|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
 Thu Feb 01, 2001 3:19 pm
|
 |
|
Brent -
Have just looked at your images. Questions:
How many shots, total, did you take of that one "X" configuration?
I take it that you "finished" one roll of film with the first of those shots and then "started" another roll of film with the rest of the shots of this one "X" configuration. Is this correct?
Of the total number of shots of this one "X" configuration, how many contained the anomaly pictured in the shots you have posted here?
Re: the shots that contained the anomaly - were these shots in direct sequence, i.e. one right after the other, or were they "scattered" among the total number of shots of that one "X" configuration?
This is a very interesting little situation here - thank you for posting it.
|
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Thu Feb 01, 2001 5:33 pm
|
|
|
Well Brent, you've got my brain going this morning! I love mysteries like this. When I looked at your close-up of the anomalous object I immediately saw the head of a fox/dog. You can see the eyes, snout and mouth; it's looking towards lower right of photo. Can you see it?
Of course the brain has a funny way of taking *obscure* images and *making sense* of them related to what we know...that's why we see faces in clouds. Actually Brent, I have no idea what it could be. You've stumped me good. Let me sleep on this. |
| |
|
|
sedona
Joined: 13 Oct 2000
Posts: 149
Location: Sedona, AZ 86339 |
|
Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:41 pm
|
|
|
Lulu, this reminds me vaguely of that wildly interesting "insectoid" we found, which turned out to be a tiny fragment of a real one on the lens. Brent: could it be a piece of a leaf or something? Just wondering. Occam's Razor and all that. |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Thu Feb 01, 2001 11:15 pm
|
|
|
Looks very bug like...
 |
| |
|
|
sedona
Joined: 13 Oct 2000
Posts: 149
Location: Sedona, AZ 86339 |
|
Thu Feb 01, 2001 11:55 pm
|
|
|
Thermit, I didn't mean this photo looked insect-like but that I bamboozled myself once by not even thinking of the possibility of something on the lens. And you have to admit- this is so strange it's reasonable to try to eliminate lesser causes first. I've looked at a whole lot of strange photos, and this one's not in any category I have yet seen. Thus...the tendency to tippy toe through the obivous eliminative steps... |
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Fri Feb 02, 2001 1:03 am
|
|
|
I think Segment Man was on the housing/covering over the web cam, not on the lens itself, and is daily fading bit by brown bit. Brent's pic doesn't look like something on the lens or insectoid either. It reminds me of a holographic image. |
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Fri Feb 02, 2001 2:13 am
|
|
|
I'm still waiting to hear back from Brent but, frankly, it looks like some sort of combustion process to me. |
| |
|
|
Norrin Radd
Joined: 04 Nov 2000
Posts: 90
|
|
Fri Feb 02, 2001 11:08 am
|
|
|
How many shots, total, did you take of that one "X" configuration?
3 TOTAL SHOTS OF "X" CONFIGURATION. I WAS SHOOTING IN THE EAST AND THE "X" WAS THE ONLY CHEMS IN THE WEST.
I take it that you "finished" one roll of film with the first of those shots and then "started" another roll of film with the rest of the shots of this one "X" configuration. Is this correct?
FIRST SHOT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF ONE ROLL. ANOMOLY WAS FAR TO THE LEFT OF THE "X". SECOND AND THIRD SHOTS I ONLY TOOK BECAUSE I WAS BORED, A LULL IN CHEMTRAIL ACTIVITY TO THE EAST INDUCED ME TO TAKE TWO MORE PICS OF THE "X". I REMEMBER QUESTIONING WHETHER I NEEDED ANY MORE STINKING PICTURES OF AN "X" BUT I TOOK THE PICS ANYWAYS. PIC 2 AND THREE WERE IN DIRECT SEQUENCE.
Of the total number of shots of this one "X" configuration, how many contained the anomaly pictured in the shots you have posted here?
ALL 3.
Re: the shots that contained the anomaly - were these shots in direct sequence, i.e. one right after the other, or were they "scattered" among the total number of shots of that one "X" configuration?
THE LAST TWO WERE IN DIRECT SEQUENCE, THE FIRST WAS ON A DIFFERENT ROLL, CLOSE TO THE MIDDLE OF THE ROLL.
LULU,
I also thought of the holographic image idea. I am truly baffled by this and I truly doubt it was anything on the lens. If it hadn't been in one frame from a second roll of film, I might be able to dismiss it, but I believe there was something captured on film that I couldn't see with the naked eye.
Brent |
| |
|
|
Rt
Joined: 01 Feb 2001
Posts: 9
|
|
Fri Feb 02, 2001 4:10 pm
|
|
|
It definitely is not something on the lens, because of the way it is lit.
It appears to be some kind of kite. Looking closely you will see tethering lines diverge to the right to a nearly transparent 'ring' |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Fri Feb 02, 2001 5:05 pm
|
|
|
Interesting observation Rt.
The other enlargement also shows these lines, but no "ring". I think the ring is a film artifact.
 |
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Fri Feb 02, 2001 5:15 pm
|
|
|
If it was a kite why didn't Brent see it before he took the picture? |
| |
|
|
defender
Joined: 27 Oct 2000
Posts: 1113
Location: Level 64 |
|
Fri Feb 02, 2001 5:28 pm
|
|
|
That is strange. In the top photo, looks like 2 objects, the one on the left with what appear to be 2 lines(?) pointed at it with the wide end attached to the 'rim' of the object on the right. Looks like it may be a kind of funnel or 'force field'?
Maybe you can submit it to some objective photo analysts in the ufology profession who can explain it, or categorize it?
I have seen a UFO photo similar to the object on the left, but it was more defined, like an art-deco structure or ancient piece of jewelry, it had a similar gold color to it and appeared very un-aerodynamic, though it was more symetric than your object on the left. If I had the photo, I'd post it. That photo fell into the category of unexplained and was very unlike any oval/disc/tube shaped UFO.
The object on the right though, seems like it may be a more traditional or "conventional" oval shape for a UFO, but hard to see if its solid. You may have caught some kind of interdimensional transformation taking place, unless it is some kind of explosion or a natural object.
The 2 objects together and 'funnel' are not like anything I've seen before..
[Edited 4 times, lastly by defender on 02-03-2001] |
| |
|
|
Rt
Joined: 01 Feb 2001
Posts: 9
|
|
Fri Feb 02, 2001 7:05 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lulu:
If it was a kite why didn't Brent see it before he took the picture?
The photo is quite enlarged.
However, Defender raises points I can not dismiss.
If we allow the 'ufo' aspect to be temporarily accepted for discussion purposes, what is the association to the 'chemtrails'?
[Edited 3 times, lastly by Rt on 02-02-2001] |
| |
|
|
Lulu
Joined: 22 Dec 2000
Posts: 2501
Location: right here |
|
Fri Feb 02, 2001 7:57 pm
|
|
|
Rt...in the original photos (see links above: right under >>Here are scans I put here at Thermit's<<) the object is clearly visible...even without the close-up. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 11:41 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
