423 replies to this topic

[quillius]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

Not a bug, balloon or bird, although it resembles none of those in any case, but I can see why the Septic Skeptics "forgot" to mention the possibility of a second picture.

do you know if any of the other pictures have been posted anywhere? there may be some good clues in those that may help..

Also safe to rule out the flying beetle (car) that was posted as I cannot make out any number plate  

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 04 October 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

Hey McG,

this photo must have been taken 5 seconds (or maybe 10 or 15, if there were other photos in between).....before the UFO photo.

You can see the lump of rock in the distance in this photo, in the original photo with the UFO they are close to that rock.

I see the anomoly in the above picture that may well be the 'ufo' captured in the second picture.....I think this would have to rule out bug

What makes you think they are the same object Q?

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

And if I didn't answer the questions put to me, you'd say that I was just ducking and avoiding the issue.

It's heads you win, tails I lose, but I refuse to play that game.

No, it isn't that at all.

You can choose to respond to the questions, opinions, and hypothetical explanations that people ask, express, or present without all of the nastiness.  The contempt in your words oozes off the screen with such a vile hatred that it is downright disturbing to behold.  When you turn that viscousness on people it is such an aggressive expression of absolutely hostile loathing that I wonder if you ever find any joy in life.

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

What makes you think they are the same object Q?

I never actually said its the same object, I said it may well be and this has to be a distinct possibility dont you think? two photos in quick succession showing a possible dark object in nearly the same bit of clear sky...

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

No, it isn't that at all.

You can choose to respond to the questions, opinions, and hypothetical explanations that people ask, express, or present without all of the nastiness.  The contempt in your words oozes off the screen with such a vile hatred that it is downright disturbing to behold.  When you turn that viscousness on people it is such an aggressive expression of absolutely hostile loathing that I wonder if you ever find any joy in life.

them potato chips sounded nice

guys lets focus on the object

Edited by quillius, 04 October 2012 - 04:48 PM.

[quillius]

Sweetpumper, on 04 October 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

That streak on the right side...vapor trail.

yes thats from the jets scrambled to get to the UFO....  

[Euphorbia]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

No?  Then why does he say this?

"Thanks to Mark Allin from abovetopsecret.com for emailing me the raw file of this. I've only used some minimum level adjustment, and a very slight color adjustment to bring out details of the object. Other than that, the image is untouched, exactly as it came out of the photographer's camera. I'm posting it here so that I can link to it from the discussion board at abovetopsecret.com
Go directly to their website (linked above) for the full story."

I can read that just as well as you can.  Are you saying that he's lying?  Prove it.


http://www.facebook....&type=1

Do you even know what a camera raw file is? I shoot with a Canon SLR and the raw files it produces are ".CR2" files. Once you save it as a .jpg file, it is no longer a raw file! Converting a raw file to a .jpg file strips away a lot of information. Not to mention the fact that he "used some minimum level adjustment, and a very slight color adjustment to bring out details of the object." Every camera brand has their own raw file extension (some more than one for earlier/later models).

So, if someone was going to try to shove a raw file my way, I would expect a file to download with the raw extension, not a .jpg. Do you have access to the original raw file? If not the shot you posted means nothing!

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 04 October 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

I never actually said its the same object, I said it may well be and this has to be a distinct possibility dont you think? two photos in quick succession showing a possible dark object in nearly the same bit of clear sky...

Sure, I consider it possible, but more likely that it is just another bug or something else entirely.  There have to be tons of bugs in the air on a day like that.  You're bound to pick some of them up on film as little blurs like these.

When you said "I think this would have to rule out bug " it led me to think that your stance was that this other blurry something in the distance must be the same object.

Thanks for clarifying.

[TheMacGuffin]

quillius, on 04 October 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

do you know if any of the other pictures have been posted anywhere? there may be some good clues in those that may help..

Also safe to rule out the flying beetle (car) that was posted as I cannot make out any number plate  

There was a discussion about all of it on ATS that went up to 48 pages.


http://www.abovetops...g47#pid15087598

[TheMacGuffin]

Euphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

If not the shot you posted means nothing!

That has got to be one of the most truly ridiculous comments I have ever read on any website.

As I said, the people who posted it stated that it was the original picture from the camera, so if you can prove otherwise then do so.

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

When you said "I think this would have to rule out bug " it led me to think that your stance was that this other blurry something in the distance must be the same object.

Thanks for clarifying.

Oh yes, now we have ANOTHER bug, a different bug, a new and improved bug!  LOL

There's always another bug when you need one.

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

That has got to be one of the most truly ridiculous comments I have ever read on any website.

As I said, the people who posted it stated that it was the original picture from the camera, so if you can prove otherwise then do so.

Forgive me for butting in, but the following portion of what you posted means that it isn't the original picture.

"I've only used some minimum level adjustment, and a very slight color adjustment to bring out details of the object."

Any adjustment at all makes it not the original picture.

Or am I missing something here?

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

Oh yes, now we have ANOTHER bug, a different bug, a new and improved bug!  LOL

There's always another bug when you need one.

Are you going to say that a setting like that in the photo wouldn't have any bugs?  You're joking right?

[White Unicorn]

Idano, on 04 October 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

ET really keeps it's machine clean, wow look at that shine. I wonder what kind of wax they use?

One speculation of mine in some sightings is that is has something to do with a electro magnetic type system of some sort and that some metal in the field becomes a liquid, some sort of mercury which is liquid and shiny... just a thought....

[Euphorbia]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

That has got to be one of the most truly ridiculous comments I have ever read on any website.

As I said, the people who posted it stated that it was the original picture from the camera, so if you can prove otherwise then do so.

Now your just being silly! Again, you don't seem to understand what a camera raw file is! I can prove it's not the original raw file just by looking at the extension of the picture you posted. .jpg files are not raw files! Period!

I've been doing photography for more than twenty years with four years of schooling in it. How about you?

You attitude and ignorance of photography is appalling!

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Are you going to say that a setting like that in the photo wouldn't have any bugs?  You're joking right?

Now you're clutching at straws.  You wouldn't even have known there was another picture unless I posted it.

[thewonderman]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Sure, I consider it possible, but more likely that it is just another bug or something else entirely.  There have to be tons of bugs in the air on a day like that.  You're bound to pick some of them up on film as little blurs like these.

When you said "I think this would have to rule out bug " it led me to think that your stance was that this other blurry something in the distance must be the same object.

Thanks for clarifying.

Its clearly no bug and what would this something else entierly be ? a bag ?

Just face it no one can explain it, it could just be a blur of paint that someone has added to the photo.