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.
MrCasas
It's a hub cap!
Of particular note is the fact that the brightest area on the disc was of lower
brightness than the cloud by approximately 0.15 loglo unit. According to a
physics handbook (Allen, 1963), a smooth, polished silver surface reflects
(within the visible spectrum) increasingly higher percentages of incident ra-
diation with increasing wavelength.
An average reflectance value of about
90% is found. Polished aluminum reflects about 85% regardless of wavelength
of the incident radiation; this is also true for nickle (reflectance of about 60%),
silicon (about 30%), and steel (about 54%). This comparison of dark areas on
the negative suggests that the surface of the disc is very likely not a polished
surface of any of the above metals.
FlySolo
reply to post by Blue Shift
lol, I'm not being rude but they really don't. The purpose of this thread was to show a clear, objective, studied photograph. The first one I can see the gull's beak and eyes, along with the colored specks along its neck. The second one is dark with no noticeable detail at all. I can't see how they are even a comparison.
An average reflectance value of about 90% is found. Polished aluminum reflects about 85% regardless of wavelength of the incident radiation; this is also true for nickle (reflectance of about 60%), silicon (about 30%), and steel (about 54%). This comparison of dark areas on the negative suggests that the surface of the disc is very likely not a polished surface of any of the above metals.
FlySolo
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
I don't think you can just enlarge your browser and not lose any quality. The blow up must come from the original negative.
Interestingly, I could not get the original to line up perfectly with the cut out. The shape of the original doesn't match the shape of the cut out
PhoenixOD
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
I just tried overlaying the blown up version with the original in photoshop and i agree there is no way they match up in shape or shadow.
FlySolo
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
Interestingly, I could not get the original to line up perfectly with the cut out. The shape of the original doesn't match the shape of the cut out
That's probably because of the interpolation when you enlarged it. Without enlarging it and looking at the specific light intensities, it matches.
FlySolo
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
I don't think you can just enlarge your browser and not lose any quality. That's like holding a magnifying glass to a newspaper photo and expecting to see more detail. The blow up must come from the original negative.edit on 24-12-2013 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)
whyamIhere
Looks like a UFO....
The older pictures have more credibility to me.