Crazy, I'm from Utah and I've never heard of this. Well, if the Mormons got a hold of it, the probably put it next to the golden plates and the recent photo of God I keep asking for. Somewhere where nobody can see it but, will swear it's real.

Also, the photos looked faked. Especially the second one. Is that supposed to be a shot of the actual impact or just the smoking wreckage? Either way, it doesn't look real.

Is that you? boy are you a HOTTIE!

UH Uhm...

Anyway back to the thread subject..

Okay now I forgot what I wanted to say.....

The pics are so fake, you can easily tell the second one was photoshoped in.

Surf

This is the first I have heard of it! this site also focuses on a hot area in NE Utah on a ranch bought by a Billionaire for research on vortex type activity supposedly reported on the ranch for decades. He has never released a single page of findings to the public.............

Can you elaborate on your findings to help us understand the people posting fraudulent photos so we can recognize them ourselves?

Looks like a fake...

[edit on 2-12-2004 by merka]

Originally posted by Iwunder
Is that you? boy are you a HOTTIE!

UH Uhm...

Anyway back to the thread subject..

Okay now I forgot what I wanted to say.....

Nope, sorry, I'm a guy. The woman in my avatar is Brazilian SUperhottie Adriana Lima. I don't think she's God, just an angel that fell outta heaven and got a job modeling for Victorias Secret.

damn that sucks. sure takes the interestingness out of this.....
...
..



they should at least did a better job photoshoppin croppin..

This has become a sort of cliche for any photograph today that we disbelieve, and it is funny how many times we are wrong. So please, a request, before you go mouthing of "it's fake" it's photoshopped" can you please present an explanation as to why you think this. Thank you.

That helps backup my own suggestion earlier!

It would be very helpful in this subject area for people to provide their debunking EVIDENCE when suggesting the same.

In this manner it does help us sort out the facts from the the phoney!

Simply Suggesting its not real does not sway a proposed picture or video either way because no evidence is posted with the claim..

If its BUNK show us why (data), please just dont say it

Thanks

Oh to "NotTooHappy" Sorry about the mistaken identity, you had me going, but I would have felt better if you would have lied and said you were her.....EIEIOH


[edit on 12/2/04 by Iwunder]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
This has become a sort of cliche for any photograph today that we disbelieve, and it is funny how many times we are wrong. So please, a request, before you go mouthing of "it's fake" it's photoshopped" can you please present an explanation as to why you think this. Thank you.

Because its so... Classic. All UFO's are apperently photographed while leaning on the side.

Secondly that debris cloud from impact looks very chopped. Its just a big blur. The UFO has just disspeared into the ground, throwing up... a little dust? There should be alot more. And the reflection of the craft is *exactly* the same in both pictures.

And in the end, its just two pictures. I would believe it there was pictures walking up the to the crash site, taking pictures from the other side, and possibly from a better angle (higher up). Now its just two identical images with a UFO in two different locations: Something you can photoshop in an hour. If you are as bad with it as I am that is.

Something else to note is that the UFO has very high resemblance to the "Nazi UFO" photos.

The main problem is with the second picture.

If you look at the actual ship the shape continues in front of the horizon, but there is no impact crater. Secondly the smoke from the crash, where does it come from, there is no fire, no impact damage to the supposed craft, and the smoke comes from beyond the horizon.

On the smoke again, I don't know about anyone else but I have never seen smoke rise forming straight lines, ie the top of the smoke and the sides.

Some one has tried to add lighter smoke to the top, but should really have taken smoke from a real picture of a crash rather than trying to use an airbrush tool.

Is this information sufficient, you don't need any software to see this is a fradulant photo, there are a lot better ones out there to dupe you.

As an afterthought if you look at the domed top in both pictures they are different.

The first picture shows a staggered dome, almost flat topped, bit like a cowboy hat with almost corners, the crashed craft is almost perfectly domed.

well I clicked on the link to see the photos . And Ill say it THERE FAKE.
and no I dont use photo shop to tell . But in this case its OVES they are .
Look the two photos show a CRASHING ufo not a crashed ufo .
photo 1 it hasent hit the ground yet . photo 2 its hitting the ground now.
problime is the impact dust being put into the air. it should just about compleatly engolf the ship but its only on one side .
Once you relize this ISENT a Crash photo but a photo of a ship crashing it makes all the difference.

The first of these images doesn't look particularly fake. The second is a poor attempt. Notice how in the two frames that the foliage or camera position doesn't move at all. The Jpeg artifacts are identical in both images which hints that the images were originally one image, with one being created later. Also there are blocks of sky pasted onto the left of the picture.

Originally posted by Iwunder


Can you elaborate on your findings to help us understand the people posting fraudulent photos so we can recognize them ourselves?

Right click on the photo of the one crashing and save it to your hard drive. Open it with PS then change the size too 600 x whatever comes up. Now look at the so called ship closely. Notice the smoke is all around only the edges of the ship. None in Front, that is one hint. Next look at the right side of the saucer/ship, notice there is a white line around the edge of the ship leaving a gap between the smoke. Now I do not know about you but when I see a picture of something on fire there is no gap between the object on fire and the smoke. Also in a normal photo the smoke would be in front, in back as well on top of the image



Fake is all I can say

Thanks for the info, Good Work, I think also such an impact would not at first be round clouds of smoke either, rather the dirt would have direct hit trajectory paths from debris in the impact area, so the billowing smoke does not fit an object still concluding its impact, to me anyway.

That is not to suggest the sight does not contain some very interesting collections of data though, and there is a link on the photo asking for info on its origin, maybe you could send them your findings because like most lagitimate sites they want to discourage fraudulant material as well.

Obvious photoshop....even without blowing it up, etc., you can see that the same image is being used for both shots...as the reflection on the rim of the disc is the same, when it'd actually be shifted more to the rear in the second shot. Also, there is the line around the ship (pretty bad), and then the lack of any debris (such as dirt or rocks, even if the ship was indestructable) kicking up, or any apparent effect on the impact site. The blurred smoke is laughable at best...*sigh*

Originally posted by Gazrok
and then the lack of any debris (such as dirt or rocks, even if the ship was indestructable) kicking up, or any apparent effect on the impact site. The blurred smoke is laughable at best...*sigh*

After seeing the comparison at the top of this page, I dissagree (I also dissagree with myself earlier ): There *IS* a change in the actual ground, not just blurred smoke.

However that can probably also be easily altered, I still think its a fake because of everything else.