Three Clear Photographs of Black Triangle over South Carolina

It's not a scramjet. That sort of object would not be able to make the turns in such a short distance. Also, in the lighting conditions, a scramjet would be moving fast enough to be blurred somewhat, while the camera was capturing enough light. Third, since the trees were shown by previous posters to have some blur, that indicates the shutter speed to be slow enough to capture the motion of the wind in the trees, and the aircraft immobility.

Therefore, if the previous posters show that the object is consistent, and the speed seems to be nearly still, the remaining factor is size, which is indeterminate.

Can't say one way or t'other. Could be a legitimate object. Perhaps it's a flying triangle. Maybe it's a clear shot of an alien UFO. No way to tell, but thanks to the OP for the photo, and for the confirmation from a friend of one of the posters that it is similar to one he/she saw.

Wouldn't it be nice....

Probably backengineered alien technology. I dont think real aliens would show themselves so openly.

reply to post by spikedmilk


"my only argument is ( I may have missed it in the video), if it is a manmade object ie the scramjet, shouldn't there be a contrail of some sort?"

What about noise, are scramjets however small they might be totally soundless, the photographer must have some recollection if he heard anything when the object was flying past ? Cool pics though, its something omnious about the shape of the craft, not sure why.

It is a clear set of pictures, for sure. While it might be a craft from another world, I think it more likely to be a Military Black Budget project for testing new designs for fighter/bomber stealth technology as a way of catching up with new computer and other advanced technology that has come into existence over the last ten years or so, in my opinion. But that doesn't rule out other possibilities, though.

reply to post by Jim Scott

I think the best argument against it being a scramjet or other experimental technology is the inclement weather. It would be altogether odd to fly a very expensive prototype in such crappy conditions, unless, of course, something went very wrong.

Someone in Greenville is having some fun with a Mugi Evo RC toy or something very like that, in my humble opinion: this is at least the THIRD report of "triangle ufo" shaped more about that way, see also:

Three Clear Photographs Taken of Triangular UFO over South Carolina Ufo casebook - March 16, 2009

Photos Taken of Mysterious Aurora or TR3B??UFO NorthWest - April 19, 2008

But especially in one of the photos submitted to UFONW,
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/e14202076bc3c4c9.jpg[/atsimg]
the resembleance is streaking.

www.ufosnw.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.ufocasebook.com...

As correctly pointed out, while it's impossible to calculate its size, it's obvious that the object is at the same focus of the trees, hence it's small and relatively close to the camera, nothing even close to a real aircraft for sure, not to mention the absence of motion blur and the strange manoeuvre of the object (what was the pilot's purpose to hang there? To be photographed as many times as possible)? Besides, even an amateur would be able to customize the shape of his rc toy so we might see many different "triangle ufos" photos coming from there, in the future, since someone seems to crave much attention. Just my 2 € cents

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 10/6/2009 by internos]

Could be the TR-3B Aurora plane??

reply to post by Xtraeme


I agree that the distance/height accuracy of pasting the images together as I did is not perfect, but I still feel the difference in height is too extreme.

Some other things I wanted to mention but didn't have time to before:

- The clouds in the first picture are blue, and in the other two they are grey, so the photographer either changed the camera settings between the 1st and 2nd shot, or enough time elapsed for the clouds to shift and the light to change.

- The clouds in the first picture don't match up with the clouds in the 2nd picture, but the 2nd and 3rd have almost identical clouds, so again some time must have elapsed between the 1st and 2nd shot, but very little between the 2nd and 3rd.

- Like someone else mentioned, the turning angle of the craft is too extreme for a straight-ish path. In the original source it says it "came from the northwest, and headed south". Assuming the photographer was facing west, the angles do describe that flight path, but the craft should have been much smaller in the distance in the first shot to be at that angle. Since the object is almost exactly the same size in all 3 shots, it must have gotten very close before it made a very sharp turn, much more than a normal plane, which definitely would have been remarkable enough to put in the report.

Bspiracy's video of the exposure convinced me it's probably an object outside, but I would bet that it's something like this: RC Stealth Bomber

reply to post by Bspiracy


Very nice explanation b ... vid and all!! Thank you! ... and thanks for your explanation of sharpness in relation to the type of file that the pic is being presented in.

So correct me if I am wrong ... your saying that because the object overexposes from the edges in, this is good evidence to show that the object was actually there when the photo was taken?

And ... if the object was "drawn in" then it would not over expose from the edges in like it does in your vid explanation?

reply to post by Xtraeme


Thanks Xtraeme ... this answers my very first question in relation to the "sight" filter.

As anyone with "sight" or a similar filter tried this on a "real" photo yet like Xtraeme suggested?

Originally posted by internos

As correctly pointed out, while it's impossible to calculate its size, it's obvious that the object is at the same focus of the trees, hence it's small and relatively close to the camera, nothing even close to a real aircraft for sure,

Howdy internos ...

Just wanted to point out something that Bspiracy addressed earlier in relation to object size

a .jpg is blocks of mathmatics used to describe much smaller block of pixels. When an object such as this is compared to the treeline below, it's inherent that the algorithm used is consistent throughout the image.

Meaning the closer the color tonal values, the less pixelation will be seen since it's easier to average the colors.

Now correct me if I am wrong here, but I think b is saying that the fact that the object has a similar seeming focus to the tree line is because of .jpg file compression.

the treeline is immensely close in sharpness. Individual leaves can be seen. In such a shot, I would EXPECT the craft to have an extremely sharp edge in such a silhouetted condition.

So if this is the case then the sharpness of the craft in this .jpg file can not be used to assume that the craft is close to the camera, meaning that it is small and implying that it is a model.

As Bspiracy says:

I've the seen the highest qulified experts on here proven wrong after "definitive" examinations.. It's why anon .jpgs are so annoying.

On another note, I have never read this explanation before ... The effects of .jpg compression used to explain the apparent sharpness of objects in photo's ... would this not be common knowledge amongst our photographic experts?

I have witnessed photo's being debunked as models before because of their sharp focus in relation to the foreground (meaning that the craft in the shot is a model) ... some of these photo's would have been presented to ATS in .jpg format right?

If the info about the effects of .jpg compression on apparent image sharpness is correct then does this mean we need to revisit some of the previously "debunked as a model" photo's?

Of course ... I could be getting carried away here

Yes Aurora. Question answered.

PS: I'll give you a tip as to where to find it! - Florida, McDill Airbase

My father is an Officer stationed at McDill, he claims he saw blueprints of that thing 15 years ago already...

reply to post by Horza


The focus by itself is not a conclusive proof, neither in a way nor in the other one: besides, what we see is monochromatic, which does NOT help in order to determine how in focus actually the object is. And NOT, jpeg compression by itself cannot explain two objects at very different distances being at the same focus: since here it's bein assumed that it's some aircraft flying at big distance, you can say for sure that its appearance is NOT consistent with the one of an aircraft being at some miles of distance, but of course, everyone os free to believe everything.
The sharpness of two objects at very different distances HAS to be different, and anyway it would be interesting to read some explanation about the absence of motion blur, which together to its sharpness IS an indication of the object being relatively VERY close to the camera.

Anyone who've worked with photography will tell you this is a tear in the negative straight away!

Sorry but that's my 2 cents.

Originally posted by EverythingYouKnowIsWrong
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

I agree that the distance/height accuracy of pasting the images together as I did is not perfect, but I still feel the difference in height is too extreme.

I can definitely see where you're coming from. The first time I looked at the mosaic/panorama I was dubious, but after quadratically scaling the images they lined up pretty much the way I expected them to.

- The clouds in the first picture are blue, and in the other two they are grey, so the photographer either changed the camera settings between the 1st and 2nd shot, or enough time elapsed for the clouds to shift and the light to change.

Perhaps this was due to a lightning strike in the distance?

- The clouds in the first picture don't match up with the clouds in the 2nd picture, but the 2nd and 3rd have almost identical clouds, so again some time must have elapsed between the 1st and 2nd shot, but very little between the 2nd and 3rd.

This is entirely due to the photographer moving from his original position.

If you overlay image 1 & 2 and then scrape the transparency back and forth from 0 to 100% you'll see that the cloud rotates. I'll make a video demonstrating this if you like.

- Like someone else mentioned, the turning angle of the craft is too extreme for a straight-ish path. In the original source it says it "came from the northwest, and headed south". Assuming the photographer was facing west, the angles do describe that flight path, but the craft should have been much smaller in the distance in the first shot to be at that angle. Since the object is almost exactly the same size in all 3 shots, it must have gotten very close before it made a very sharp turn, much more than a normal plane, which definitely would have been remarkable enough to put in the report.

Bspiracy's video of the exposure convinced me it's probably an object outside, but I would bet that it's something like this: RC Stealth Bomber

This is why I wanted to point out how important it is to understand how these images map to a 3d concave hemisphere. Here's a quick way to envision this. Take a rubber band and draw three black dots at the 1/4th, 2/4th and 3/4th's positions. Now tie the rubber band to the base of your thumbs in a taut straight line. Interlock your fingers to create a portion of a concave hemisphere. Now flatten your hands. Notice where the dots are in relation to your hands? They will appear to curve away!

This is a trick of perspective. To say this craft is moving straight or in a curvilinear path requires taking something that is fixed in place and using that as a reference to quadratically scale & distort from one picture to the next.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by Xtraeme]

I don't know if it's real or not. But that is exaclty how an area 51 craft looks in Flight Simulator X. The front end is like nearly exact, and it's a triangle like that too.

In the game, there is a mission where you fly the Janet plane. At the start of the mission, you get a warning from the other pilot not to mention anything that is seen etc.

In the flight plan, you take a route that is a normal airway, and then at one point diverage off to groom lake. About this time in the mission you get a warning from air traffic about a "fast mover" coming. Then this white light comes screaming by the plane at super ridiculous speeds. Like fast enough to round the world in a hour or so type speed. Other planes in the sky you can see them awhile, this white light goes streaking by really fast.

Anyway, when you go to land, this "fast mover" comes in for a landing as well. And that is exactly what it looks like. It looked almost like it was out of star wars, but the picture is exactly what is in the game.

In the game they are HUGE too. Like 10 times the size of a 737.

Anyway, no idea if it's real or not, but I just thought the mission in Flight sim X was really cool and was surprised the picture shows the same thing in that game. I doubt Microsoft would include something that real in the game, so maybe if it's a hoax they got the idea for the shape from the game. The pictures themselves are not from the game.

You can see it at the 3:20 mark in this video. I think I'm going to have to do the mission again because I see things in videos that I didn't see at all.

It's a Romulan ship.. Maybe a scout or warship. Either way, case closed..








[edit on 10-6-2009 by libertytoall]

As I mentioned before its one of ours be it RC toy or Black Ops.

I am no expert on CGI so bare with me, its just to clear and defined to be created dont you think?



[edit on 10-6-2009 by Bob Down Under]

Originally posted by vardlokkur
In a thunderstorm I wouldn't be surprised to see a piece of cardboard flying around in the lower atmosphere, the image seems fairly two dimensional, the shape and texture is obscure due to the lightning and angle but to me it doesn't look like a UFO.

It doesn't look like a UFO to you?

That means you're able to identify the flying object.... so what is it oh mighty all-knowing?

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

Its possibly Unidentified but what makes you think its not made on this planet?

Certain to be a new us fighter/bomber.....
And further to that it would appear to have a rear exhaust draft..