It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 02:52 PM
u mentioned burns, ther was a small patch of burnt grass wen i went there to take the day photos, but the mate i was with told me not to bother coz someone probly started a fire

next time im there ill snap a pic of it

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:01 PM
I just want to say thank you for updating us with new photo's and your ability to continue with us tells us you have character. If you could continue to do some night pics from several locations angles & distances that would be great.

At this point I believe the poster is sincere, but with the new photos I'm inclined to believe what we were looking at in the photos were the houses in the backround & the odd shapes are caused by the growth of the numerous plants around the homes. Another words it was an optical illusion due to lack of data because the poor quality of the camera & time of day. I think there's a fractional possibility there might be something else, but if the poster supplies us with new photos I suspect that will put an end to the mystery.

Regardless of the outcome this was a great post and keep taking pictures.

Added: Someone mentioned it's not a parking lot, so it couldn't be parked vehicals. Hogwash - there could have been a special event or some such thing that allowed someone to park on the grass and depending on the hardness of the ground there may or may not be evidence of that.

[edit on 17-11-2004 by outsider]


posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:08 PM

Originally posted by sre2f
Have you ever heard of a hex editor?

hex editor? what's that? sounds like science fRiction, huh?

In the past I actually used a hex editor for replacing the header of the file so that I could view the image back in the camera LCD display. I couldn't succeed. I can't say I am good at hex editing.

What I extract from your brief question by "guessing" the real intended question is;

Isn't it possible to edit an images header in an hex editor to match it to a digital camera outputted ones header?

Sure, as I stated that possibility in the previous post; "can this event be hoaxed. Well there are two ways: ......... The other way is having a grand knowledge of the header issue and edit it to match a digital camera or phone. But I believe the second one is not a big possibility, I also believe that most of you didn't even know about JPEG headers anyway. A hoaxer would think "so who would look to the header" or he wouldn't think about it at all."

Lets assume that these are indeed hex edited images which implement digital camera outputs. Such an action would indicate that the assumed hoaxer is highly intelligent and he considered every possible aspect of his work to make it flawless. ( with respect editing a files header to match a digital camera output is not a very ordinary routine). So we are talking about a great hoaxer who considered every tiny aspect of his creation even the aspects which will not be visible to the viewer such as JPEG headers which indicate some "more than average" technical knowledge of such issues. I mean if a hoaxer thinks about such tiny details in his work he would carry the same attitude through out all his creation and the information he supplied, the way he presents his information etc.

Briefly take the great hoax designer profile and apply it to woodsyboy, do they match? He seems like a natural type of guy. I don't think he is much into hex editing issue.

Lets be creative and continue to assume that this is a hoax; the woodsyboy character is a setup, actually he is well into photo-editing, 3d modeling or model making, hex editing, design, script writing and psychology. In his design he choose to present his work as woodsyboy character which he thought that it would strengthen the presentation of his work and make it more believable (?!?). He edited the footage headers so it would be an undeniable proof that the images are directly created in the camera and were not edited later. He came to ATS and he posted the images. but the viewers would possibly think that these images are creations. So he would have to come up with the well designed proof of the image header issue. Unfortunately the woodsyboy character he used wouldn't be suitable for that kind of speech. The same character which had hard times when uploading the images in the first place ( which is also a setup ) could not come up with the statement that he found the proof in the images header when he accidentally opened the file with a text editor. Imagine him saying " Look. What's this? Look what I found here. My images has the header of a camera. So it is real. It is the proof you want, now you believe me?". No it wouldn't look right. Therefore a second and a different character would be needed in the staging phase which would come up with this particular detail as a viewer, in this case, me, which I and woodsy could be the same person in reality. This would make things more natural and believable. Now this is better than stating that those things in the images are cars isn't it? But sorry no. this is an assumption, and I am just me.

In the other hand I could be woodsyboy and by telling you how this hoax is really staged and at the same time counteracting to it by saying "no, it's just creative thinking" I could be trying to block a significant path which could jeopardize the mission plan. but again no, it's just creative thinking. Honestly.

Also with such a way of thinking, you could debunk anything in theory. As I just stated that being me could be a hoax.

Concerning the latest images he sent, I can't really say much about the "Louise in the cave", but there is something in the other one that I want to mention.

The motion blurred image indicates that the exposure time was somewhat long and camera moved during exposure time, so motion blur occurred. The bottom area seems less blurred that "could be" the camera is scanning top-to-bottom and it was more steady when it was scanning the bottom area. The blurs direction is same through out the picture, 1 o'clock that is. If we logically remove the motion blur, we will see that the violet scratch is actually a dot.

To me it appears to be the cameras focusing beam which is reflected from the glass behind Louise. The cameras use a beam to measure the distance between the photographed object and the lens so it can focus to that depth an get a clear picture. These are not mostly visible to human eye, but can be caught in camera or film. To experiment and see a similar event, take a remote control and remove the black plastic filter that it has in front of the transmitter bulb (if the bulb is naked, no need for it), and take a video camera and push some buttons, power, volume etc. while directing the remote to the camera and viewing it from the LCD display. You will see that (only through camera) when you push the buttons the bulb flashes in violet color exactly similar to the violet dot in woddsyboys image. The violet color is because its ultraviolet, and that is the reason why naked eye cannot see it but the cameras can.

By the way this is a proof that cameras can catch things in images which are not actually visible to naked eye.

So I suspect that violet spot is the focusing beam of the camera. It is not something abnormal. This shows me that woodsyboy is just posting the pictures which appears to be interesting to him. So I see that this is another sign of honesty, which in my point of view also strengthens that the images he posted are not part of a hoax.

P.S. thanks for the kind posts from users and applauses from the staff concerning the composite photos. I am glad.

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 04:37 PM
Just a clarification, digital cammeras can see infra-red light.

Usually, the cammeras get the focus first, then shoot, but I do not know how this cammera works.

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 05:58 PM
Have you thought about contacting your local branch of MUFON or a similar organisation they would have the resources and manpower to carry out a thorough investigation of the park like surveillance or something?

And maybe the UFOs were at the park for the same reason as woodsy?

Keep up the good work!

[edit on 17-11-2004 by Miramafia]

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 06:20 PM
Look at the first pic...see teh lights next to eachother on the first dark shape they look likes 2 eyes in a triangle..this is a house...the other spapes are the rooftops of houses not ufos...the shadows behind them are caused by the light source that looks pretty amped, maybe it's the airport that one lady was talkingabout in like page 3 when this all went down the other day. Mostlikely a football field though..who knows...woodsboy should tell us what's behind the houses.

I tell you this: anyone of us who really things we captured some images of landed craft would have gone back to that place and snapped at least a hundred photos to try to come to we have 1 and some pictures of the grass...this is no hoax its just a waste of time....silohuettes [SIC] create the optical illusion...

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 06:26 PM

I give up.

What does it mean when on Recent Posts the last poster on a topic is listed as "OOPS"? Happened to me just the other day, I thought it was the curse of Mala from Bulawayo at work.

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 07:20 PM
Hi Woodsyboy! You are doing VERY well dealing with the influx of information from all of us OTHERS who are joining in on this post.

Folks are saying that what we are seeing is actually the houses in the background. You know they are saying this be reading the post additions, just like I am. To clear this up ASAP...I suggest you go back there at night, shoot pics AGAIN, so that the area can be shown to us as it is SUPPOSED to be........
The day pics are good, good on you mate! Great that you took them and posted them......! Please shoot the burned grass areas up close to....
The MISSING link here I think though, would be MORE night shots of the area and the houses in the background.
THAT WAY ...we the OTHERS on this site, can then SEE what is up with taking pictures of this area at night.......
IF, IF you take more night pics, and it all comes out looking the same...then WAH LAH! we now have the clear answer......houses in the background, and nothing else.
BUT.....if the new night pics show a VERY differant view with vast emptiness where before there are strange THINGS, well then its a whole new ball of wax.........THEN we are stuck trying to figure out WTF was there when you heard the noises......

Please Woodsy? would you go back again at night and do a reshoot of the SAME area??? I know we keep sending you back to this place, but getting to the bottom of WHAT is in your pics is what this entire thread is all about anyway.

as I said are doing a great job Woodsy, and we are ~VERY~interested in seeing this be explained......IF it can be. Could winde up the only plausible explaination will be flying saucers in the park!

[edit on 18-11-2004 by theRiverGoddess]

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 10:06 PM
They probably wont appear as black embers as one might expect, but more like yellow spots or dehydrated areas. sometimes may take a couple of days to manifest

posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 11:48 PM
Wow,Great pics.
You know what if UFOs were always around us .But we couldnt ever see them .But maybe Cell phones with pics maybe different then a cam or camera .Think about it how may of us hear a noise shot cell over to area take a pic or camera or cam .Not many .So maybe just maybe this is something new we never tried .Like hear something weird run in house get a cam or camera or cell shoot a pic in that area see what happens .great idea i think peace peoples ~~~Litocean

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:00 AM
guess ATS didnt want to post what i said but super pics

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:35 AM
Woodseyboy... Just so you know, I am a believer.

It makes sense to me. Perhaps the thought was the camera might pick up something the eyes didn't. Pretty simple. The strangest thing I've seen on this thread so far is: it hasn't been debunked yet. Usually someone would have ripped it apart by now. I have no idea if the pics are real (I hope so. Finally!!) or not but I am impressed by the fact that we are on page 2 and still discussing! Nice job woodsyboy!

This was me defending you and pointing out that most UFO pics would have been ripped to shreds, which I had meant as an encouragement to those who do the ripping, to be a little nicer.

Originally posted by HarmoniusOne

Originally posted by Esoterica
All he said was that he had these pictures. Everyone else is somehow claiming they are undeniable proof or not. They're pictures of weird shapes at night, the poster has claimed nothing more. Could be he's screwing with the crazies at ATS, could be he's simply curious.[edit on 11-16-2004 by Esoterica]

You are absolutely correct. This is one of the reasons some people don't like to start threads. Even if you are just posting information, not stating one way or the other if you agree or disagree, believe or don't believe, it is assumed that you support/agree/believe what you are posting. Sometimes we just want to know what other people think because we haven't decided yet for ourselves and are in need of input.

This was also me defending you.

Woodseyboy...I can't say for sure what these objects are but I can tell you what my reactions to the pictures have been. My first thought was "It looks like someone took a picture of a magazine page". But then I know nothing about cameras and digital images. I guess, from what others have said here, the quality is the result of night mode and the fact that the cam is from a cell phone. Then when I saw the objects outlined by Xu I thought objects A and B seem farther away than C and therefore may be much larger than they appear. They look like RV's to me. This would exlpain the lights in the side of A and why A and B have the same shapes. Object C appers to me to be quite a bit closer to the camera, therefore probably much smaller than A and B. Perhaps a picnic table with a cloth over it or some other object I am not familiar with. Object D appears to me to be a composite. The top part looks to me to be the top of a far away tree and the botom appears to be something closer to the camera although I am not sure what. I think the night mode and poor quality of the image contribute to our inability to tell what the distance of the objects to the camera is.

Just stating what they "looked" like to me...not what they were. I in no way accused anyone of altering these pictures or changing the scene.

Honestly, I could be way off and these could be legitimate photos of UFOs, which is not to say that if they aren't photos of a UFO you are enacting a hoax. I just wanted to give you an objective view of what the photo seems to portray to me. Not sure if this will help or not. I would very much like to see daylight photos of this area myself.

I was trying to be helpful and objective. I appologize if you felt I was one of those who was "accusing" you of anything. I hope you solve your mystery. Welcome to ATS.....Take care.

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:56 AM

Originally posted by Iwunder
They probably wont appear as black embers as one might expect, but more like yellow spots or dehydrated areas. sometimes may take a couple of days to manifest

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:03 AM
Hey Wood would be a good idea .To go back where you were during the day .Take pics so ATS peps would believe ya .Which matters not to me .I know better .But to end the b.s. here would be a good idea .This way they will stop saying bad things .Which to me takes a lot to post on here .Like guts thats for sure ~~~I SAY GOOD FOR YA WOOD ~~~~

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 07:23 AM
A chronological description of this obvious hoak...

A couple of guys get #ed up in the woods and hear sounds.

They take terrible pictures of the sounds and post them on here.

People (dumbasses particular) think they might be authentic, but need a little more proof.

Somehow taking pictures of the same place with nothing there will be satisfactory......even though anyone with a little bit of perception can tell that it is at a completly different place (I.E. the very different tree line)....

It gets better though, people still need a little more now, pictures of the ground is proof.....which could be created with a trash can.....

please remember, I am not a skeptic.....but an avid believer.....but not a believer in ridiculous/obvious hoaxes........

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 09:40 AM
This is getting realllllllly annoying now, we've already established that these pics are not a hoax and indeed havnt been edited , this confirmed by extensive analysis earlier in this thread by various posters, so therefore could all the idiots who contribute to this thread with great one liners like 'its a hoax' sod off please or at least read the thread with at least an ounce of intelligence before you post. The only question now remains what these objects in the field really are? So lets just concentrate on that shall we people?? IMO these arnt cars, indeed that suggestion sounds idiotic to me, to me you can clearly see some kind of saucer shape to them, bearing in mind i firmly believe in UFOs then i reckon thats what we've got here. Id even go on to propose these are of extra-terrestrial origin.
To woodsy:nice pics there, v cool indeed, if i were you id certainly go back there at night and see if u can catch some more stuff.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by intrepid]

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 09:46 AM
Let's take 2 steps back, breath deeply and chill a little folks.

Yet ANOTHER admonition to refrain circumventing the censors.

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 09:48 AM

This is getting realllllllly phucking annoying now,

Let's keep our tempers in check, and quit trying to circumvent the censors...shall we?


Doh, see Intrepid did same time I did...

Anyhow, Woodsy, would it be possible to take pictures of the entire house line (just pan and shoot, pan and shoot) in both day and night? The day and night pics don't quite match up, so may be a slightly different vantage point. This way, we could get to the bottom of your mystery perhaps...


[edit on 18-11-2004 by Gazrok]

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 09:49 AM

what these objects in the field really are? So lets just concentrate on that shall we people?? IMO these arnt cars, indeed that suggestion sounds idiotic to me, to me you can clearly see some kind of saucer shape to them

What? Where are these so called UFO shapes?

Did you see the daylight reference images? If so you should plainly be able to see that they are houses.

The lights floating around could be anything but im certainly skeptical about them being UFO's

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:12 AM
I appologise for the outburst.
To markjaxon:

Yes of course iv looked at the daylight picture for reference, i agree the lightint to the side and in the background are probably from the houses. Care to explain what the opaque saucer shaped objects between them and the camera on the field are though?

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in