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.

 

Very interesting case i found online with photo and convincing story

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Case number 3)

Object seen multiple times, changing colors, shoot with moto g, last time seen followed by black helicopters. 8 pics.

www.ufostalker.com...
Pics 1,3,5.
www.mufoncms.com...
www.mufoncms.com...
www.mufoncms.com...


Case 4)
Ice cream anyone ? Ice cream shaped ufo hovering oveer houses.
www.ufostalker.com...
Pic
www.mufoncms.com...




posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi
a reply to: defiythelie
That does not necessarily mean a sausage. The oval outline with pixels of a hue that are slightly different to the background sky could be caused by ionised or heated air surrounding the craft. It is not unambiguous evidence of CGI.


I agree with you. Genuine alien ships quite often have an ionization effect surrounding the craft, often leaving a nearly invisible trail in the air behind it. An effect quite similar to a heat mirage on a hot roadway, but with a purple and blue tinge.

I'm not saying this isn't a doctored photo, but I am saying there is nothing about this that looks disingenuous..
edit on 9-4-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Choice777
Me think some people are just chicken sh1t scared of the posibility of us not being the smartest kids on the block...either that or sheer moronic stupidity...

Maybe some are, maybe some just look at things with their own eyes and have their own opinions.


I can photoshop a picture of an astronaut on the moon. I guess i proved the moon landings are fake....Right ?

No, and that's not what people have been saying on this thread.


I can take a paper photo of the astronaut on the moon, scan it, do some normal filtering, a bit of photoshoping his rinkled face here and there, wouldn't want him to look bad in Vogue.......i guess that will turn the original photo into a photoshoped edited faked image which again proves there's no astronaut on the moon... Right ?

Wrong, and we are not talking about cosmetic changes on the photo.


Oh wait the aspect ratio is strange.....fake

The aspect ratio is more important than you imply. As anyone that knows traditional (not digital) photos knows, those photos are limited to just a few formats (specially when we are talking about photos taken in 2006), so an image that is presented as being a scanned version of a traditional photo (although it doesn't look like a scanned photo, and I know what I'm talking about) doesn't have any reason to have the format of a digital photo.


Hmm....is that an odd bit in the hex ? Must be fake ...unless the whole planet runs on eec ram!

In this case, what is suspicious is the fact that part of the data added by Photoshop was removed, as if someone tried to hide something.


I'll try and hunt down the negative.

That would be great.



Edit: Also....the object is indeed huge, 1/4 mile in diam whatever IF one looks at the photo and just tryes to get past the haze around it..IF you look at the photo and for just 1 second force yourself to put the object over that distant hill, then it does get the proper size right. Again i can take a blurry photo of the moon and then claim it's just a speck on the lens.

Why should I force myself to choose a specific distance for the object? Just because the story says so?

I don't do that. The story may be true, but what I see is an image that looks like it was made on purpose to support the story and not the photo taken during the event. That's my interpretation of what I see.

PS: adding other cases means nothing, we are talking about a specific photo from a specific case.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi
a reply to: defiythelie
The oval outline with pixels of a hue that are slightly different to the background sky could be caused by ionised or heated air surrounding the craft.

Yes, it could, but I don't think that's what we see here, as that difference doesn't follow exactly the shape of the UFO.

Besides that, there are other things about the UFO that look wrong, as we can see in the image below, in which I applied a strong sharpen filter (in GIMP) and resized to 300%.


Besides the shape of the "aura" not following the exact shape of the UFO, another thing we can see is that it looks like the JPEG artefacts are smaller on the UFO and the surrounding "aura" than on the rest of the photo, as if the UFO came from a different image (with a higher resolution, lower JPEG compression or from a file without JPEG compression).



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Choice777

I think one of the flaws has nothing to do with the photograph. There are number of routes back to Chester from Porthmadog (via the A487 or A470 up to the A55 or even the A494 through Bala) . Chester is to the North East and to get near to Trawsfynydd means heading south for miles. I don't understand why anyone would head south to get to Chester from there.

It would be interesting if we could find a corroborating story. Surely something that large would have been spotted on a May Bank holiday in North Wales?



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: micpsi
a reply to: defiythelie
The oval outline with pixels of a hue that are slightly different to the background sky could be caused by ionised or heated air surrounding the craft.

Yes, it could, but I don't think that's what we see here, as that difference doesn't follow exactly the shape of the UFO.

Besides that, there are other things about the UFO that look wrong, as we can see in the image below, in which I applied a strong sharpen filter (in GIMP) and resized to 300%.


Besides the shape of the "aura" not following the exact shape of the UFO, another thing we can see is that it looks like the JPEG artefacts are smaller on the UFO and the surrounding "aura" than on the rest of the photo, as if the UFO came from a different image (with a higher resolution, lower JPEG compression or from a file without JPEG compression).


Two things. First. Can you prove that the craft came from a different photograph?

And second, I have a hard time taking a guy with a South Park avatar seriously.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
Two things. First. Can you prove that the craft came from a different photograph?

No, for that we would need a kind of "photo fingerprint" that would tie part of a photo to that specific photo, and there's nothing like that on common cameras or scanners.


And second, I have a hard time taking a guy with a South Park avatar seriously.

That's your problem, I take everybody seriously, until they show something that makes me think otherwise.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Scdfa
Two things. First. Can you prove that the craft came from a different photograph?

No, for that we would need a kind of "photo fingerprint" that would tie part of a photo to that specific photo, and there's nothing like that on common cameras or scanners.


And second, I have a hard time taking a guy with a South Park avatar seriously.

That's your problem, I take everybody seriously, until they show something that makes me think otherwise.


So do I, it's the South Park avatar that makes me think otherwise.

But to be serious, have you ever seen an alien ship personally? The aura that surrounds the ship, and sometimes leaves a light blue or purple trail?

Have you ever even seen a photo of a UFO that you were confident was an actual alien ship?

Then I'm curious as to the yardstick you're using to determine this to be a hoax?



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
But to be serious, have you ever seen an alien ship personally? The aura that surrounds the ship, and sometimes leaves a light blue or purple trail?

No, all things in the sky I have seen and not identified were just lights, so they could be any thing.

I know two people that saw a dark cigar-shaped UFO (probably the same) in the 1970s.


Have you ever even seen a photo of a UFO that you were confident was an actual alien ship?

No, for that I would need evidence that it was really an alien ship and not just something that was not identified. I don't jump to the conclusion that the things I do not identify are alien.


Then I'm curious as to the yardstick you're using to determine this to be a hoax?

That "Then" appears to show that you already knew my answers.

In this case, my "yardstick" is the photo itself, not what it is supposed to show. As I said, there are several things that point to the photo having been manipulated. I would say the same thing if it was a photo of a bird or something else; it looks altered to me, I say it.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   


TextThat "Then" appears to show that you already knew my answers.
a reply to: ArMaP

I had a hunch.

It's funny, it's always the people who have never seen anything alien that are the first to say that a picture of a purported alien ship "doesn't look right".

As I said before, it's too bad UFOs aren't made out of irony.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa

Nobody has suggested the ship didnt look right.

Everyone has said the picture doesnt look right.

And here is the irony.

It doesnt take a close encounter to question the picture. It was put up for scrutiny. Not everyone is going to jump on that bandwagon just because it is a picture. Some people require analysis to make that leap.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
It's funny, it's always the people who have never seen anything alien that are the first to say that a picture of a purported alien ship "doesn't look right".

You're using a logical fallacy because by the subjects very nature most people haven't seen an alien ship or been inside one.

Besides you're not right about everyone, there are a couple of people on ATS who have seen things but haven't thrown logic under the bus.

ArMap is one of the nicer persons on ATS, and you should respect that the person is taking the time.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: smirkley
a reply to: Scdfa

Nobody has suggested the ship didnt look right.

Everyone has said the picture doesnt look right.

And here is the irony.

It doesnt take a close encounter to question the picture. It was put up for scrutiny. Not everyone is going to jump on that bandwagon just because it is a picture. Some people require analysis to make that leap.


Easy there, I never said it was an alien ship.

I did say there was nothing in the photograph that was inconsistent with a photo of a genuine alien craft. Yet this photo was very poorly received by most who responded. I have to wonder about the reasons behind this photograph's negative reviews.

It's an outstanding photo.

And if it is unretouched, we are lucky to have it.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: Scdfa
It's funny, it's always the people who have never seen anything alien that are the first to say that a picture of a purported alien ship "doesn't look right".

You're using a logical fallacy because by the subjects very nature most people haven't seen an alien ship or been inside one.

Besides you're not right about everyone, there are a couple of people on ATS who have seen things but haven't thrown logic under the bus.

ArMap is one of the nicer persons on ATS, and you should respect that the person is taking the time.


You're probably right.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I dare say it was poorly recieved for several reasons.

For me it was the artifacts I mentioned. But also the defensive postures.

Truly unbiased would not be defensive or attempt redirection to other images nor character attack even by just someones avatar.

I am a believer that life exists elsewhere. I would like to believe we have been or will be visited someday.

But my mind is highly analytical and I question everything. Even the mundane. And as such I believe the image uploaded is altered.

It hurts my feelings not, to be questioned or accused. But I didnt upload the picture nor do I feel I have to defend the obvious.

Occams Razor will be telling. That this imaged is being pushed instead of displayed. The agenda behind that is self explanatory.


You know what would impress me?

4 words...

Independent third party verification.

Then we can all party.
edit on 10-4-2015 by smirkley because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I didn't imply that the other cases mean something in regards to this case..the're separate...hint the numbers 2,3,4.... i didnt think its wise to start another 3 threads. i just had a browse on the mufon map and these look sorta interesting.

Back to this first ufo near the power station.
We have the story, he have the photo. My best guess is that the object if it's real, then it's on top od the distant hill, which means it's trully huge. As for it's undefined shape and blur/haze. If we suppose it's really a et ufo and has some field around it, then we have no way but to make the closest guestimate...which i think is that whatever field it's got, has a sort of heatwave effect which given it's associated lensing, would appear to obscure certain smalll fragment of it's otherwise perfectly symetric shape. So if it might appear that the haze/flield/blur /whateva doesnt match the solid object, then i think it's a case of us not getting the whole view of it.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
It's funny, it's always the people who have never seen anything alien that are the first to say that a picture of a purported alien ship "doesn't look right".

It's funny (or sad, depending on how we look at the situation) how some people do not understand that other people can act based on their own interpretation of the data presented instead of "following the herd".

The photo looking wrong doesn't mean that the story is fake (and to me the story is always more important than the photo) or has any influence of what I think about UFOs and aliens.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Choice777
If we suppose it's really a et ufo and has some field around it, then we have no way but to make the closest guestimate...which i think is that whatever field it's got, has a sort of heatwave effect which given it's associated lensing, would appear to obscure certain smalll fragment of it's otherwise perfectly symetric shape. So if it might appear that the haze/flield/blur /whateva doesnt match the solid object, then i think it's a case of us not getting the whole view of it.

True, but it doesn't explain the difference between the JPEG artefacts on the UFO and the surrounding area and the rest of the photo.

If I have the time I will post an extreme example of what I am saying to show it better.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Here is the Error Level Analysis output, shows if the compressed image has been modified


So at least it doesn't look like a lazy photoshop fake.

Not sure if anything can be said without having the original though.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

True, but it doesn't explain the difference between the JPEG artefacts on the UFO and the surrounding area and the rest of the photo.


Exactly. We can expect compression artifacts to look a certain way, usually 8x8 pixel blocks known as "blocking artifacts", such as the blocking artifacts seen around the power line tower and around the mountains as seen in your image below. However, the compression artifacts around the "object" in the same image are not similar, nor do they look like the artifact that we would expect to see.

ArMaP's image:



originally posted by: Scdfa

And second, I have a hard time taking a guy with a South Park avatar seriously.

ArMaP is a respected long-time contributor and a staff member (moderator) here on ATS.


edit on 4/10/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join