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.

 

UFOs Hover Over Fresno for Four Hours

page: 5
47
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
bigfootgurl

I'm not able to post pictures,
But i did process this image a little,
Maybe i can send it to you or any other volunteer via e-mail,
So you can put it up in the thread?

(I'm being serious, no foul play intended)

It's one .jpeg file and interesting one it is...

?




posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Runciter33
 





Clearly it's one of those new self-tethering balloonachutes. Just kiddin.


classic ATS humour



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 







Ripples around the perimeter: check.
Hole in the middle: check.


Dude hanging from the chute: No check

You managed to find a comparable image of a parachute and it's even comparable in size. However, you would think you would see someone hanging from it. So if it were a parachute and you can't see the jumper, then that must mean that chute is massive. The proportions are off.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 

The picture bonez posted had to be turned upside down to make the chute explanation work, the original footage had the 'hole' on the bottom portion of the image.
edit on 20-7-2013 by Toadmund because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I think this might be the culprit.




Note the square shaped payload, similar to the square object in the center of the "ufo".

www.depauw.edu...


It just looks like a balloon to me with the payload on the bottom. Its flattened out due to very high altitude. The high altitude would also explain why it wasnt affected by the relatively low level winds.The ribbed structure around the periphery is consistant with some types of high altitude balloons. The Red Bull balloon used for the high altitude space jump a few weeks ago had that type of design. Someone, possibly Google, was testing something. [
edit on 20-7-2013 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
After looking at the still photo image. It is a pretty in focus shot to be an object, probably 3-5000 feet up.
You can make out, very faintly, 4 tethers that lead down to the square'ish box. This may not be a hole in the structure of this thing. I don't buy the parachute theory at all. That is just rediculas. However, does resemble a parachute.

As far as a rational explanation, could be a type of balloon, like the google blimp. And the box could be a series of stabilizer motors. Drone technology has come a long way and I could see the square apparatus being some type of control mechanism to a blimp.
Take a look at the clear still shot again and see if you can make out the thin faint lines leading up to the square box.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


exactly. NEXT!



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Either way it looks like test object, man made. Nothing extraterrestrial.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I saw this thing. I live in Fresno, and my brother and i saw this. Sorry my broke ass does not have a high def camera, or any camera at all for that matter, to get you the pictures you desire.

To OP--- good find. Myself, i am thinking it is a test projection for project blue beam.



posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Spacespider
looks like the spheres around the edge of the craft were detachable . looked like they had their own individual docking port

I'd like to know what could possibly possess you to say something like that? How can you possibly tell from these low-quality images that there are detachable "orbs", or how you can even miraculously tell that these "orbs" have their own individual docking ports?



Originally posted by pyrodude
The ridges appear to be some sort of 360 degree propulsion system, pretty neat whatever it is. Does not look like a balloon at all.

360-degree propulsion system? Seriously?


It truly boggles logic when people make such unbelievable and fantastical claims.




Ladies and gentlemen, you're looking at a simple parachute:





  • Ripples around the perimeter: check.
  • Hole in the middle: check.


    I doubt it was there for four hours. But if it was, it was likely tethered to the ground. That explains why the news station deleted their UFO story. Because it's not a UFO. Come on, people. This stuff isn't that hard.






    edit on 19-7-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)


  • Congrats on your star filled post mate, but alas i'm saying you're wrong with 'parachute'.

    Yes, i agree it does look like an old-fashioned parachute...but it can't be, not if the thing was aloft for more than 5-10 minutes...a chute of that design isn't as nimble as a more modern rectangular design, they can stay aloft for slightly longer than modern chutes, but not by much..and certainly not for hours, even 20 minutes is stretching it quite far.

    These old type round chutes do not hover in one place, they fall fairly quickly, and they usually operate from a low altitude of around 2000 - 3000 feet. (about 1km or so). They don't rise up and down either, and are quite unlikely to remain stationary or on a completely vertical trajectory without swaying and rotating...they are not as steerable or manoeuvrable as the 'sports chutes' most commonly used today and they do get blown around a far bit by winds...30 - 70 mph winds would have had this thing billowing like a ships sail if it were an older design round chute.

    I can understand how you see a round chute...as that is what it looks like, but it can't be if the details of the sighting are anywhere near correct. The video doesn't back up a parachute theory either.

    Nice try though, i have to confess an old round chute was my first impression too, then i watched the videos available for this sighting(s), then ruled it out.

    One question though...in your post you say it may have stayed aloft because 'it may have been tethered to the ground'...how does a parachute in the air, open canopy, defy gravity just by being tied to the ground?



    edit on 20-7-2013 by MysterX because: added text



    posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 06:06 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by MysterX
    how does a parachute in the air, open canopy, defy gravity just by being tied to the ground?

    Um, if the wind is blowing at a decent speed, and it was, the parachute will fill up with air and hover as long as it's tethered.

    Everyone is still clinging to the "4-hour" claim when there's zero evidence. No video evidence, nothing. Besides that, it was two identical objects over a 4-hour period if we are to take the videographer's word at face value.

    I can't go back and edit my parachute post, but most of us have settled on the balloon explanation. That's where the thread should've ended, but people still keep claiming "4-hours stationary", and "not a parachute".



    It wasn't stationary. The videographer said so many times in the video. And you can clearly see it moving in the video. No, it's not a parachute, it's a balloon. Let's let this non-UFO thread die in peace.


    Besides, I think it's wrong to have had this thread go on this long when there was already a thread on this "UFO". All the stars and flags got taken away from the original poster.



    posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 08:59 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by _BoneZ_

    Originally posted by MysterX
    how does a parachute in the air, open canopy, defy gravity just by being tied to the ground?

    Um, if the wind is blowing at a decent speed, and it was, the parachute will fill up with air and hover as long as it's tethered.

    Everyone is still clinging to the "4-hour" claim when there's zero evidence. No video evidence, nothing. Besides that, it was two identical objects over a 4-hour period if we are to take the videographer's word at face value.

    I can't go back and edit my parachute post, but most of us have settled on the balloon explanation. That's where the thread should've ended, but people still keep claiming "4-hours stationary", and "not a parachute".



    It wasn't stationary. The videographer said so many times in the video. And you can clearly see it moving in the video. No, it's not a parachute, it's a balloon. Let's let this non-UFO thread die in peace.


    Besides, I think it's wrong to have had this thread go on this long when there was already a thread on this "UFO". All the stars and flags got taken away from the original poster.






    ---
    Ummm, their is no evidence that its a parachute either, yes there are possibilities to what it may be, but you not believing it being their for 4hrs is the same as us NOT believing its a parachute, yoi question the uploader, we question the dynamics.



    posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 09:27 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by crazyewok
    So it was there 4 hours?

    So no one tried filming it with a high quality camera?

    No photographers around to take HD pcitures?

    I call BS.
    .

    Not only that but what ever happened to the air force. 4 hours and no planes???. Something is wrong.



    posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:05 PM
    link   
    Hi yall. Thanks for keeping this thread alive. I don't think we quite have a solid answer yet, although I know many of you would disagree.

    Just thought I'd post a few thoughts for those who are still pondering this.

    I went back for another look at the OP as a refresher and here's what I picked up on second glance.

    First, it's noted that the news station received "dozens of calls and emails" about the object. However, the report submitted to NUFORC noted that the object appeared very small to the naked eye. Interpret that how you will, but if it were visible for only a brief period (as we would expect of, say, a balloon) and was not prominent in the sky, seems like it may not get noticed by very many people.

    Secondly, it seems that the images first shown on the news broadcast were taken by the station photographer and that this person - according to the female anchor - said that the object was visible for four hours. Additionally, we have the two reports - one to MUFON, the other to NUFORC - also claiming that the object(s) was/were in sight for four hours.

    Regarding possible mundane explanations, the news anchors' two guesses as to what it might be are (naturally) a weather balloon and a parachute.

    At this point they bring on the weather man and his bad hair piece to shed some light on this possibility. He says he doesn't think that's the answer and displays the following graphic to explain why.



    It is his opinion "that it was way too windy for a weather balloon or a parachute", noting that any such object "would have been zipping across the valley". As a professional meteorologist, seems to me he might know a thing or two about the behavior of weather balloons in the wind.

    As to the alleged motion of the object(s) - which has been a contentious point at times in this thread - the MUFON report notes that they were "pretty much stationary but one seemed to drift up and down". The news anchor, who we might assume had spoken to the photographer at the station, says that the object "seemed to stay in one place in the sky" - which could be interpreted as meaning "in one general area of the sky", not necessarily completely motionless.

    Now, if we consider that we have at least two corroborating reports - one by the station photographer and another by the man who reported his sighting to MUFON and NUFORC - that the object was in sight for four hours, I feel we have to give that claim a little more weight than we might were it made by a single observer.

    Certainly nothing there that puts any nails in any coffins one way or the other, but I think these are a couple legitimate points to consider in this question.




    edit on 20-7-2013 by bigfootgurl because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:09 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Arnie123
    their is no evidence that its a parachute either.

    There is. I posted it on the first page. Read my last post. Most of us agree it's a balloon. Let it go.



    posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:17 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by happyzodiac

    Originally posted by crazyewok
    So it was there 4 hours?

    So no one tried filming it with a high quality camera?

    No photographers around to take HD pcitures?

    I call BS.
    .

    Not only that but what ever happened to the air force. 4 hours and no planes???. Something is wrong.


    Something certainly is, although the MUFON report does make the claim that "national guard also took a close picture of one of these objects". Now, the guy could have just made this part of his report up, but if we choose to accept the rest of his report, which is apparently corroborated by the station photographer at the FOX affiliate, it's not a huge stretch to accept that he may have actually seen something that makes him think the Air National Guard was there taking pictures. After all, we know the local ANG knew there was something there, if for no other reason than that they received a call from the news station asking them about it.

    Come to think of it, wouldn't it be interesting to call the Air National Guard in Fresno and ask them if they got any calls about this object? We know they got at least one.




    posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:22 PM
    link   
    reply to post by bigfootgurl
     

    Firstly, the news station got the "4-hour" claim from the original videographer or other callers. There's no way any news crew from any station is going to sit for 4-hours of their news day and observe and/or video an object when there are far more interesting news stories happening elsewhere in the city.

    Secondly, since the winds were blowing from west to east, and most of us agree that these are balloons, guess what is around 160-miles west of Fresno? Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA.

    They may not necessarily be Google's balloons, but it is a better explanation than weather balloons as weather balloons don't really look like the images and videos posted.



    It is quite interesting that there are 5 pages about a non-UFO in the UFO forum.



    posted on Jul, 20 2013 @ 10:39 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by _BoneZ_
    reply to post by bigfootgurl
     

    Firstly, the news station got the "4-hour" claim from the original videographer or other callers. There's no way any news crew from any station is going to sit for 4-hours of their news day and observe and/or video an object when there are far more interesting news stories happening elsewhere in the city.



    How do you know that the news station got the "4-hour" claim from the original videographer or other callers? The female anchor seems to say that the photographer they sent out said that.



    And that does make me wonder. If the photographer said it, and the guy who has the YouTube video said it, how many more of these "dozens of calls and emails" might have mentioned that the thing was there for an extended period of time?

    Maybe they got that information from the original videographer AND other callers.

    ...in addition, apparently, to the station photographer.

    It would have been helpful had they mentioned whether all these calls and emails came in at once or were coming in throughout the day. Alas. I do have an email into the FOX affiliate regarding this. We'll see if they respond
    edit on 20-7-2013 by bigfootgurl because: (no reason given)


    EDIT: Actually it's unclear to me now just who the anchor is referring to as having said "4 hours", as she seems to use the word "they". The relevant bit is at about :23 of the video. Who do you think she is referring to? Does it seem to be one witness or more than one? Can we really tell? If not, what assumption should we make regarding the number of "4-hour" claimants? Should we assume it was only one of the dozens of witnesses, and that the person must have been lying? If we make that assumption, are we doing it rationally, or are we just trying to make the report fit with our preferred notion of what the object must have been?
    edit on 20-7-2013 by bigfootgurl because: (no reason given)

    edit on 20-7-2013 by bigfootgurl because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 03:23 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by _BoneZ_

    Originally posted by Arnie123
    their is no evidence that its a parachute either.

    There Most of us agree it's a balloon. Let it go.






    And you are who exactly?
    People will let it go when its explained away, until it is, its a UFO in every meaning of the word..

    ''Oh, it must be a balloon'' Just as stupid at looking at rocks on Mars and saying ''Is that a rat on the moon?''
    Because your eyes see something and try to make sense of it by telling you its something you are familiar with, a safety net if you will.

    It may well be a Balloon but just because one or two random people on a website say ''Maybe this or maybe that''
    it's not really finished is it?
    You are free to move on BTW. You have said your theory with no hard evidence I might add and now continue to repeat yourself..

    DENY IGNORANCE.



    posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 04:28 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by _BoneZ_

    Originally posted by Arnie123
    their is no evidence that its a parachute either.

    There is. I posted it on the first page. Read my last post. Most of us agree it's a balloon. Let it go.





    ---
    LMFAO, what? No I'm not going to let it go. Who the hell do you think you are? You have all the answes huh? Regardless of your post doesn't change the fact that we don't know what it is, because it "Looks" like it, you deem it solved and move on, well guess what BRUH, your wrong.
    Your wrong in saying the "MAJORITY" think its a ballon.
    Your wrong in saying "Its" a parachute.
    Your wrong in saying "Move on".
    We are here to "Deny Ignorance" and you my blind, right-click and google fellow poster is certainly "Ignorant", I DO deny you and your "Evidence", because of everything presented, it still holds no water.
    You sirs, are WRONG.
    Nuff said, facepalmed, pwned.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    47
    << 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

    log in

    join