Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
ShadowBoy86x

Anyone seen this picture?

424 posts in this topic

No, it's not certain....at least not in the way you're thinking. Can you say with absolute certainty that it's not a plastic bag.....or an insect? If so, how?

Because it was posted on a UFO website, not a grocery store website or insect website.

Edited by Sweetpumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is over water. It could have just flown out. USO?

This is another theory as to why UFOs seen about our active military operations would have such a genuine concern about our weapon systems and how we are using them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its clearly not a plastic bag or bug, no one can explain it so that means wolla its a 'UFO'.

The person who has provided the analysis states the object was some distance from the shooter so this rules out those two possabilitys, we can't be 100% sure he is correct but I would love for you to prove him wrong and provide your plastic bag theory.

I would love for you to prove him correct! I don't have to "state my theory', I've never stated what it is or isn't......just that we don't know and that we can't necessarily rely on this man's analysis as proof of anything.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You invariably have a snappy little comeback no matter what, but once again you "forgot" to mention everything he said:

"Overall, the object does exhibit atmospheric haze one would expect to see in a solid object of some distance away - note the existing weather and atmospheric effects in the rest of the photo. The UO appears for all intent and purposes to this examiner as highly reflective, and "chrome-like", as it appears to be reflecting it's surrounding environment. However, the darkest areas are effected by atmospheric haze which soften this "chromic" effect. While the reflective quality seems quite prominent, it would be even more so without the hazing environmental effects of distance."

The photo exhibits:

-atmospheric distance haze consistent with the rest of the photo which indicates an object of some distance from the shooter

-channel specific data relating to the UO - one cannot overemphasize this point

-appropriate lighting, and shadows consistent with the rest of the photo

-accurate focus in relation to stationary objects

-clean and unfettered EXIF data, and files obtained directly from the camera

-correct pixelation across the image

http://www.abovetops...hread886584/pg1

Do you expect me to quote him in full every time I reference a specific point? Did YOU quote him in full right here? Have you EVER quoted him in full?

For example, had you EVER quoted the section that I quoted showing that he couldn't determine the distance? No, you hadn't. I don't really care that you hadn't, I'm just pointing out that you accusing me of supposedly doing something nefarious when you yourself are guilty of not quoting in full is ridiculous. This is the kind of character assassination technique that I've come to expect from you. I wish that some day you would prove this expectation wrong by dropping your disgruntled and bitter attitude for a while.

At any rate, back to the points.

Please show me where he has ruled out that it could be an insect. If he has, I haven't seen it, and you've stated that he did so. Supposing he has, if his reasoning is as meaningless to how he 'ruled out a bird' then that leaves us with it still being a possible explanation. That being said, I don't personally lean very heavily toward the bird explanation myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is over water. It could have just flown out. USO?

Question for you Sweetpumper. How can you be certain that it is over water?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok...you need to know this.

UFO means Unidentified Flying Object, and that's exactly what this is.

You are confusing it with ETV which is Extraterrestrial Vehicle.

UFO does not automatically mean it's of extraterrestrial origin.

Some UFO's could be ETV's.

Any object flying through the air that you cannot identify is a UFO.

I know what UFO means, but do you even have proof that it is flying? Plastic bags float....they don't fly. Or are you going to tell me it can also mean "Unidentified Floating Object"?

Again, this may or may not be a UFO....we have insufficient evidence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didnt take the time to read.. what others . are saying about this pic .. because i alrdy know what they are saying.. about it .. but wow what a nice pic :D i love it and i believe its an ufo :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it was posted on a UFO website, not a grocery store website or insect website.

I smell bias!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you enlarge this picture and zoom in on the right, above the bush, some people claim that they can discern the UFO moving off into the distance. Given that there were five seconds between each picture, that would mean that it was moving along at a high velocity.

nz5064bd0a.jpg

I see several such small blurry things in this image.

nz5064bd0a_others_zpsc570b5ff.jpg

Maybe they just need to wash the windshield? It does look like pretty dusty driving... Maybe they are bugs or something else? Oh I know... maybe it's a fleet! :hmm:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see several such small blurry things in this image.

nz5064bd0a_others_zpsc570b5ff.jpg

Maybe they just need to wash the windshield? It does look like pretty dusty driving... Maybe they are bugs or something else? Oh I know... maybe it's a fleet! :hmm:

Only takes one in the right place excluding the bugs or spots to be an additional clue to follow ....not a fleet LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only takes one in the right place excluding the bugs or spots to be an additional clue to follow ....not a fleet LOL

Indeed, but how do you know whether it is a valid clue to follow in the first place? That's the thing. Any of those could be ET piloted space ships in the distance couldn't they? Or maybe conventional aircraft in the distance? Likewise, any could just be smudges of dust on the windshield, right? Or even bugs flying by relatively close?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, but how do you know whether it is a valid clue to follow in the first place? That's the thing. Any of those could be ET piloted space ships in the distance couldn't they? Or maybe conventional aircraft in the distance? Likewise, any could just be smudges of dust on the windshield, right? Or even bugs flying by relatively close?

Or dust spots on the sensor.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or dust spots on the sensor.....

That's why we have the very skeptical debunkers who save the rest of us a lot of work :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the kind of character assassination technique that I've come to expect from you. I wish that some day you would prove this expectation wrong by dropping your disgruntled and bitter attitude for a while.

Why don't you just go take an aspirin or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see several such small blurry things in this image.

Maybe they just need to wash the windshield? It does look like pretty dusty driving... Maybe they are bugs or something else? Oh I know... maybe it's a fleet! :hmm:

I don't see them. Maybe you should just wash your computer screen every few years.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what UFO means, but do you even have proof that it is flying? Plastic bags float....they don't fly. Or are you going to tell me it can also mean "Unidentified Floating Object"?

Again, this may or may not be a UFO....we have insufficient evidence!

SMH.

Please tell me you are not serious.

Let me put it more simply. Flying in terms of UFO means "aloft"....drift, fleet, float, flutter, glide, hover, levitate.

If it ain't on the ground it's flying.

Here it is used in a sentence:

If you get hit by a bus you will fly through the air... :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if she is married she has her ring on the wrong finger.

I thougt it was a dude :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see them. Maybe you should just wash your computer screen every few years.

Nice one. :no: Maybe you just need a new monitor? Are you using a 13 inch CRT with 640x480 resolution and 16-bit color?

They're there. Maybe you should ask someone else in the thread that you don't think is an evil government agent who is paid to be here for the sole purpose of muddying the waters. :rolleyes:

Edit:

Okay, I'm not going to engage in this kind of negative back and forth any more. I was just reminded of an agreement that we made a while back, an agreement that I'd forgotten about. I'm not going to remove what I said here with the edit, but I will apologize. I was being a smart ass and I apologize McG. Hopefully we can discuss this topic respectfully from here on out.

Edited by booNyzarC
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see several such small blurry things in this image

Maybe they just need to wash the windshield? It does look like pretty dusty driving... Maybe they are bugs or something else? Oh I know... maybe it's a fleet! :hmm:

I'm thinking dirt on the windshield, bugs, and/or birds in the distance.

The windshield is definately dirty. At the right of the image about halfway down you can see the arc of the widshield wiper tip path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking dirt on the windshield, bugs, and/or birds in the distance.

The windshield is definately dirty. At the right of the image about halfway down you can see the arc of the widshield wiper tip path.

Yes, there are many possibilities for an explanation, all speculative, and all inconclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SMH.

Please tell me you are not serious.

Let me put it more simply. Flying in terms of UFO means "aloft"....drift, fleet, float, flutter, glide, hover, levitate.

If it ain't on the ground it's flying.

Here it is used in a sentence:

Of course I'm not serious! Can't I liven up a thread that's basically going nowhere fast? I have a sense of humor that not everyone gets......especially on the internet.... :tu:

Here's the thing....we have a picture that someone allegedly sent to the guy at ATS who's supposed to be a darn good UFO picture analyzer. Someone posts it on this site and asks what we think.......I responded.....you responded.......lots of people responded........

Do we have something unidentified? Absolutely! Can we go on for days going back and forth as to just what is in the picture? Sure, but are we getting anywhere? Some people who shall remain nameless, are just to trusting of faceless analyzers whom they've never seen or met.

We will probably never know for sure what is in the photo and we can speculate until the cows come home. Skepticism is my friend, along with facts and evidence. Coming to premature conclusions is never a good idea......

If you get hit by a bus you will fly through the air... :w00t:

Depends on the size of the bus.... :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photographer, as seen in the mirror, appears to have his or her hand outside the widow frame of the car. This seems to indicate that the window is open, which would render debris adhering to the window or chips in the glass irrelevant. This object might be explained by tiny pit or a bit of dew on the camera lens, except for the fact that shadows indicate that the sun is to the right of, and a bit behind the camera. The lens would presumably be shielded from the side by its barrel, and the the reflective highlight seen on the object would not, then, be expected to be present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photographer, as seen in the mirror, appears to have his or her hand outside the widow frame of the car. This seems to indicate that the window is open, which would render debris adhering to the window or chips in the glass irrelevant. This object might be explained by tiny pit or a bit of dew on the camera lens, except for the fact that shadows indicate that the sun is to the right of, and a bit behind the camera. The lens would presumably be shielded from the side by its barrel, and the the reflective highlight seen on the object would not, then, be expected to be present.

It's already been established that the window was down.

A tiny pit or drop of dew on the lens I would also rule out as they would be well out of the focusing range. All lenses have minimum focusing distances. One of my lenses has a minimum of six feet. Anything closer and it will be out of focus. Directly on the lens they would be a complete blur if they even registered on the sensor at all. This object, although not real clear, would be a complete blur in the picture. Obviously it's not that blurry. You can take a picture through a chain link fence with the camera focused at infinity (three or four feet away from the fence) and the fence will be completely blurred out of the picture.

Your last sentence needs clarification! I'm not quite sure what you're saying.....are you talking about lens flare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I'm not serious! Can't I liven up a thread that's basically going nowhere fast? I have a sense of humor that not everyone gets......especially on the internet.... :tu:

Depends on the size of the bus.... :whistle:

I kinda figured you weren't serious. I was tongue-in-cheek when I gave the example of being hit by a bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I wasn't thinking of lens flare. I was thinking of a dew droplet or pit in the camera lens catching the sunlight and reflecting it, in the same way that a shiny, much more distant object would. I can't see that happening, due to the geometry of the Sun, with respect to the camera. What was suggested about a very near, very small object being hopelessly out of focus; essentially invisible, seems to make sense. The camera seems to be focused on the goats, several feet distant. The apparently more distant object in the sky and crags appear to be moderately out of focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.