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.

 

Strange object hits wind turbine 2009.Similar object photographed 5000 miles away July 2013.

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by canDarian
 




I know about the turbine,the fact that over 20+ witnesses came forward out of their own volition,I find it hard to believe they just made it up.
Who said anyone made anything up? But how many reported an "octopus"?



As for it being a bug,explain to me how it's clearly behind him yet out of focus,if that's a bug then I should put this in the crypto forum as well because that's the biggest bug I ever saw.

It isn't clearly behind him.
It's clearly in front of him.


edit on 7/26/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


*ahem*

It's not clearly EITHER, Mr. Phage.

Since the object is in unobstructed free space and doesn't pass behind or in front of any reference objects, you cannot tell one way or the other if it's an object close, or an object far.

To say it's definitively one or the other is completely fallacious.


You know better than this. Shame on you.

Your opinion hinges on an assumption. One that isn't clear.
edit on 26-7-2013 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

Originally posted by canDarian

As for it being a bug,explain to me how it's clearly behind him yet out of focus,if that's a bug then I should put this in the crypto forum as well because that's the biggest bug I ever saw.

Erm why the assumption that it must be behind to be out of focus? Look at the trees on the hill. Clealry the object is more out of focus than the trees (effective infinite distance). This means the object is between the subject and the camera. This means it must be small......we are into bug territory!


Trees don't move. Moving objects are more difficult to focus on.

Comparing the tree line vs an unobstructed moving object in the sky is not a feasible comparison.

If it is indeed in the sky, you have no idea the distance, it could be 5x further than the tree line, it could be 10x closer.

Also, because the stationary trees are in focus, does not mean an object moving rapidly at the same distance would also be in focus. Unless the camera was highspeed, you'd have a heavy hand of motion blur to account for too.

It's impossible to tell if the object in this photo is in the foreground, or the background. All the people who keep trying to say definitively one way or the other are clutching at fallacy.

You can indeed be correct with an incorrect argument. Every argument for or against the position of the object in question is an incorrect argument -- as there is not enough visual information to determine one way or the other.

The critical flaw being that there is absolutely no frame of reference vs the UFO.

[UFO Means unidentified flying object, it does not mean "Alien space craft." This is indeed a UFO, that could be anything from a bug to an actual alien space craft. It's just impossible to definitively say what it is.]


Originally posted by minkmouse
I'm going with Phage on this one. I just can't get my head around the person taking the picture not noticing a UFO like that in the sky behind the subject. We see what we want to see in this image and some are desperate to see UFO's and for them...It's clear evidence! This is clearly an insect caught just in front of the camera. It doesn't much matter what type of insect but for the record I've recorded both Bee's and Wasps many times because they simply have to be in the shot


Really? Because if the object was really far away, to where it appeared to be that small, and you're taking a photo of a friend [who is the object of your immediate attention] through a phone, it's unlikely you'd see it.

There is no logical reason as to why it would have been more/less susceptible to visual detection.

Keep in mind, that when taking photos on a phone, you are often times limiting your field of view to that of the phones less than 8" screen. I.E. It's more likely the camera man was looking at his apple device, instead of the sky above the photo target. If this is the case, an object the size of a quarter to your eye, could look as small as a single pixel, extremely difficult to spot. Especially considering the fact that they are outside and no phone is brighter than the sun. More likely, you'd miss whatever the object is.

If it was really an object in the background, it would have to be so far away, as to be that small from their perspective. It's actually LESS likely that you'd see it.

So the argument being made by phage is one of absolute fallacy.

Even if Occam's razor suggests it's a bug, it's merely only a suggestion, and any argument for or against it, is complete supposition.



The most important part of education -- is making sure you fully understand logical fallacy. The higher the intelligence of any given person, the less their arguments rely upon fallacy.



What phage should have said was;


"It's impossible to tell what the object is, or the actual distance and size... However, I'm going to assume based on previous experience and knowledge, that the most likely scenario, is that it is relatively small and in the foreground -- which most likely points to a flying insect."


What he actually said was;


"This is clearly in the foreground, which means it has to be an insect."


If it was CLEARLY in the foreground, why are so many people in debate that it's not?

There is a definitive answer to this, it's because it's UNCLEAR.
edit on 26-7-2013 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 


LOL exactly,ty.

There is no reference,usually a larger object that is captured from distance will have certain characteristics like circles will appear as ovals.

It's basically 50/50 whether or not this object is in the foreground (insect) or background (UFO).My reasoning as to why I think it is a large object is the center mass does appear to have a oval centerpiece but w/o knowing if the original object pictured has a true circular center it's kind of up in the air.

That's why I added the 5 other pictures and videos of extremely similar objects that have been seen over 50 years.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by canDarian
reply to post by Laykilla
 


LOL exactly,ty.

There is no reference,usually a larger object that is captured from distance will have certain characteristics like circles will appear as ovals.

It's basically 50/50 whether or not this object is in the foreground (insect) or background (UFO).My reasoning as to why I think it is a large object is the center mass does appear to have a oval centerpiece but w/o knowing if the original object pictured has a true circular center it's kind of up in the air.

That's why I added the 5 other pictures and videos of extremely similar objects that have been seen over 50 years.




I believe the history of similar objects that are proven to be at distances/heights that would make the size extremely disproportionate for it to be a bug, sets a reasonable precedent.

My actual opinion is in favor of it being in the background. We have a body of photos depicting similar shaped objects in appropriate space, that are definitely NOT insects.

Where as, if it were indeed an insect, I feel -- that, it would have been discovered exactly what kind of insect it was by now. Surely, you would think, that if it was an insect, a cursory google search would produce images of near perfect candidates.

The one that someone did present, was a beetle that wasn't indigenous to the ecosystem the photo was shot in, nor did it's silhouette really look like a reasonable candidate, in my opinion.

However, since we have just one still shot and cannot verify the authenticity of the photo, or corroborate it in anyway, and since the image lacks resolution and clarity around the object in question, and since the object lacks any definitive point of reference for size measurement/distance coordinates x/y/z, there is no way to prove it one way or the other.


It is however my opinion, that if there was enough information present to prove it's position, that it's position would indeed be -- in the background closer to the horizon from the target, than to, the lens of the camera from the target.

[You see how I state what I believe, yet, at the same time -- am capable of admitting it's unprovable? That's how reasonable intelligent conversations happen. All readers please learn from this experience. Especially you, Phage. Especially you, since you are guilty of this in almost every post you make. Especially since I've been teaching you this lesson for years now... It's almost to the point where you could call me insane, because I try over and over expecting you to one day have that eureka moment that never comes.]


I've been posting here since 2001... [just to head off the "Years? You're account was created in 2012!" arguments.]
edit on 26-7-2013 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AboveBoard
 


I'm replying to myself as I cannot edit any longer! lol!
I wanted to add that this is for the Newest photo - the buggy-ness. I'm not as sure about the others...
So there you have it!

peace,
AB



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
it looks like a bug to me, possibly a dragonfly.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Noway that's a dragonfly I have photographed hundreds of them with macro lenses and TP lenses,they have a very thin tail and long,people saying it's a bug where are the wings then.If those are the legs then the camera should have np capturing some minimal detail of the wings.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure that the object buzzing around is a palo verde beetle. Largest beetle in North America and they fly.


p.s They hurt like hell when they smack into you when your on the bike.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
If, from my knowledge of gravity, I was going to pick a shape of an antigravity machine. I would have to say that it would probably have to incorporate some tentacle looking things. Actually they would be more like tapered special rods to concentrate pulsing magnetic bursts. S spinning disk inside with swirled conductors would feed the pulses to the rods.

But this would just be a guess, I am not in that field at all and have never been stung by a jelly fish either.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaneone
I'm pretty sure that the object buzzing around is a palo verde beetle. Largest beetle in North America and they fly.


p.s They hurt like hell when they smack into you when your on the bike.


That doesn't look anything like it.




lol here's a real pic,not seeing it.Like I said you would see the wings.


edit on 26-7-2013 by canDarian because: Solar Flare



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by curiouswa
 


Thank you for sharing your story. It is an amazing experience you shared with us, and it was very brave to share.

On a side note, to the OP, I don't know what it is. It's sort of like finding shapes in rocks on Mars and trying to attribute things we recognize here on Earth, with what we are seeing on anomalous pictures from Curiosity.

We seem to do this with anomalous unknown things we capture here on Earth too, quite naturally I think. We look for logical ways to understand a mysterious thing. But I don't know if that's a bug.

Could be... I guess


Cirque



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I have no idea what it is.I just can't see it being a flying bug because if those are indeed legs,parts of the wing should be visible.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Thank GOD we have you
to tow the official story line.

Nothing to see here folks,
My stars are all the proof you need.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Ahhh yes...

There is many of details I want to say - But have no way of words to tell and or put it - To better understand the kind.

Originations - Life force - expandability in mind state.

We as humans have yet to all personally feel - know- and proceed without in context knowing what you where told.
We are starting too - But some mind - along lines don't seem to grasp what the information in nature that has yet not been fully or even understood to a human sense - A Practicum. Then, it is this knowledge, The unknown which takes its own personal form of Art - A form of an experience to one's self- A sense of knowing - to ones self ...

As a whole we have all been lied too many too many times, as a form of government and trust, as a company and organization, who in the end gets burned? The ones with power? Or the ones whom observe the power? ... Its this contrenary that separates us from understanding our-self first...

I hate the people whom think so whole-minded on just this planet, that theres a scientific, or has to be a scientific explanation for the way our life forces work... Life is not explained with science, If anyone, ATS more so- had the mind as all- We would all know right now, that the world is not limited too the life force, that the life force, you cant even see it- You cant even know.. Manipulated to the masses -- We dorm to only our advancements but yet fail to "FEEL" the "POWER" yet too COME that we DONT KNOW YET. Not even an army nor human will save us. Sorry. Its how i feel right now in the big world.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
ok instead of trying to figure out what kind of bug this is, where are the posts of a misleading thread title? How is this in anyway the same object that "hit" a windmill. I see no similarities at all. That's like comparing apples to water....



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SixX18
ok instead of trying to figure out what kind of bug this is, where are the posts of a misleading thread title? How is this in anyway the same object that "hit" a windmill. I see no similarities at all. That's like comparing apples to water....


By witness statements,I found it similar which I believe was in the title.No one said it was the same.I had hoped for some info on other photos videos but it appears all people want to do is say it's a bug,even though 5 other videos spanning 50 years showing an extremely similar object exist.

Forgot to add this,saw this posted on utube the other day,I know exactly what it is but I'm curious what others think it is.My guess is that it's a D******** ****


edit on 27-7-2013 by canDarian because: I Plead the fifth.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage you are joking right??

How can you say that and then put in 2 links that say the that it wasn't what you say it was!!?




posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   
guys guys, a bug seriously?

are smoking summit?!

ain't no bug that i have ever seen.....



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by canDarian
 


Or this one (Alfena, Portugal, 1990)





posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laykilla

Trees don't move. Moving objects are more difficult to focus on.

Comparing the tree line vs an unobstructed moving object in the sky is not a feasible comparison.

If it is indeed in the sky, you have no idea the distance, it could be 5x further than the tree line, it could be 10x closer.

Also, because the stationary trees are in focus, does not mean an object moving rapidly at the same distance would also be in focus. Unless the camera was highspeed, you'd have a heavy hand of motion blur to account for too.

It's impossible to tell if the object in this photo is in the foreground, or the background. All the people who keep trying to say definitively one way or the other are clutching at fallacy.



Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!

Obviously YOU are not a photographer have you heard of DEPTH OF FIELD it's a property ALL camera lenses have.

Camera phones and small digital cameras have a very large depth of field which is the zone of sharp focus due to the very small sensor size and aperture of the lens.

DSLR'S have a shallower dof so you can do things like this picture below.



Camera phones have ONE aperture usually wide to let in as much light as possible f2.4 /f 2.8 so you cant control d o f

More about it D O F Explained

It's optically impossible for an object further than the tree line to be out of focus if the trees are in focus, if the object was further than the trees it would also be huge so the only position it can be out of focus is closer to the camera.

Also as it looks like a very bright day the phone would select a quick shutter speed.

Now if the full image had been up loaded we would be able to see the exif data which would give us ALL the information we need including time,date,iso rating,shutter speed,aperture and if gps is on exact location.

Lots of members here are keen photographers even semi pro or professional it's been a hobby of mine for 30+ years.



edit on 27-7-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join