The best UFO pic I've ever seen!

I cannot say for sure. The object I saw appeared to be transparent and illuminated from within, but I was unable to see individual, or distinct lights...just the internal illumination. I was not near as close as the pic posted here.

I kind of got the creepies when I saw it.

Valhall

Yah, It does give you that feeling of uncertainty. Like you suffer from the shock of it for a while afterwards and then the questions start.

i'm undecided on this.

something just doesn't feel right to me about the photos. the lights just dont seem right. i do know all about the light bleeding thing. being a photographer and all, but it just looks like its too much. those lights are rather small and shouldn't be shining throught the low clouds too brightly. i don't think the light bleeding would be so intense. there is bairly any falloff. by that i mean it's almost a solid white and then it bairly fades off. i don't know. it just doesn't feel right to me the way it's in the pic.

i also noticed that in the first pic the shape of the saucer is more or less a perfect circle... but i really can't tell what angle this pic was taken, but i would think it would be more elliptical unless the UFO was right above the photographer and he was looking stight up at it as he took the photo.

i'm messing around with the photos in photoshop and seeing if i can simulate similar effects. we'll see.

[Edited on 12-6-2003 by jra]

ok well i spent about 10 to 15 minutes on this, so it's not quite as good, but i'm sure if i spent more time on it, it would look better... it's pretty close though i think. what do you guys think?



[Edited on 11-6-2003 by jra]

Nice job man looks like the "Real" pic
So this prooves that this pic could be fake

Originally posted by StalkingPanther
Nice job man looks like the "Real" pic
So this prooves that this pic could be fake

Well, we didnt need proof that it could be fake, did we, that is why we have been speaking about it for 2 pages.

That is a great photoshop there though but just because someone can do this (and not everyone, you must have a fair bit of talent and understanding to do this) doesnt mean it automatically becomes a fakes image. We see many photo's of passenger planes, the guy who did that photo shop could easily do the same with a plane but we all know for certain that planes are real..

So, as I was saying, just because it is possible to add an image to another image doesnt mean that the first image isnt real.


ermm... knowarramean?

OH MY GOD THEY ARE BUBBLES!!!!!

take another look guys !

The light seems to cover over the branch, which is impossible unless it was infront of it which it's not. FAKE!!!

Originally posted by dom
To test it, try taking a photo of a phone line with the sun behind it.

*cringes at the thought of all those blinded ATS members fumbling around for the camera they just dropped whilst clutching in agony at their sizzling corneas*

Originally posted by John Nada
The light seems to cover over the branch, which is impossible unless it was infront of it which it's not. FAKE!!!

Read the whole thread! We discussed this already. If you take a car antenna as an example and hold it up to the sunlight, it appears to be "cut" but of course it isnt. Havent you paid attention during physics class??

originally posted by websuspect under a new thread but entirley relevant to this one.

My UFO fake.

I faked a UFO photo from one I found on here. Just to show how it could be done.

I added a circle tool and changed the contrast.

Than I added some oval tools and added some shade white light and shaded red light. Than I expanded all of those circles and added Gausian Blur or noise.

I think some UFOs are real and some are fake.
This one looks fake.

www.geocities.com...

I have to say though I don`t really agree with your contention here though.

hmmmm it looks real enough but wait could it be a scene from a movie??

Good pic...and excellent points about the photo light bleed effect...you'll see this in some of the moon pics too (especially cited by those contending that the moon landings were faked...a position I used to agree with, until a while back).

If someone knows this is a fake, why not state why?

Personally, my only misgiving, is that the triangle of lights looks off kilter.... In other words, the leading light seems to be too close to the edge, in relation to the other 2 lights. However, this could just be due to perspective, so that in itself, isn't too damning....

I grew up in Wisconsin.

The area the photographs were takin is fairly close to the EAA. Experimantal Aircraft Association.

During their annual fly-in all sorts of weird aircraft come to Wisconsin to partake in the activities. Durring the 10 days or so of the convention, the airport in Oshkosh is the busiest airport in the world.

I have seen some pretty wierd looking aircraft. Some that intentionally look like alien craft, especially from the bottom.

I'm not saying that that is what is happening here, it's just a possibility. It would also account for the typical navigational lights.

My .02.

I see what you are saying and I have also adopted this theory, however I dont believe that this is the case with all UFO sightings/phenomena. There are ancient artifacts wich represent UFO wich dont resemble the current state of technology. Also if Bob lazar is not full of it, he claims in his interview that there where several different models he had seen. He described the "top hat" and the "jello mold", both of wich appear rather vintage in comparison to the "sleek" models.

Originally posted by dragonrider
The photos are very real, IMHO, however, I think it is definitely of domestic production.

As ADVISOR pointed out, if it is of alien manufacture, why does it appear to have anti-collision lights of the proper pattern for normal aircraft????

The triangular orientation of lights is consistant with the current production/deployed TR-3B X Craft. This is the latest version of X Craft developed from the initial attempt in the early to mid 1950s during Project Winterhaven, originated by Thomas Townsend Brown.

If you look at the best most authentic of UFO photos, arranged chronilogically, you will notice that over the past 50 years, UFOs have obviously become more "modern" looking, with early sightings looking like they used 1950s technology (obvious nautical inspired portholes, ect)

Ive read this argument before, light can play tricks with cameras

Originally posted by Snoopdopey
Sorry but i agree with mazon, he prolly said it just to be contraversial but if u inspect the pics closely you can see that the lights are infront of some of the twigs of the branches, and how can this be so if it is behind them? it's not a great fake, if i were the one ho made them i would have tried harder

I am going to take you up on that offer. I challenge you to make a pic that is unable to be debunked upon closer inspection

Cheers

Originally posted by Peace
the branch thing is pretty irrelevant, as if it was fake, the branch could have been removed or not included, the point is that i bet you, i could make a fake ufo pic and it would look just as genuine as any of the suppossed real ones that i have seen.

It is too easy to fake photographs like this today, i'd have to see it first hand to swallow it.

sorry mods, didnt see the date

Originally posted by Ingvae
I grew up in Wisconsin.

The area the photographs were takin is fairly close to the EAA. Experimantal Aircraft Association.

During their annual fly-in all sorts of weird aircraft come to Wisconsin to partake in the activities. Durring the 10 days or so of the convention, the airport in Oshkosh is the busiest airport in the world.

I have seen some pretty wierd looking aircraft. Some that intentionally look like alien craft, especially from the bottom.

I'm not saying that that is what is happening here, it's just a possibility. It would also account for the typical navigational lights.

My .02.

I live about ten miles from the Osh Kosh airport, and I see weird stuff all the time.

To me, this picture looks realisitic, I cant find anything that would suggest that it would be fake (that can't be explained anyway).

Anyway, great find.