is UFO real ??
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$2 Answers
By showing a picture in black and white, you are eliminating a lot of depth and detail from a phote. You are also eliminating the colors that might cause you to realize what something is. In this case, you cannot see the color of the object, or any colors reflecting off of it.
If you take a close look at the picture, you might notice where the object is in teh picture as compared to the rest of the objects. If you look straight at the pciture, you might think that the UFO is off in the distance. Remember that you mind can play perspective tricks on you.
Take a look at the picture on an angle from the right, then from the left, then from the top, then from the bottom. Make sure that you are looking at the screen at about a 45 degree angle. As you do this, you will notice that the UFO actually appears to be between the fence in the front, and the electirical lines in the back, not out in the distance.
Next, take a look out by the mountains. If you notice, the light around the mountains is brighter then the light in the sky. This means that it is either dawn, or dusk. This also means that the light source for the picture is on the opposite side of the UFO from the photographer. Notice, that the UFO appears to be lit. Where is the light source coming from?
You might think that th UFO might be lit itself. Maybe it is giving off it's own light. WRONG. If it was, there would be a long light streak straight behind it. You might point out that there is a streak behind it. This cannot be a UFO light streak as it is not in a straight line with the UFO. The line is on an angle from the UFO. Remember that light does not bend. A light streak or a smoke streak are always directly behind an object in the short term.
What is this?
Since it is a black and white picture, you can't tell exactly what this is. If this was a regular film camera, I would say that the thing that is in the pciture is actually caused by something wrong with the film. Chances are good that a nic happened on the film that caused this annomoly.
This could be a low grade digital camera that shot this. If so, this UFO could be caused by te reflection of the flash off of something very mundane. Older digital cameras are difficult to tell for sure without seeing the actual print close up.
This, sir, is not a UFO. It is either a poorly planned hoax by someone that does not know that much about perspective, or it is a film processing annomoly that should just be forgotten about.
I tool photography classes in college to learn how to debunk edited pictures. It has been a passtime of mine for years.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
The picture in color still looks like an anomaly with the film. If it was sitting in place, why does it have a non-linear exhaust streak?
As for the second picture, that was not taken by NASA. That is a fake that has circulated for years. It is a picture taken from a helicopter of a church (if I remember correctly, it is an Irish church).
"The picture in color still looks like an anomaly with the film. If it was sitting in place, why does it have a non-linear exhaust streak? "
Might have been slowly drifting, which could be described as hovering relatively motionless as far as an individual witness was concerned? There might have actually been some wind, causing exhaust to drift?
If it was an anomaly in the film, then why would it have the streak on the side at all? Is it just a bit of cloud the coincidentally lines up with the "anomaly"? Or is it an anomaly as well, but of a different kind?
what do u think about this one ?
dang, i just screwed up royally. I said it was at high speed, yet the website said she shot it hovering in place. lol, eh, whatever. I dunno what the line is behind it. Could be smoke drifting. The light streak hypothesis is still not convincing though.
Here is a better picture of this ufo, in color:
Keep in mind that this is a picture of an object which appears to be flying, and we do not know what it is - hence it is an unindentified flying object, and UFO. UFO does not equal alien spacecraft.
I'm sorry but I'm simply not seeing how you could tell that it is between the fence and the camera. What exactly do you mean to look at the picture from different angles? Looking at the image from any angle other than directly level with it just decreases the amount of information I can see, and does nothing to give me any better perspective. If this were a three-dimensional model then things would be different, but it is a two dimensional image, and your angles suggestion is quite silly.
According to http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/1950s/Photo149.htm
"Ella Louise Fortune, who worked as a nurse at the Mescalero Indian Reservation near Three Rivers, New Mexico, took this picture while driving along Highway 54 at about 1:30 PM on 16 October 1957. The UFO was hovering motionless over Holloman Air Force Base. "
So this image was NOT taken at dawn or dusk as you suggested. I'm honestly not sure how you got that it was dawn or dusk based on the brightness of the mountains...
The UFO can't be illuminated because the streak behind it would be longer? Wouldn't that depend on the exposure time? How do you know that the object was not actually spherical, and the elongated form in the image is actually the streak itself (since these things have been known to travel at mind-bogglingly fast speeds)? How does the light trail to the left of the object fit into your interpretation of the image? My guess is that it actually is not a sphere, but is either illuminated through it's own devices, or perhaps it is refracting light from the sun. There is no light streak behind it because the camera has a fast exposure time, like most cameras do (unless they're crappy digital ones).
Any image can be edited, of course. This photograph was produced in the late 50s though, so for someone to add a whiteish streak after the film had been exposed would have taken at least a bit more than a cursory knowledge of image editing software.
Yes, the angle of the trail to the left of the object is not aligned with the angle of the object, you are correct. If someone were manipulating the photo to try to produce a realistic light streak, you would think that they would use your logic and make the streak aligned with the object perfectly, wouldn't you? Yes, of course you would. But this is not how things always work in the real world. The trail to the left of the object does not have to be a streak of light from overexposed film. Have you seen a photograph of an aircraft passing through the sound barrier? There is a cloud of vapor that forms at the tail of the craft. It's called a Prandtl–Glauert singularity, and it is caused by a sudden drop in air pressure. I believe this is a much better explanation than a light-streak caused by overexposed film, and perhaps more plausible than image editing in the 50's. The angle is fine too, because of the aerodynamics of the curved object.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prandtl-Glauert_Singularity
(also, check out the picture of the transsonic jet on that page and tell me if you see any light streaks or blurs behind it XD )
This, sirs or madams, is indeed an object of unknown origin, which was photographed flying at high speeds in New Mexico.
Photography classes are all well and good, and I commend you for a decent effort at exercising your debunking skills! You need more practice, but you'll get better, I'm sure of it. :-) Just be careful not to use your obvious powers of persuasion (no sarcasm at all, I would have been convinced years ago by your words) for the wrong purposes, such as when you aren't actually in the right or aren't actually aware of the truth of the proclamations you deliver. Have a great day!