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.
Originally posted by redwoodjedi
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
Well I think if you look at the cattle mutilation phenomenon and see what is actually happening, you will find that maybe they aren't so much butchering the poor creatures as they are surgically removing certain organs and genitalia and in most cases every drop of blood. The cattle are stripped of their vitals right where they experienced their last chew of cud. No tracks going into the scene. None coming out.
So if we use your theory of nutrition source, then they must be harvesting those parts of the cattle highest in protein, vitamins and especially iron. No meat is ever harvested that I can recall.
There is a book on this sort of thing by researcher Greg Bishop who lives in the San Luis Valley paralleling the Sangre De Cristo Mountains. I highly recommend his stuff if you are interested.
Cheers,
Erik
Originally posted by redwoodjedi
There we have it. These images are not hoaxed.
Originally posted by ArMaP
Originally posted by redwoodjedi
There we have it. These images are not hoaxed.
No, we don't "have it", the fact that someone says that they didn't find any signs of manipulation does not mean that it was not manipulated. I once altered one photo as a test and there were no signs of digital manipulation in it either.
Also, that description is a little suspicious.
The "non-destructive super-resolution processes" (I don't know of any destructive super-resolution process) use more than one image to create a somewhat better image, using the parts that look different to try to create an image that uses all the best parts of those photos. The more photos used the better, and if we have just one photo it's the same as resizing it, useless. But the photos must show the objects in exactly the same position, otherwise the process creates a new image that is based on wrong data.
I don't know how they were able to see "hooves, tail and head", I can't see any clear evidence of that, so if they can see them in those photos I don't see how. If they see it in other images then it would be nice if they would publish those images.
To me, that report is more suspicious than the photo.
PS: and where are the other photos? As anyone seen more than this one photo that is always presented?
Edit: if the "UFO" had a diameter of 8 to 10 meters, how big does that make the cow?
[edit on 13/10/2009 by ArMaP]
Originally posted by FireMoon
Silvia Pérez Simondini has been running a UFO organisation in Argentina for some time. Seems to be pretty legitimate.
This is the groups web site visionovni.com.ar...
One thing i did notice was that. When i first looked at the cow, i assumed it was from a alight angle from underneath and that the cows head was lolling to the left partly hidden. That does seem to be what the analysis says as well..
The impression i get is that, they are saying. The date stamp on the photo is fully commensurate with the data given to them, by the witness and shows no sign of being manipulated *outside* of the camera itself.
Slivia moved to the area, specifically because of lots of UFO and cattle mutilation activity. Just maybe they were able to get there, pretty quickly, for once and are saying that the images show no sign of being uploaded to the camera from an external source?
Originally posted by FireMoon
The impression i get is that, they are saying. The date stamp on the photo is fully commensurate with the data given to them, by the witness and shows no sign of being manipulated *outside* of the camera itself.
I see I didn't express myself clearly enough.
Originally posted by FireMoon
But that's not what the person who claims to have taken these pictures saw is it? They saw a UFO, damn better get a picture.... they then saw what does look like a cow * suspended* in mid air and a UFO.. well better take a picture of that. That the pictures are blurred are the cameras problem not the person's problem.
There isn't motion blur on the first photo I posted either, and if I had used a smaller zoom there wouldn't be any motion blur in the other two photos either.
See, I don't see any motion blur, i see a shape that, unbelievably, the shape not only resembles a cow, but one that has been sedated, its' neck lolling over to onside.
And how do you know that? Because she said it. But she said other things that do make sense, like using a camera with only a 10x maximum optical-digital zoom and a 2.7" screen to have a better view of the object.
The jury's still out on the photos authenticity, but let's not make any mistake here. The lass took the pictures because she thought she saw a UFO with a cow suspended in mid air. Not, *oh that's a funny shape i think i will take a photo*
I think she took the photo and only after that did she noticed the "cow" and the "UFO", like happens in most of the cases where smaller objects appear on the photos, and because she had a photo that looked somewhat like a cow she created the story. Another thing that I find suspicious is that only she appears on the video, if her husband was also a witness of such a momentous event why doesn't he talk about it?
Yes, you can argue she is projecting onto the photos what she wants to see. Then again, you could equally argue she wouldn't have taken the photos had it been something so unbelievably mundane,. lets get this right she claims that both UFO and the cow, vanished. Not resolved themselves into wholly mundane objects, there's there's a huge difference.
The chances of photographing an insect flying in front of the camera would be high on a river bank in the beginning of spring.
Furthermore, the, supposed UFO, looks like a UFO in both pictures and has exactly the same shape and same characteristics. What would be the chance of snapping something that has flapping wings appearing exactly so in 2 different pictures taken as much as 3-4 minutes apart?
Show me evidence that this is exactly the same thing, then we will talk about reproducing it.
Show me the pictures you have taken, over a 3-4 minute period where, exactly the same anomaly crops up from a different distance?
Originally posted by ArMaP
What I meant was that the photo was taken and when they saw it they interpret it that way.
As you said "What would be the chance of snapping something that has flapping wings appearing exactly so in 2 different pictures taken as much as 3-4 minutes apart?" I thought that you were considering the very real possibility of the UFO being an insect that was accidentally caught in the photo.
Originally posted by FireMoon
The UFO is not an insect... please.. let's keep this within in the bounds of reality.
I was not suggesting that, what I meant was that they know that there wasn't any large object there at the time or a cow floating in the air, but as the photo may be interpreted that way they used that possibility and presented it like that.
I don't know if the pics are faked, i suspect they will turn out to be, however, to suggest someone who lives in cattle country doesn't know what insects look like is a tad patronising
Yes, that was what she said, but I find it more likely in this case that what is faked is the testimony, not the photos.
Originally posted by Malcram
But that's not what she says happened. She says they saw something strange they could not see clearly, looked through the camera's viewfinder, saw that it was a cow, at that point, floating in the air, and THEN took a photograph. That's how I understood it anyway. Not that they just snapped something that afterwards they thought looked like a cow, which is what you appear to be suggesting.
They say that they were looking at it for some 8 minutes, time enough to fill the memory card and to select the best settings before taking the last photos.
In any case, it takes a little time to steady a camera and prepare to take a shot, enough to establish if you are seeing something flying and flapping, or floating and....moo-ing