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.
Generally I feel that the best test of authenticity is in the good reputation of the photographer, insofar as it is impossible to prove a negative - in this case that there is no possibility of a fraud. However, some of the indicators of an authentic photograph can help establish likelihood of an authentic photo. These are -
1. That the negative involved is one of a sequence of outdoor pictures and that the frame in question is not an isolated one. One way of producing a hoax is to re-photograph a positive print onto which has pasted an addition. To do a good job of hoaxing then one would have to re-photograph an entire roll of negative film.
2. That there are no inconsistencies in the lighting of the strange object and the rest of he scene. In the subject photo, I note that the shadows in the lower left of the scene indicate a Sun position nearly behind the camera. There is a reflection on the forward face of the UFO that is consistent with this Sun position. There also seems to be a bright spot under the UFO not connected with external lighting - maybe a light on the UFO.
3. With the right equipment, it is possible to make certain measurements of negative density of the UFO image and of other images of objects at estimated distances from the lens. Here the object is to show that the unknown is not nearby - and thus not a hubcap or other such object thrown into the air. The idea is to measure, from the image of the object at a known distance, the atmospheric 'extinction coefficient'.
On a clear day, with a low value, contrasts between dark shadowed areas and brightly lit areas retain their distinction over greater distances. On hazy days, the light and dark areas blend towards a mid-range shade, giving the appearance that distant mountains have of being one shade of grey. Nearby shadows can show their true darkness, as opposed to the lighter shade of distant shadows. But in this picture there are no nearby shadows to serve as a standard, only shadows of trees in the lower left bottom.
Conclusion:
"All this considered, the photo presented here appears to be an excellent and probably genuine photo of a classical disc photographed in daylight. Although unlikely, if further information and clarification is available, it will be presented in a future issue of the Bulletin
Further, the following Link to a former Frisbee manufacturer who rules out the aerodynamics of the object as being that of a 'Frisbee'
PhoenixOD
Further, the following Link to a former Frisbee manufacturer who rules out the aerodynamics of the object as being that of a 'Frisbee'
Even if it is no a commercial frisbee it could just be something thrown in the air and photographed like we have seen in the past.
FlySolo
reply to post by Blue Shift
You're trying to bang a round peg into a square hole my friend.
MrCasas
It's a hub cap!
didn't see it when they took the photo.
We know that a bird can position itself so that it creates surprisingly well-defined saucer shape.
Now I don't know if that was a typo and was meant to say 300 feet?
Bassago
Not a typo is more believable. That would support someone creating a small object and slinging it into the air while a cameraman chooses just the right perspective for the shot. Viola` instant UFO.
where: X = the angle subtended by the disc. This angle is 1.307 " . Therefore,
Tan 1.30712 = 0.01 14 = (W/D)2 where: W = the assumed object width and
D = the separation distance between the camera and object. Letting W = 9
inches, D = 32.88 feet which exceeds the hyperfocal distance. If the disc object
was 10 or 50 feet in width it would have been 438 feet or 2,192 feet from the
camera, respectively. And if the disc had been hovering directly over the
mountain (i.e., 7,580 feet away) it would have been 173 feet in width.
Assuming that the camera shutter speed was 1/ 125th second and the disc
image was produced by a typical Frisbee travelling at 10 feet per second, a 9
inch diameter disc moving normal to the line of sight would move 0.96 inches
in his duration. Approximately 9.3% of the Frisbee's diameter would show
up as a blur on the leading and trailing edge of the Frisbee's photographic
image. There is virtually no blur visible on the photograph in question which
strongly argues that the disc was not travelling normal to the line of sight.
Additionally it seems hard to believe aliens would come across star systems or dimensions in a craft that looks pretty much exactly like a 50 or 60's movie flying saucer. Even human vessels would look more updated unless this is a knockoff of the Nazi flying bell thingy.
FlySolo
reply to post by Blue Shift
We know that a bird can position itself so that it creates surprisingly well-defined saucer shape.
Show me one that looks like this.