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.

 

Landed flying saucers from earlier today

page: 11
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   



Day time negative image








Night time negative image

If the 2 pictures were taken at the exact same spot, seems to be something in that field in pic 2. Too bad the field border cannot be seen in pic #2 as it can be in pic #1.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by scar]




posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sre2f
On any phone camera I have used there is a negative....


Well yeah, just flip the colors as pantha said. I assumed you wanted film negatives to look for doctoring. You can get the negatives of the pictures he already posted quite easily yourself.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by scar

Night time negative image

If the 2 pictures were taken at the exact same spot, seems to be something in that field in pic 2. Too bad the field border cannot be seen in pic #2 as it can be in pic #1.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by scar]


Errr hello - we have already established that the images are of houses at night - if they are lit up they will show through the dark trees at night. Plus judging by the tree branches and leaves in the foreground the two pics aren't even shot in the same direction.

Or more likely 3 huge flying saucers landed in local suburb in the middle of the night and were cloaked as semi-detached houses.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I apologize because I have not kept up with this entire thread....but after looking at page 14 it appears we are in the same spot as page 5 or 6....surely SOMEONE must know SOMEONE over there to get some "real" pictures (digital camera) of that spot. Then we can truly determine if the "pot smokin rides" are fact or fiction.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
The more I look at these photos, the more I have to agree that these shapes are the houses. At first, it looked to me that the saucer shapes were to close to the camera for them to be the houses. After reading some of the other posts and messing with them in photoshop, I can now see that the poor quality (no offense) of the images had initially fooled me.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   
been reading alot into this thread . wasnt too sure about it at the start but its really really got my interest now, and the negative images would seem to show that infact there was something there on that field. just my opinion , would like to see more daytime pics and more night pics of the field, but woodsboy very very well done IMO u cought something interesting



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   
With all due respect to fellow stoners and to call this just an honest mistake rather than a hoax unlike some children here, this is what happened:




[edit on 21-11-2004 by CmptrNerd5]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   
For those trying to manipulate the crowd into accepting their own view by using so humble words like "intelligence" to describe it, hinting the lack of the same for those supporting the "other" view.

We have been thought that the negative view equals realistic, and that the positive equals unrealistic.
A lot of people are quick to use this primitive doctrin to appear intelligent to the crowd and thereby gain supporters who are affraid to appear less intelligent.

This game in itself is far from intelligent, it's a play on emotions.

To assert the opposite view is unintelligent is a display of narrow-mindedness in the first degree.


He who shouts the loudest, has less arguments.



Sincerly

Cade


d1k

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 07:03 AM
link   
For those of you saying they are houses, I can take the pic and outline the statue of liberty, that doesn't make it so. Frankly you guys outlining houses from pretty much nothing is not convincing me of anything.

If you look at the day time pics, the houses are not as far into the foreground as the objects in the night are, nor are they squared up to the camera like the objects are in the night time photo. There are houses but they are much farther in the background and they are on an angle facing away and to the left of the photographer.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 07:30 AM
link   
That is of course, assuming that the night, and day pics are from EXACTLY the same vantage point, which may not be the case.

BTW, just had to point out I was the first to suggest they were houses...


Still, I'd like to see more night pics of the area in question, as I believe that will settle it, especially if he can do so from an angle as to capture the square lights (windows?) in the same place.

Also BTW, the houses we'ren't drawn "from nothing". Most of us used the windows as a guide and also simply traced over the existing silhouettes, and THEN went further to suggest where possible other lines may be....just to show that it COULD just as easily be houses as it could be UFOs...


Personally, (minus some of the personal attacks), the original poster has been pretty thorough on getting more pics etc. as suggested by members, so there doesn't seem to be any intentional hoaxing here...so my bet is either misidentification or he actually spotted something here...but I don't doubt his intentions.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:29 AM
link   
it seems that u peeps are way too hard to please, "go take some more pics n we'll decide whether ur a hoax"...wen i giv u the pics u say they dont look like there from the same place...well get this, they are. sort of a lesson i fink, however convincing pics can be, thers never going to be enuff proof to please anyone, and i spose thats the way it goes over the internet, i dont know u and u dont know me, so who knows whos bull#ing.

all im gonna say is that these pics are real, those houses look dam closer in the night pic than they do in the day..that to me is wierd n i dont giv a dam who wants me to stay out there night n day to get the pics u need, u already got em.

woodsy



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodsyboy
it seems that u peeps are way too hard to please, "go take some more pics n we'll decide whether ur a hoax"...wen i giv u the pics u say they dont look like there from the same place...well get this, they are. sort of a lesson i fink, however convincing pics can be, thers never going to be enuff proof to please anyone, and i spose thats the way it goes over the internet, i dont know u and u dont know me, so who knows whos bull#ing.


I think you illustrated a good point here. You could probably submit DNA samples and it wouldn't be enough for a cynical crowd. 'After all, the lab results were probably faked'.

Thanks for going out of your way to please the ATS masses.


Originally posted by woodsyboy
all im gonna say is that these pics are real, those houses look dam closer in the night pic than they do in the day..that to me is wierd n i dont giv a dam who wants me to stay out there night n day to get the pics u need, u already got em.

woodsy


Well said (minus the swear word). I've established a few conclusions that I think are legit:
1) Something happened that is not normally there.
2) It isn't a government operation - they've got their own clearings miles from houses.
3) The photos were not altered.
4) The tracks were not made by cars.
5) ATS folks don't usually spend 15 pages on a thread for 'nothing'.

Kudos sir, thanks for denying ignorance.



[edit on 22-11-2004 by saint4God]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Let me say to the skeptical masses......that ~SKEPTIC~ is a word that means you DONT know exactly......it does not mean that your in the camp of KNOWING what it is not..........being skeptical puts you in the middle of the road, unsure as to which conclusion is correct. Yes, it is used with MORE of the negative than positive conotations.....it STILL means you DONT KNOW.

I am not skeptical of Woodsyboy...he seams to be a VERY straight up kinda guy......he has been going back at the request of the ATS comunity and taking MORE pics, when he clearly said he no longer wanted to go to this park anymore. I dont know if I would want to go back either.

He stated it was the wierd lights, and strange noises that were weirding him out to begin with. HE SAW NOTHING SOLID........he just shot pics toward the area in question from his POV. Seeing WHAT he seamed to capture on the camera, led him to post them on this site. NOT ONE TIME has Woodsy claimed he had PROOF of anything....he just says ..."hey look at these weird pictures" He does say UFOS landing in his headline...but if I had the same pics he has, I would probebly choose the same headline. UFO means unidentified does'nt it??? He never claimed it was SOLID PROOF of anything.

Im not in 'houses' camp. The objects seam more in the foreground, obviously on the field....with the houses in the background. I dont know if this is just an illusion of the camera......Im not a CAMERA SCIENTIST. .....BUT I do know profesional photographers whom I have showed this thread to, and only 1 out of 3 is in the 'houses' camp. The other 2 are just as curious as I am, with a big 'O' in our faces where our mouths used to be...

Woodsyboy dude, PLEASE dont let big mouthy folks get you down! use the IGNORE option on them.....thats what it is for....I think you ROCK to share this with the full story......you talk about being there to get high, and IF you were trying to fake out ANYBODY I doubt you would mention that fact.




[edit on 22-11-2004 by theRiverGoddess]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
where is this located at?........What State



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   
they do not look like houses to me in the night time image, looks to me like there was something on that field at that time but what thats the question !!!!



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   

where is this located at?........What State


Have to read more of the posts, hehe....he's in England.

Without more night pics of the same area, I think I'll remain firmly in the "likely houses" camp. I would like to thank woodsyboy for being so accomodating on providing us the account and the pics though, regardless of each member's personal stance on it...

Lets just ALL (and applies to both camps here) remember to keep our tempers in check here, and not automatically denounce others as "idiots" "morons" "ignorant" etc., just because they do not share your viewpoint...



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Hey woodsy can you clear something up for me?

You say at the time you couldn't see anything in the field. Was that because it was too dark to see anything or could you see that there was nothing in the field at all, like they were invisible or something?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodsyboy
it seems that u peeps are way too hard to please, "go take some more pics n we'll decide whether ur a hoax"...wen i giv u the pics u say they dont look like there from the same place...well get this, they are. sort of a lesson i fink, however convincing pics can be, thers never going to be enuff proof to please anyone

You must admit however that all you have are two pics, one normally lit and the other very poorly lit and grainy. Also, I would like to ask again, perhaps its been answered and I missed it, but, what precisely did you see when you heard the huming noise? Was it pitch black and you saw nothing at all? Or you could see a dark, but obviously empty, field? Also, what are the other sources of lights. You said one was the house and that you could see it right then and there, but what about the other sources?



all im gonna say is that these pics are real, those houses look dam closer in the night pic than they do in the day

Well what are the houses and what are the objects that weren't visibly there then? Because origianlly I had thought everything in the night pic was supposed to be a anomoly of one type or another. I think that, if you find yourself out there again and feel like taking a pic, then it'd be great if you posted it.

See, the issue is, was there something there, or is there something that is creating this 'optical illusion'. I don't think anyone can outright say you are a fraud, indeed, there really isn't any reason to, but you could just be mistaken about this, I think thats what a night pic would clear up.

So just rip the top off a boddingtons and get the eff out there! Natch, just kidding.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Hi Woodsyboy, wow what a long thread. Intresting pics but frustratingly
poor quality. Day shots does make it look as tho you just caught the houses but, the houses do seem to me to be a little further away in the day shot than the objects in the first pics. Also in the day shots I see what looks like tire marks on the ground. This effect happens when my rellys park there cars on my beautiful lawn.
Is it possible that there were dark colored cars parked in there, maybe other kids chuffing (smoking)?
Either way, even if you had a really excellent well lit shot, you destroyed your credibility by telling us you were blasted at the time

Still I keep an open mind, murphys law dictates that if anyone manages to capture image/s of a real ufo, that they will be:
(a) stoned or otherwised drugged out
(b) drunk
(c) too far away
(d) a lousy photographer
(e) clumsy and shoot a pic of there thumb instead or
(f) In the dark without a flash
(g) Someone who regularly "sees" things!
Keep trying with a decent camera, who knows, maybe one day someone will get "THE" pic!



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Why does this thread keep on going? I and many others just see houses, where as some see flying saucers. Notice that there is no middle ground here? Why isn't anyone seeing a Burger King? Or a marquee? Or a few parked up lorries? Why the quantum leap from houses to flying saucers? I'll tell you why - because that's what you WANT to believe.

What is more likely to be found in a suburban area of the UK? Ask yourself. I could take a picture of my house right now this moment and shake the camera a bit and make it look like it could be mistaken for something else. Why does it always haev to be a frikkin flying saucer though? Sheesh.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join