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.

 

The unseen ufo.

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiro

Originally posted by ChuckNasty
Photoshopped!!

There is no way a UFO has 3-4 wings per end!! That paint scheme is awful...what ET will paint their UFO the color of EARTH foliage??!!

More pics or I call BS.


What on EARTH are you on about? 3-4 wings per end? Colour of Earth foliage? Are you looking at the same picture as the rest of us?

The " UFO " is white and it is not photoshopped. On close up inspection the pixels correlate with the sky behind it.

Spiro


You didn't get the reference to the obvious did you? What dare say, would fit that description that he gave in that picture? Maybe the Chinook?! Loosen up a bit...




posted on May, 24 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


You wouldn't happen to have any other lucky shots like this one would you? I wouldn't mine see other angles of it.
edit on 24-5-2013 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Wouldn't it be fun to track down and tease some information out of the pilot of the Chinook?

If one notices a picture of something like this not seen when doing the photography but very strongly suspects it's an alien shuttle, one could file FOIA requests for the Weather Bureau and FAA radar data, but that has to be done within, I think, 15 days. But first make a report to MUFON and get a promise from your local MUFON rep that they will get their radar expert to analyze the data once it comes. And ask them about the filing deadline and cost. Maybe they"ll do the filing for you, if your photo is that good.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I still have no explanation of the white blimp. Thought it could have been an army weather blimp...but not likely.

Even with the raw photo data, don't think we'll know what it is.

Sooooo. By definition, it is a UFO. Good photo sir, hopefully the govt's of the world will let us know the truth.

BTW, the sh#tHook flight crew wouldn't know anything.... They are so dumb, they would miscalculate their fuel load on Simple Icelandic Exercises.... We would be called on alert to refuel them cause they had no clue. (I'm maintenance, and not flight crew so I have no details on the level of dumbness they had).

Hope more comes about of the photo. Does look like a typical UFO IMO.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   
These:



Can look like that as they deflate and flatten with the cowl trailing.

You may have actually caught the proverbial weather balloon this time.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by Spiro
 


He is being funny. He is talking about the helicopter.


Greetings, Well it's about time members realise that quoting text on a forum " without " the use of smilies, in this case this one >
, can and will be taken the wrong way


He sounded very serious to me, with his closing line being the killer


Be safe be well

Spiro



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Spiro

Originally posted by ChuckNasty
Photoshopped!!

There is no way a UFO has 3-4 wings per end!! That paint scheme is awful...what ET will paint their UFO the color of EARTH foliage??!!

More pics or I call BS.


What on EARTH are you on about? 3-4 wings per end? Colour of Earth foliage? Are you looking at the same picture as the rest of us?

The " UFO " is white and it is not photoshopped. On close up inspection the pixels correlate with the sky behind it.

Spiro


You didn't get the reference to the obvious did you? What dare say, would fit that description that he gave in that picture? Maybe the Chinook?! Loosen up a bit...


Greetings, please see my reply above to groin..


Be safe be well

Spiro
edit on 25-5-2013 by Spiro because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiro
 


That one was my bad. I enjoy a UFO pic like anyone else....but I enjoy pics of helo's (and C130s) even more as I worked on turboprop and turboshaft engines for the past couple of decades.

Still have no idea what the white blip is myself. UFO for sure, even as just by definition.

Off Topic, used to live towards the west coast and have seen many unexplainable things. One thing that comes to mind was a huge hawk looking bird...it was more than double the size of a power transformer. Could judge its size because it was chilling on a power pole...it was huge and scared the crap out of me.

I could imagine what a person goes through when they see things that others won't believe. If the OP says it's unexplainable, so be it. That pic is unexplainable... Minus the chopper.

Edit: There isn't any sign of lens flare, zoom artifacts, birds, or photo shopping...those blades are captured in an almost still state meaning a fast shutter thingie. That white blip could have been captured in a motionless blur state due to the fast shutter speed. Looks very legit when compared with other UFO photos.
edit on 25-5-2013 by ChuckNasty because: edit as above



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


Thanks for that I could read the exif data from your original pic when posted directly in firefox so you have

iso 200 1/1600th of a second at f7.1 at 60mm focal length can you give a rough guess for the distance to the chinook.

One thing I cant understand using the 1.9 mp setting on your 12mp camera did you have low storage space.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
These:



Can look like that as they deflate and flatten with the cowl trailing.

You may have actually caught the proverbial weather balloon this time.
That's an interesting possibility. Here is a photo the Air Force claims is a weather balloon, if you can believe them:

www.nicap.org..." border=0>



www.zipworld.com.au...

Major Robert F. Spence of the Edwards AFB Office of Information Services wrote as follows: "The alleged UFO was conclusively identified as a balloon from a weather unit a few miles west of the observer's location. This was corroborated by an independent report which discloses that this balloon was being tracked at that time with precision recording devices. The data show that the balloon passed the observer's location at almost the precise time, bearings, elevations and speed reported by them.... Objects in the photographs, even after magnification, were found to be small white specks, alternately changing from elliptical to round in shape.
That does somewhat resemble the UAP in the OP's photo.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


you must have seen one of the one's we made at work! Out at the GM proving grounds,an engineer decided to try helium in tires.The idea didn't work,but when you get a bunch of bored mechanics and a bottle of helium,we make balloons! We drove the tower at Williams AFB crazy!



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I wouldn't jump straight to thinking it is an artifact simply because OP didn't notice it at the time.
I mean, its the color of a cloud, for Pete's sake, and it is very small. With a Chinook dominating the frame, something like this object could easily go unnoticed at the time the photo was taken.


Yes. And it may even be a small cloud just starting to form.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Last light and first light is when I usually see weather balloons. Good call. This was in mid day, but it could still have been a balloon.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by groingrinder
 


Thanks for that I could read the exif data from your original pic when posted directly in firefox so you have

iso 200 1/1600th of a second at f7.1 at 60mm focal length can you give a rough guess for the distance to the chinook.

One thing I cant understand using the 1.9 mp setting on your 12mp camera did you have low storage space.



Thank you!! Can you tell me how to read the exif data directly in Firefox please. Does it take a special plug in? And I have the setting low because I do not want to go to shoot a movie and have a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge file because of it. It takes a while on my camera to access the settings and make the adjustments. So I have them set so I can just switch from still to movie when I need to without having to take ten minutes to adjust the quality down. I am saving aluminum cans to pay for a dslr. The compact point and shoot is OK for what it does, but you get what you pay for.

I would estimate the distance at a mile.
edit on 5-25-2013 by groingrinder because: Edited to provide more information.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Thanks. It could very easily be one of those. I guess we will never know. I would love to have a dslr with one of those looooooooooooooong lenses like you see the guys on the sidelines at the football games using.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
Wouldn't it be fun to track down and tease some information out of the pilot of the Chinook?

If one notices a picture of something like this not seen when doing the photography but very strongly suspects it's an alien shuttle, one could file FOIA requests for the Weather Bureau and FAA radar data, but that has to be done within, I think, 15 days. But first make a report to MUFON and get a promise from your local MUFON rep that they will get their radar expert to analyze the data once it comes. And ask them about the filing deadline and cost. Maybe they"ll do the filing for you, if your photo is that good.


Thank you for that! I do not have the energy or money to put into that. I have seen so many anomalies in my life and since moving to Arizona as well. This certainly does not excite me as much as if I had seen it with my own eyes as it happened.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Specimen
 


No I am sorry. I have gone back through my shots of planes and helicopters looking for more ufo photo bombs, but I come up empty. I also have hundreds of sky pictures that I take to use in my 3d animation and still art work and I will be going over them as time permits now.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


A glowing piece of air.
Known to happen by various illumination methods.
I do not think there is anything wrong with your camera.
It gets what it gets and in the spectrum of some radiation perhaps even black light.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder

Thank you!! Can you tell me how to read the exif data directly in Firefox please. Does it take a special plug in? And I have the setting low because I do not want to go to shoot a movie and have a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge file because of it. It takes a while on my camera to access the settings and make the adjustments. So I have them set so I can just switch from still to movie when I need to without having to take ten minutes to adjust the quality down. I am saving aluminum cans to pay for a dslr. The compact point and shoot is OK for what it does, but you get what you pay for.

I would estimate the distance at a mile.
edit on 5-25-2013 by groingrinder because: Edited to provide more information.


Yes its a plug in, any picture in the browser if exif data is attached I can read it as you know


Movie settings and still settings are separate on a camera so you can shoot 12mp stills and still have small movie files.

On my Sony SLT DSLR I can take 16mp stills hit the movie button and shoot from vga res up to 1920x1080 50i at 24 mb/sec depending on what I have set it at.

With your camera with the settings from the exif if your distance estimate is accurate anything closer than 313 ft would be out of focus anything further is in the acceptable focus zone all the way to infinity.

As the shutter speed was 1/1600 th of a second and the white object looks blurry its closer than 313 ft thats worked out using a depth of field calculator.



edit on 25-5-2013 by wmd_2008 because: info added

edit on 25-5-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Good shot.
Is that the highest resolution image? If not, can you link to the biggest file so we can take a closer look?




It sure doesn't look like a weather balloon to me!
edit on 25-5-2013 by Willease because: after thought



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join