Three Clear Photographs of Black Triangle over South Carolina

Originally posted by spikedmilk
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0d52fb41484a.png[/atsimg]

Very nice!

In the bottom pic theres a lamp post. Is there a way we can try to size this thing?

Somebody size this thing, No way it's a kite, looks way too big 2 be one...

I've spent some time looking at these in Gimp 2.6, and reading most of these posts and see nothing to change my initial conclusions:

1) It's a real photo of something.

2) The focus is not a problem if the camera is set to infinity, and the trees look far enough away to allow that.

3) There's no way to tell size because there's no way to tell distance from camera. If you knew the ceiling of the cloud cover you could establish an upper limit but I doubt that would be helpful since that upper limit would, I suspect, be quite large.


I make no claim as to what it is but I don't think it's a kite or a model. My best guess would be secret military with ET a far, far distant second.

[edit on 21-6-2009 by Wasco]

Originally posted by Post Patriot
"Three they look pixilated when zoomed into. The size is wrong also.If you look at the surroundings the clarity and size arent proportionate to the distance of the craft."

These are fair concerns. However, since a number of people are complaining about the depth of field, focus, size, and lighting, I want those same people to analyze this image.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ec5e569531a0.png[/atsimg]
(Fig. 1 - 2100 x 3000 image /w exif data)

Notice this shot includes similar lighting conditions, there's an overcast sky, and additionally we have several aircrafts silhouetted against the background.

For those of you who are complaining about the unrealistic "blurring on the edges." Please do the same analysis on this picture. Notice there's a halo-effect, as one would expect, due to background lighting.

For those claiming the object is too clear, fig. 2, and therefore very close. In the above photograph, fig. 1, pretend we don't know that the objects in the sky are F-15s. Instead look at them as though they might be the real-world equivalent of a bug from Gallaga.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/19abf54342b4.gif[/atsimg]

No don't read further!

Look at those F-15s and visualize in your mind "Gallaga space bug!" Or if you can't envision the silhouettes as bugs instead imagine them as F-15 RC aircrafts.

I hope this impresses on you have how hard it is to measure DoF from a 2D picture when the object is unknown.

The only way to really approximate size is to use a known object, which acts as a ruler for a single plane of depth, then using focal length to determine the point of focus (ie/ in this case infinity). Calculating based off linear scaling and focus (circle of confusion) we can then attempt to determine relative distance between planes (which constitutes a VERY ROUGH ESTIMATE)!!

Notice the object, in the below picture of the triangle, is not in focus like the lamp-post. It's also less focused than the tree. Which means at best the object is over the tree. Making it at least ~4.4' on any given side.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd644c45a6fa.png[/atsimg]
(Fig. 2)

To reiterate,

For the foreground plane the light fixture can be approximated to be 1' in diameter. Using that as a guide we can say within 6 inches of accuracy that it maps to 74 ± 1 pixels. Based off that and an average lamp-post size approaching 10' (± 2' of accuracy) we can then calculate upwards to the possible points of intersection with the craft.

For the tree I made the assumption that a leaf would be 3" ± 1" in diameter. After finding what appeared to be a stand-alone leaf I measured out 6 ± 1 pixels worth of data. Using that I was then able to use the formula for linear scaling to calculate the approximate distance between the lamp-post and the tree. With the leaf as a guide I was able to calculate the size from the base of the trunk (assuming a 25' ± 20' tree) to object.

I'm not saying this picture isn't a hoax. I work with game artists who could easily, with a day or twos work, do something much more impressive than this.

The only way to truly say whether or not these photos represent something legitimate is to speak with the person who took the photographs to get a full understanding of the circumstances surrounding the pictures and the persons technical capabilities. Following that a good investigator would question others in the area to verify elements of the story and establish the persons trustworthiness.

Arm-chair research only tells us so much. Even though the scales lean in favor of something being physically in the sky.


Points in favor :

1. The EXIF data appears accurate in the sense that the if you head on over to the weather underground and check the conditions for the date / time, they match up with the photos.
   
2. Other people are reporting seeing something similar in the SC area, in and around, this time period.
   
3. The object correctly fits the lighting and appears to have physical dimensions that follow a reliable trajectory across all three pictures.

Neutral aspects worth considering:

1. The object isn't as in focus as people are making it out to be. For instance compare the lamp-post to the object. There are no internal details on the craft. Which suggests several possibilities:
   1. it's a goodly distance behind the trees or even closer to the camera than the lamp-post,
      
   2. no internal details (ie/ it's a solid material through-out) or,
      
   3. the object is computer generated
   
   Which you choose will entirely mimic your bias.
   
   
2. The foreground planes (lamp post / tree) are so close to the camera we innately attempt to line up the object with these reference points. Unfortunately this makes it very easy to assume based on perceived angle, guessed height, etc., that the object is very close to the observer. However this is entirely a trick of the mind. Though I admit it makes it very easy to lean against the possibility that the object is further away and therefore quite large.

Cons :

1. The physical dimensions are rough geometrical shapes. The only characteristics that are evident are barely visible "tiny vertical stabilizers" on the trailing edge of the "craft." However this could just as easily be pareidolia talking.
   
   Without fine details it's hard to calculate scale and determine what the object actually represents.
   
2. The images could have been faked, no doubt about it. So the strength of these photos is directly tied to the trustworthiness of the photographer and, to a lesser extent, the persons skill-set (ie/ a grandmother homemaker is less suspect than a 20-something 3D modeler)

Leaping to a conclusion in either direction is unwarranted in this case.

[edit on 21-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


Good post Xtraeme. It's nice to see someone doing some research on these intriguing pictures. Nice work!

You've convinced me to look at these pictures more closely. Though I still think these images are inconclusive I now find myself entertaining the possibility that we are looking at a large aircraft some distance from the camera.

Cheers

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Notice the object, in the below picture of the triangle, is not in focus like the lamp-post. It's also less focused than the tree.

Excellent post and research Xtraeme!! I like your photo of the planes photographed in similar conditions and the galaga bugs! Great work!

I agree with pretty much all your analysis and conclusions that the most likely explanation seems to be a real full sized craft but a hoax can't be ruled out, though I do have one question.

I fully understand your argument about how the size of an object can be estimated using focal length (having taken courses in photography on depth of view, f-stop settings, and their effect on focus etc). So if your assumptions are correct then so are your conclusions. When you said the lamp post is in better focus than the aircraft, I didn't recall seeing that and I just looked again, enlarging the photo until I can see the actual pixels on the edges and the difference is not obvious to me so I'm not sure how you determined if the lamppost is in better focus, or could it simply be that it appears so at first glance simply because as you point out the craft doesn't show any detail and the lamp post does?

Anyway I'm not asking to try to refute any of your claims or analysis since I agree with them, I just was not able to rule out that it could be closer than the tree because i didn't see the same difference in focus you did, at least it's not obvious to me even under extreme magnification of the image.

Again, outstanding post!

(Edit to fix typo)

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by PowerSlave
Who flies a kite in the middle of a thunder storm?


Nice clear pics. I am betting this is man made.

Who says it was a storm when he began gliding his kite? Storms can come on quick ya know.

Horrible anti-aliasing on those pics so I declare a crappy fake which I can't believe anyone would consider real. I guess that sums up that crowd.

Originally posted by PowerSlave
Who flies a kite in the middle of a thunder storm?

Benjamin Franklin

The scramjet nose isn't pointed. This craft clearly has a sharp, pointed nose.

My take is that this is what the craft looks like, more or less, from the top and side:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9e60727f1e46.jpg[/atsimg]

Doesn't fit the scramjet configuration at all.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by sos37]

Originally posted by thegreatobserver

Originally posted by peacejet
The photos are perfect. Best evidence of aliens visiting us. A flag for this thread.

This thing is man-made!
A drone of some kind, unmanned.

I reckon it looks military to me. It's the shape, it's not a conventional aircraft sure, but it still "looks" military. It just has that feel to it. Also, it's not quite traingular, it has edges down the side. The triangles we usually see, and perfect triangles. My gut feeling is miliraty. Quality pictures though.

yes, looks like a model....not just the clarity and focus and centering, but it has a tilt, like off balance. i guess that could be roll as if in a banking turn.... but i don't like it...plus if it was real, the camera person should have juicy details about the associated aspects....like emtions or neighbors or how quickly one can go get a camera. or did he already have it.

Originally posted by sjag9
These photographs were taken in South Carolina on May 26, 2009 during a thunderstorm. The witness thought that it was some kind of military aircraft, but did not hear any engine sound (possibly because of the thunderstorm). There's no other information supplied, such as the speed of the aircraft, etc. They don't look to be CGI to me, but I'm far from being an expert on that. I've seen pictures like this before that turned out to possibly be a model RC craft of some type or the other, but I thought that the best place to have a fruitful disussion of this is here on ATS. So, what are your thoughts?










Here's the link to the original source:

Source

Excellent photos... only thing is... that's one of ours. Nothing alien about it at all. Sorry.

Nasa Photo

[edit on 14/2/2010 by Hedera Helix]

reply to post by Hedera Helix

I agree it's probably one of ours, but it's still a UFO.

It looks more like this FB-22 than the Aurora:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4f60adde0acd.gif[/atsimg]

But the FB-22 isn't officially in a flying version yet, though unofficially, maybe it is. And that's just line art so the final version will likely look different.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Hedera Helix

 

I agree it's probably one of ours, but it's still a UFO.

It looks more like this FB-22 than the Aurora:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4f60adde0acd.gif[/atsimg]

But the FB-22 isn't officially in a flying version yet, though unofficially, maybe it is. And that's just line art so the final version will likely look different.

Aren't we looking for something with a broad flat nose? An FB-22 doesn't appear to fall into that category. It's gotta be some kind of NASA prototype.

Is it the Aurora???? I think it is. I looks interesting.

I saw something similar not long ago in a thunder storm. I talked to a friend of mine that is in the military and is involved in resource management about it. He said that the object I saw was most likely an unmanned weather tracking deviced that the military use. Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Hedera Helix
Aren't we looking for something with a broad flat nose? An FB-22 doesn't appear to fall into that category. It's gotta be some kind of NASA prototype.

The aurora or whatever they call the mach 6+ craft (scramjet) might be designed that way as your picture shows, I'm not sure.

But in the 3 clear photographs, the nose looks very pointy to me, as sos37 shows in his sketch, not broad and flat:

Originally posted by sos37
The scramjet nose isn't pointed. This craft clearly has a sharp, pointed nose.

My take is that this is what the craft looks like, more or less, from the top and side:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9e60727f1e46.jpg[/atsimg]

Doesn't fit the scramjet configuration at all.

My guess is there's a cockpit that we just can't see from the angle of those photos, but other than the missing cockpit and a few minor details, I think the sos37 sketch looks about right, it's got a pointy nose, not broad and flat.

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]

nice photos of a 12" model.

reply to post by Arbitrageur



The last photo of the three is the most revealing. I say wide snub nose.

Originally posted by Longchenpa
nice photos of a 12" model.

It looks like a styrofoam model being thown around in a park. In the first photo it looks like the object is just above the lamp post.

I replied to this since someone on another forum pointed it my way and what intrigued me was that numerous Konica-Minolta Z series cameras were used. I owned the Z1 (3 megapixels) and the Z2 (4 megapixels) and there's a couple things about this story, and the pictures, that these pictures are pretty sharp and clear and looks like a fair amount of time was taken between shots, like more than a few seconds.

The Z2 is the one I have the most experience with and there's a couple things that I want to point out - first the Z2 has a close to 4 second ramp up time - it was a new camera in the 2003-2004 timeframe and not long after that the Z3 came out which had higher megapixel ratings but not as good an optical zoom and right around that time the Konica-Minolta company got out of the digital camera business altogether. So far as I'm aware there never was a Z4 or Z5.

The Z2 also has what I'd deem an annoyingly slow autofocus in low light levels (a problem made worse by lower
battery levels in the camera).

The other thing that come to mind is that the Z2 had one of the first 30 frames per second movie modes available in any digital camera at the time (640x400) and it also had a 800x600 mode years before the first near HD digital cameras were out on the market.

So my question to the person who took the shots: why didn't you use the movie modes of this camera rather
than still shots? Especially the 640x480 mode with the 30 frames you can see the movement of things very well.

The 10x optical zoom on that camera works well too - with a 2 gig memory card with resolution maxed (2272x1704) you can get over a THOUSAND pictures on the camera and you'd better believe I would have
been taking tons of shots using the zoom to zoom in on the craft instead of just 3 shots.

Just a thought.