"Supposed" UFO Picture Near Naval Air Weapons Station In 2007 Just Released

a reply to: 0bserver1

wow you made that?
it looks amazing
and that shadow pretty much is the nail in the coffin in the pictures, the similarity is stunning

a reply to: humanoidlord

Well yes I did but I still believe there are genuine pictures out there and the OP could be one of them. Hard to say nowadays with all the high-end software available. Although it hurts from my position as a believer in the phenomenon to reproduce these kinds of hoaxes because it damages Ufology.

maybe I just saved someones a$$ today..

a reply to: 0bserver1

there are genuine pictures

of course there are!
here are some suggestions if you want to see the real stuff:
www.youtube.com... (dont let his thugish appearence and the fact he swears more than most sailors fool you, this guy knows his UFO's)
twitter.com... ( an unending feed of real ufo clips)
www.youtube.com... (this guy's videos have appeared here in ats sometimes)
and then there is this one who posts both real and sadly fake ufos:
www.youtube.com...
have fun!

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Ill hope it somehow satisfied your question?

Oh, I don't have a question. I know that people can create good image, like yours, which is excellent, by the way. I'm just saying that working with three backgrounds from slightly different perspectives such that when you put them together they create a plausible sequence of events would be a lot of work for not much return.

Actually, the biggest red flag I see in the images are the fact that the UFO is always up in the clear blue part of the sky, which would be easier to fake. Also the helicopter. It doesn't seem to have the right perspective, and it doesn't cast a shadow or seem to be kicking up dust. That the close-up of the helicopter is in a different shot would suggest to me that it was too hard to incorporate it into the other images because of shadows and such.

Anyway, thanks! I don't mind that there are good faked UFO photos out there. I never put much value in images, anyway, and knowing that there are good fake images out there just means that when and if a "real" one comes along, it'll have to go beyond just a good picture and into the whole physical evidence requirement.

a reply to: Blue Shift

In this case the only thing I had to make was a suitable 3d object of a UFO ,when ready I can virtually place it everywhere in every photograph.

The right software wil calculate every lightsource and shadows and reflections on the right place.

Actually the helicopter would be the hardest thing to rebuild making the UFO was the most easy and quick part because it's very simple and basic model to work with . The helicopter has to many saperate pieces to rebuild. If you would have asked if I could make that helicopter I would have declined or I would have searched for an image that contained a huey circling somewhere where there were like several images from that same area compiled that into a hmi file for background and 360 degree photograph so I could place my 3d model of a UFO on every spot I liked , even a blue sky and cold produce hundreds of different angles.

It's really stunning what software can do these days , but also very sad because now those who want to destroy somebody's thought about UFO'S can battle the argument and present the image instandly as I did . But there are processes and programs that can show the opposite of from what I made to proof like my images was created by CGI but one has to know where to look for.

Even I myself have trouble to really discover the flaws in pictures like I made and could be easily be fooled by it.

A good story almost has more value than pictures nowadays. Only direct raw photographs directly taken from a camera can reveal the authenticity of a picture because it always leaves a signature from the camera itself , like iso values timestamps and manufacturing company. Also a every camera leaves a serial number before the extension, Sadly uploading a picture changes the picture profile number into a categorized system value so you can't see the original raw manufacture number sequence. If they can show those readings than you got a real one..

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Only direct raw photographs directly taken from a camera can reveal the authenticity of a picture because it always leaves a signature from the camera itself , like iso values timestamps and manufacturing company. If they can show those readings than you got a real one..

That can also be faked, any data on a file can be altered without signs of tampering, unless it has some kind of digital signature.

a reply to: ArMaP

And that I think should be the new rule for a penal code to prevent fakenews or hoaxes on the internet!
like some international photo stock/ image-bank where you upload your videos or images directly from your camera and automatically be stamped as a second copy of the original photograph

Something is very wrong with the shadows. Telephone poles are typically 40 feet tall which gives an idea of the distance. That huge 20 foot shadow it's casting in the furthest pic is just odd. It looks like someone with poor perspective/spatial skills used the burn tool in Photoshop or GIMP to plop shadows below the "UFO" in each pic in an attempt to make it look real.


a reply to: 0bserver1

Actually the helicopter would be the hardest thing to rebuild making the UFO was the most easy and quick part because it's very simple and basic model to work with . The helicopter has to many saperate pieces to rebuild. If you would have asked if I could make that helicopter I would have declined or I would have searched for an image that contained a huey circling somewhere where there were like several images from that same area compiled

Easy to find basically the same helicopter and position online. Select and isolate the image and do a TinyEye search. Add motion blur to the blades and it could be almost be an exact match to the one above it:


Anyone familiar with 3D rendering knows all you need is free software like Blender and GIMP. A UFO can easily be modeled in Blender, lit with artificial sunlight, rotated 360 degrees on any axis, mirror, plastic, or other reflective material can be applied to the model, combine either photographs you have taken or stock photos from online and use them as a background through Blender, move photo to GIMP and use the smudge, blur, and dodge tools to add the motion blur and highlights and viola UFO. Easy to do the same with GIMP alone if you understand simple perspective. Far too easy to replicate even by those with minimal knowledge of 3D software and want to fool people.

a reply to: 0bserver1

I think some special cameras do that.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Anyone familiar with 3D rendering knows all you need is free software like Blender and GIMP. A UFO can easily be modeled in Blender, lit with artificial sunlight, rotated 360 degrees on any axis, mirror, plastic, or other reflective material can be applied to the model, combine either photographs you have taken or stock photos from online and use them as a background through Blender, move photo to GIMP and use the smudge, blur, and dodge tools to add the motion blur and highlights and viola UFO. Easy to do the same with GIMP alone if you understand simple perspective. Far too easy to replicate even by those with minimal knowledge of 3D software and want to fool people.

That's why I look at the total story and photographs and see if both could match. You can't dismiss every photograph just by calling it hoax or fake . So one first has to check the story in relation with the sightings and than check if you could find any flaws or marks that betray tampering.

Luckily many do have a good eye sight and or discover something that didn't fit.

For me the fact that the story doesn't fit the picture, for example the author said he was hiding naked in the bushes isn't true. The height of the shot taken doesn't match someone crawling the bushes who are actually to thin to hide for maybe a millitary recon of that area . He should have been spotted miles away from the position he stood in.

It's either leaked by purpose or a hoax but as I said actually not legit if you don't show some camera information about the incident.

But the fact that most who are complaining hoax are the ones that never show or point anything out within the picture of interest.

Only that it can be done , well anybody can say that so proof it ,proof where the flaws are I would say.

ArMaP did just that as he always does he points out where the flaws within the picture could be so he somehow stays neutrally sceptical I respect that and therefore a dialogue with people like him are meaningful. And it doesn't always have to be graphically proven because there are many who can read the story better than others to find flawz that's also important to hear about.

But just calling something without content means nothing.

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

Anyone familiar with 3D rendering knows all you need is free software like Blender and GIMP. A UFO can easily be modeled in Blender, lit with artificial sunlight, rotated 360 degrees on any axis, mirror, plastic, or other reflective material can be applied to the model, combine either photographs you have taken or stock photos from online and use them as a background through Blender, move photo to GIMP and use the smudge, blur, and dodge tools to add the motion blur and highlights and viola UFO. Easy to do the same with GIMP alone if you understand simple perspective. Far too easy to replicate even by those with minimal knowledge of 3D software and want to fool people.

That's why I look at the total story and photographs and see if both could match. You can't dismiss every photograph just by calling it hoax or fake . So one first has to check the story in relation with the sightings and than check if you could find any flaws or marks that betray tampering.

Luckily many do have a good eye sight and or discover something that didn't fit.

For me the fact that the story doesn't fit the picture, for example the author said he was hiding naked in the bushes isn't true. The height of the shot taken doesn't match someone crawling the bushes who are actually to thin to hide for maybe a millitary recon of that area . He should have been spotted miles away from the position he stood in.

i would agree with you.

Since i live in Ridgecrest outside the border of china lake and know where the photos were taken.
and the story does NOT match the photos in that the story claims the photos were taken ON base and I KNOW where the photos were taken because i have bee there many times and I KNOW the photos were not taken on base.

This plus i have worked as a research photographer and see problems with the photos like the so called UFO having a shadow but the helicopter not having a shadow.

And i KNOW that in broad daylight that the area is plainly visable to any member of the public and that the public uses that area all the time.
And for that reason i do not believe that these photos could be taken without many more people seeing and reporting the UFO.

originally posted by: 0bserver1

That's why I look at the total story and photographs and see if both could match. You can't dismiss every photograph just by calling it hoax or fake . So one first has to check the story in relation with the sightings and than check if you could find any flaws or marks that betray tampering.

A supporting story does not make a photograph anymore valid or factual. Stories can be made up, photographs can be faked. This is why scientific evidence is required. Faked UFO photos have circled the internet for years, sometimes decades. It's becoming increasingly easy to create a convincing looking UFO with limited knowledge or training in 3D software. So the default isn't to assume the photographs are real and work your way out from there, or to give it equal balance between a "real" UFO or fake. It's to approach it where the balance weighs far further to the faked side than real. The burden of proof lies with proving a genuine UFO. Be it ET piloted or military drone. Taking into account the entire history of the phenomena has provided no supporting scientific evidence of ET piloted UFOs, the likelihood of a drone still outweighs ET. Although I don't believe it's either.

As for as pointing out flawed areas of the photograph, as I mentioned the shadows don't correlate. It's easy to create a fake UFO and place it in a scene, it's hard for some to understand perspective. This is where a photo like this can be exposed. The goofy 20 foot shadow of the object in the furthest from the camera shot is off. Compare it to the size of the UFO in the first few photos and the distance traveled in the furthest. It appears the shadows were added by someone attempting to make it look real by placing shadows in every shot.

He also mentions the UFO was mirrored, but in every photograph the reflections on the top and bottom don't seem to mirror the actual photo. As if a generic 3D model was created separate from the scene with blue and tan used to represent and the sky and desert then added. The shade of blue used is far darker than the sky in the actual photo. This is taking into account the angles would affect the intensity. It also appears the UFO has been cut, copied, pasted, resized, and tilted in a couple of the photos.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

He also mentions the UFO was mirrored, but in every photograph the reflections on the top and bottom don't seem to mirror the actual photo. As if a generic 3D model was created separate from the scene with blue and tan used to represent and the sky and desert then added. The shade of blue used is far darker than the sky in the actual photo. This is taking into account the angles would affect the intensity. It also appears the UFO has been cut, copied, pasted, resized, and tilted in a couple of the photos.

I did test the actual picture with my ufo model as a lightsource . But I first had to compile a hdri file out of it before I could use same lighting as in th OP picture . But the picture had a poor quality so I couldn't really duplicate a feasible one.

But what you said surprised me to that my model had a more blueish top from the reflections of the sky as the OP picture didn't. Now I couldn't really figure out why . And questions raised as could it be that the original or maybe "real ufo" had some kind of material that would work as sunglasses do?

All speculations of course so I thought the same that it could be in fact be deliberately put there..

I love it when something like this comes up. You guys have so much knowledge and understanding. Always good to read through threads like this. ATS at its best.

For me, I am on the fence with this one. I want to believe it's genuine, but with it being such a clear picture, my UFO senses are tingling. I'm always open minded to anything.
With all that's going on in the world, this is a happy distraction.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
So the default isn't to assume the photographs are real and work your way out from there, or to give it equal balance between a "real" UFO or fake.

Unless there's something really unusual on the story or images, I always start by believing them, then I look for things that do not look right.

One of the reasons I do that is because it's easier to prove that something is not true than proving that something is true. For example, how can you prove that I am what I say, a Portuguese man living in Portugal? You don't have any way of proving that, but although you cannot prove it either, it's much more unlikely that I am a Martian, for example.

Also, you just have to prove that part of a case is false to turn the whole case into, at least, a suspicious case, while if you prove that part of a case is true it doesn't prove that the whole case is, as one trick used by fakers is to mix real facts with fake parts, so when people look for facts (the few that look for them) they do find them and assume the whole case is true.