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.

 

UFO Photos Extremly Close Up, 2006

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drewsillac
You said John Lear as a credible source?


I'm sure his FAA certifications and resume will prove so.


Just wanted to verify that you MEAN Joh Lear is a credible source?


Name calling isn't appreciated here. Mr. Lear is a busy man and must get many emails or U2Us asking him questions. I don't know what has lead you to believe he's mean, but if it's because he didn't answer you in a timely manner, then understand that might be busy.

He will definitely be a credible source, as I suggested to Amber, for her UFO questions, because he has lots of experience. I hope he sees this thread and gives his input. He might give Amber the answers she needs, to help her with her experience.

[Edit] Misread your post and thought you were calling him "mean." My apologies.

[edit on 25-3-2007 by DJMessiah]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
sorry, but how do I contact John Lear?



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...


send him a u2u, he's an active member here with his own section of forums.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Let me restate...
I never called him names, I wanted to emphasize that he was credible...
I'm not saying he isn't....

Respect....

Considering his experience in AVIATION he could be a good source of help...

Drew



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Sorry about that, I misread your post. I thought you were calling him "mean."

If you would like to see why I suggested him to Amber, read his post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   



First I must say that I am relatively new here and obviously by no means am I an exert in UFO's or pictures and such. But why is it that in this pic the background is full of red and yellow seemingly patterned spots? (Im not sure if this has been answered before) Reading the pages of this thread amber you seem sincere but...I'm not sure if I believe the pics It also seems a bit suspect that your 'son' would join this site just to write a reply to enhance your credibility, how do we know that you didnt create another account and your 'son' is really you?. Anyways dont take it personally as I am open to anymore evidence you or anyone else may have



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
hi ImpliedChaos

the dots are one thing in question, but I'm saying there there because the iso was so high, look back and you'll see the information I posted about digital cameras, also a post from SkepticOverlord on page 3 saying the noise isn't from photoshop.

My son looks at ATS, hes got a keen interest in UFOs especially after his sighting in 2004, I can't prove its him, but it is, he feels strongly about this, I woke him up that night, as soon as we got in the cottage, and showed him the photos. Is not really suspect, people wanted to hear from others involved in this from my end, and he is, so he wanted to post.

Nice to meet you though, tonight, i'll upload some photos of the sky with an tree against it, or the house, using the same camera and settings as I used that night, then we can see if the same " noise pattern comes out"



[edit on 25-3-2007 by Ambergambler]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
hi, one thing I have though of is, that all the pictures i've uploaded have been moved from one computer to the other and imported into iphoto , I dont know if this would make a difference, but just in case, I will re-upload the originals from the original memory card, as I never erased it.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Oh I forgot Skeptic did say it wasnt from photoshop or stars..I am looking forward to the pics your gonna take tonite. Anyway thank you for responding.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

The "Noise" Is Not From Photoshop



After looking at the EXIF data in the source images, the ISO was set to 1000, which usually introduces noise on consumer-level cameras.

It also means the noise is not stars.


If you guys would actually READ, you would notice that the noise has already been touched on.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

The "Noise" Is Not From Photoshop



After looking at the EXIF data in the source images, the ISO was set to 1000, which usually introduces noise on consumer-level cameras.

It also means the noise is not stars.


If you guys would actually READ, you would notice that the noise has already been touched on.


There is no need for you to be RUDE . I did not understand what they were talking about when they said the noise was not caused by photoshop. And I said that i wasnt sure if this had been touched on before.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I think its real,

Just wish the shutterspeed was better



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
hello all, i'm off into the garden now to take these photos, feel a bit nervous, but here I go



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
here they are then:

uksoundlabs.com...





posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
i just dowloaded the .zips you linked .and i have thouroughly looked at them all.


and well...

here's some advice. take it or leave it.


If you want people to believe you about this. Buy a better camera. cuz to be honest ....you camera is ...well a pile of crap lol

Peace -Mayan



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
LOL, advice taken, but at lest i got some photos of the ufo thing, its not all bad



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Just thought I'd add my two penn'orth to this thread. I am Amblergambler's mother and was babysitting for her on the night in question. She and her partner described what they had seen and showed me the photos as soon as they got back, within an hour of the sighting. However crap anyone thinks the pics are, they are completely genuine and undoctored (unless someone has some fancy photolab operating on a remote Wiltshire hill in the wee small hours of the morning!). I don't have any more idea about what they reveal than anybody else but it seems to me that they are exactly what Amber claims: an unidentified flying object. I'm sure she will follow up some of the suggestions from other posters which might help to throw more light on the issue.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
so that my mum, shes very out spoken , will say what she thinks, knows me very well and as she says was there when we got back in that night.

Before anyone points out that its odd, how she had just become a member, and maybe its me, i can tell you, she did have an ats membership, but she couldn't remember what it was or what username/email she used. So she created a new account so she could join this thread.

But ask her anything you want, about me, that night, whatever, she will give you a straight answer in her own way.

anyway, just thought i'd add that



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Welcome to ats Amber(and mum)I find your photos VERY interesting to say the least.Keep your eyes open and camera ready cause maybe the ship will come back.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Thanks, Cowpruitt! I'm glad Amber drew me back to this site. I'd forgotten how interesting ATS was.

Amber said she would take some more pics at her home with the same ISO and shutter speed just for purpose of comparison. Not sure if she has yet...



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join