19-11-2012 by gavron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Mom's hubcap garden.

Take your pick:




posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Interesting image.

I did a quick overlay of all 3 images, sadly some of the quality has been lost in the upload process but the object appears to be pretty consistent.





posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
guys i'm confused
how did we get from "the object in these photos was not digitally composited and we can even [possibly] determine its size" to "it must be a hoax!"?
is it because it's considerably smaller than what our anthropocentric worldview leads us to believe a structured craft must be? that seems like a pretty lousy reason to call this entire group of people out as hoaxers.
come on doods, more things in heaven and on earth and all that.

also, good work with the number-crunching yet again, Elevens.... while i may not frequently agree with the conclusions you draw from the data you analyse i have to say i rub my hands together in glee whenever i see one of your longer and more graphic-filled posts. Audio knows i am not capable of such!
edit on 19-11-2012 by decepticonLaura because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by decepticonLaura
 


That's simple, they simply decided to throw the laws of trigonometry and several thousand years of science out in favour of blind prejudice and the desperation to want to be "right".

If we accept the photos were take on the date and at the time they claim they were taken, then we have a starting point for any attempt to explain what the object might or might not be. The reason for that being a simple one, we then know within 1/2 a degree how far above the horizon the Sun was and also how far from true North the Sun was.

As far as I can work out, from the maps the direction of the photo is looking somewhere between South East, East and North East Now that simple means that, the Sun is therefore behind the camera. This is further confirmed by the actual shadow of the road sign which is wholly commensurate with that being so.

Now, those of us who actually do try to understand fakery using photos have a habit of picking up little things along the way. One of those is know that, in that day at that time, the length of the shadow of a 10 foot pole at 90 degrees would be 11 feet within a few inches here or there and that the shadows in any photo taken in the position claimed should be angled away from the camera lens. If you check the shadow of the road sign, this is indeed so. Ergo, so far the photos seem to be taken where and when the people concerned say they were.

Next we have to take into account that the Sun is some 41 degrees above the horizon. Thus any object more than just a few feet in the air will soon have the sun reflected on it's underside not on it's top surface. Well bless my cotton socks, that seems to be add up as well. In two photos where the object seems to have some height the sun does indeed seem to be reflecting off the underside and the final photo where it is much lower the Sun seems to reflect off the top surface.

Now none of that, alone and let's be honest, none of those who claim to have solved this already had even thought of any of that, proves that the object isn't merely a small object thrown in the air. However, what it does prove is that anyone who thinks that the shadow they are claiming is the shadow of the object, is frankly, talking utter moonshine. Even in the world of the stupid, the sun cannot cast a shadow behind one object when all the other shadows are in front. The reason you cannot see the guy holding the camera up's shadow is because of the foreshortening effect of the lens. In the same way, the shadow of the road sign , which is by simple maths 1/10 longer than the actual pole, looks shorter than the pole .

Armed with those actual facts, go back to the photo people claim shows a shadow and you tell me when we garnered a second Sun that only casts shadows on hubcaps. it's a bug as is the "shadow" just to the right of the standing guy.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Please tell us what bug is photographed. You obviously say its a bug, but it doesn't look like any bug I've ever seen. It actually appears to just be a shadow from the hubcap that the photographers friend has thrown. Makes for a nice hoax shot.....shooting a pic of a UFO at Area 51. Haha!

There is no evidence that suggests it was fast moving bug....other than you saying it is. You might as well say it was additional mini-probes from the mini saucer in the air. Makes as much sense.

Honestly, to believe it is anything but a hubcap is just silly.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


the one in the middle looks questionable but i like the other two. good find





top topics
 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join