Best UFO triangle photos I have seen

reply to post by internos
My God Internos where is your computer from?? The planet Altair??
With the amazing speed in which you get info I will most assuredly contact you whenever Ineed of vital info in the future.
The information you supplied about the Belgium incedent is most interesting in where they explain in detail the speed of the craft unlike what happens in th U.S. when situations like these occur especially by military or government oficials--

The parent website says the photos were taken early morning of January 8 2003. Here's what was said:

'That morning I had gotten up early in the AM to try and get some pictures of Mars - which was rising early in the morning that time of year. As I recall Mars was close to Venus and it was a very pretty morning. '

Resetting my system time to the same date and checking with Stellarium, Mars and Venus were indeed within spitting distance of each other. Mars rose at approximately 4.10am followed by Venus about 18 minutes later. They were side by side in the morning sky. A very pretty sight without a doubt.

If these images are fake, the background has been very well researched. I'm undecided personally. One point that worries me is the scale of the object. The poster comments that Mars was disappointingly small in the photos he took. Well that's to be expected using a relatively small telescope/camera combo. To the eye, Mars apears little more than a bright amber point of light. However, the UFO was also seen as a point of light. He said he didn't expect to see much from the camera. But we actually get a very large well resolved object. If this had been the Mars result, he would have been well pleased with it. I'd be slightly more convinced if he said the object was visually triangular or something to indicate it was relatively close.

WG3

reply to post by waveguide3


Although these images could have possibly undergone further zoom in an editing program, also, they are all framed centrally which would support zoom and trim with editing software.

Originally posted by internos
The lack of exif data seems to have a valid explanation.

I'm not convinced on this. The 'cheap' ccd camera was 'cannibalised' to fit the telescope. Realistically, this ammounts to removing the lens and fitting an adapter to couple it to the scope's eyepiece holder. Nothing in that would eliminate the digital data incorporated into the image. I don't have the impression the poster was an electronics expert. He simply fixed a cheap camera to a small scope. So why is the exif data missing?

WG3

This site ufoevidence.org is a favourite of mine the link was provided by internos.

www.ufoevidence.org...

There are 49 documented reports on this site of triangle ufo's mostly US and with pictures mostly sketches of what the eyewitness observed.

And just an excerpt to prove the UK is not on the bottom of the list with over 4000 sightings.

Since 1990 there have been over 4000 sightings of what is known as the "Flying Triangle" or "Silent Vulcan" Over Britain. In the early 90's there were a similar number over Belgium, France, Holland and Germany, with fighters being sent up to intercept this unknown craft. With people seeing aircraft "as big as a football field and hovering silently" to "hovering craft that shoot off silently." Another claim was the sighting of "a huge black triangle rising out of the water" it is one of Europe's most enduring waves of sightings. Nick Pope wrote a book about many of these sightings including one over several Army bases in one night. One of the more controversial cases is the Bentwaters -Woodbridge UFO case. The Bentwaters-Woodbridge bases are leased to the United States Airforce under NATO terms. The case is one of the creepiest ones I have ever heard. There were at least 30 witnesses who came forward to tell the story of what happened to USAF personelle and British Military in the Rendlesham forest between the two bases, in December of 1980.

www.ufocasebook.com...

Originally posted by xSMOKING_GUNx
Although these images could have possibly undergone further zoom in an editing program, also, they are all framed centrally which would support zoom and trim with editing software.

Zooming, by either a physical lens system or using digital imaging software will not elicit details that are not present in the original image. People tend to expect more resolution in a zoom system than it can physically provide. The only way to have detail in an image is to capture it using a large lens/telescope aperture. In this case, we seem to have neither.

WG3

reply to post by waveguide3

I'm not convinced on this. The 'cheap' ccd camera was 'cannibalised' to fit the telescope. Realistically, this ammounts to removing the lens and fitting an adapter to couple it to the scope's eyepiece holder. Nothing in that would eliminate the digital data incorporated into the image. I don't have the impression the poster was an electronics expert. He simply fixed a cheap camera to a small scope. So why is the exif data missing?

Well we don't know if the EXIF data is missing from the original submission it, just wasn't provided on the website.

As I have mentioned in an earlier post I have emailed the website asking if any further analysis was made including obtaining the EXIF data and I have not received a reply as yet.

Originally posted by waveguide3

I'm not convinced on this. The 'cheap' ccd camera was 'cannibalised' to fit the telescope. Realistically, this ammounts to removing the lens and fitting an adapter to couple it to the scope's eyepiece holder. Nothing in that would eliminate the digital data incorporated into the image. I don't have the impression the poster was an electronics expert. He simply fixed a cheap camera to a small scope. So why is the exif data missing?

WG3

First of all i've said "it seems"
second, EXIF data are missing but they aren't mentioned in the article.
But you are right, IMHO: some exif data could be available, of course with some wrong/missing data but they scould be there, IF the pictures were the original ones. Imho, these are cropped areas from the original images, pheraps resampled with some smart resizing tool.
We don't know WHO cropped them: the photographer or the guy of iwasabducted.com. If they have been sent already cropped, then that would be a negative clue: if not, then iwasabducted.com should still have the original somewhere, and it would be great to take a look at them.

[edit on 1/3/2008 by internos]

reply to post by waveguide3


I am not suggesting that the editing software would have improved the object in any way or in fact even stayed the same in quality, just simply that your distance query could possibly be explained by a secondary zoom during processing.

Originally posted by xSMOKING_GUNx
I like many others on this thread am baffled and have nothing scientific to add, although I do find the shots seem to be mildly lit pronouncing their shape and I am wondering why.

Yes, the lighting is also interesting. Remember these images were apparently captured before dawn. The sun had yet to rise, but the object was described as high enough to be illuminated by the sun. It is brightly lit with white light against a dark dawn sky. This means the object can 'see' the Sun directly. So we have a very high object, well above the Earth's atmosphere. The atmospherically refracted redness of the approaching dawn is way below it. There's no red light on the object. But the telescope isn't big enough to resolve such a distant object. I'm now starting to think it's bogus.

WG3

reply to post by waveguide3


So does this mean you have changed your mind as in your first post you said:

This suggests this object was either very large or relatively close. Considering the lack of magnification, I'd say the object was relatively close. By that I mean within the Earth's atmosphere.

And now you say:

This means the object can 'see' the Sun directly. So we have a very high object, well above the Earth's atmosphere.

The reflection is an interesting facet to discuss, imho: between the first and the last shot there's a big difference of brightness:

but even the angle of the object is different; pheraps it's just due to different surfaces, one less reflective at the top, one more reflective at the bottom, but that's just my opinion ...

I have no idea why, but when I first viewed the photograph my original impression was 'Blimp". By blimp I do not mean some average "GoodYear, hey how is the football game?!" kind of blimp, but rather an extremely high altitude Military Surveillance Blimp. I do know that the Military has such blimps, and there has been much talk about lighter-than-air craft used for surveillance and detection purposes. If this is the case, at the altitude which this observer seems to have witnessed this craft flying it could detect or surveil thousands of miles away.

Thanks Sherpa for starting the collection

John posted one story of a triangle sighting with sketch... perhaps you could do a search and see if you can find it?

I have had the "Triangle " project on hold for some time...

Originally posted by atsguy_106
Fake. Assuming the point of the triangle is the direction of travel..the motion blur seems to PRECEED its direction of travel.

The 'motion blur' is caused by the Plasma Actuators that steer the thing... so that is not a test... I would expect to see a blur... If the image were sharp and clear I would call HOAX in a heartbeat...

And that Plasma tech? Its OURS



Revolutionary Hypersonic Aerospace Vehicles
With Plasma Actuators That Require No Moving Parts

AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory
www.thelivingmoon.com...




[edit on 1-3-2008 by zorgon]

reply to post by internos


Good work!

The way you have linked the photos adds another couple of factors to consider.

If the order of the photos is the order in which they were taken then it clearly shows the motion in the flight path; from a vertical dive to level out horizontal.

If the above is correct there seems to be discrepancy in the consistency of light patterns.

Lastly in the final shot there seems to be a point of light from below the triangle which would suggest the source is from the earth.

But as my significant other half has told me on many occasions; I could be wrong.

Regards S_G

reply to post by zorgon


Perhaps you mean this one:




On this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do CCD cameras even produce EXIF data? I've never used one, so I have no idea. Anyone know? waveguide?

reply to post by sherpa


Aye That be the one... thanks We also have beth's story... I will put that onto a page with John's as a starting point... and add the Plasma tech...

I'm convinced.

When can i meet chewbacca?

I would like to meet Han Solo, but chewy is better.

I just have to say that I do not buy these photos as being authentic, UFO footage. I have seen two very different types of triangle ships, and these noway, fake.