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.

 

Daylight disc...let's get it on. Part 1

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Hi,
During the past couple of weeks I've been here I get alot of questions regarding image analysis. How do you tell this from that, how do you prove this or that, whats the protocol, etc.

I thought it'd be good to show ya what you go thru from start to finish. It also may give you a bit more to apply to your favorite or new UFO photos, providing you have better reference then web photos. (For a walk along like this it'll be enough)

I have the following information:
Shot with a digital camera an Olympus C-5000 5.0 megapixel auto focus/normal focus range of 50cm. Focus for shots is auto. 2 shot in somewhat of a succession, the third at a different location approximately 80 yards away, in the opposite direction.

2 Photos show a structured object, silver in color, in low altitude. Some details are visible in the higher resolution original copies, which are too large to post here, we'll keep this walkthru somewhat user friendly. The third shot shows considerable distance, shot throught a wooded area. The shooter is irrelevant to what I'm outlining here, no we'll move on.

Ok, here's the shots.


shot 1


shot 2


shot 3

1 and 2 were shot facing south.
3 was shot facing north.

What first comes to mind? I know it might be hard, but notice the lighting difference in 1&2 as opposed to 3. Note the highlight, if facing north in 1 and 2, is to the right facing of our location shot. 3 (albeit harder to see online) is at the back of the disc. This immediate suggests the shots were NOT shot in succession. 1 and 2 clearly show the sun positioned earlier in the day.
So what? Well, for one it suggests there has been at least one untruth from the "shooter". They were NOT shot in succession, or even within the same hour. 1 and 2 were shot most likely before 12 noon or a little after, and 3 shot in the afternoon.
Strike One.

What else? Forget notions of "well it looks like CGI" or "it looks like a thrown model", you can prove nothing yet. Statements like that lead to you being in a psotion to eat crow when the real work is done. Fact is, at face value the thing looks large and somewhat distant in 1 and 2, and even more so in 3.

In shot 1 and 2, can we determine if the disc is between the shooter and the houses in the back? How do you think you can determine that? The tree tops you see in 1 and 2 are roughly 40 feet away. How much farther is the disc? What about in shot 3?

There's your question. Just look at them and find your answer, and then explain why you think it's as far as you do. After I get about 5 or so replies, we'll do the next part. Dont jump ahead, as it'll just confuse the explanation for everyone else....just stick to the first issue.

1) How far away in each shot?
2) How do you come to that distance?

Have fun, and please note that these images are copyright 2005 by Hypergraphics Imaging, and any reproduction is strictly prohibited without permission. These images are tagged with tracking, and if they go from this site, and get posted anywhere else, I WILL know it, and I dont wanna have to get nasty with anyone. Cool?

This is gonna be a neat ride, buckle in, and lets have some fun.

EDIT: Before I get innundated, this may or may not be a fictional case. Either way, it's irrelevant for this walkthru. We're going on analysis technique for one instance on one set of pictures.

SECOND EDIT: My bad, I had shot 1 and 2 out of sequence (mis-labled). It's now corrected. Sorry, totally my fault.


[edit on 13-4-2005 by jritzmann]

[edit on 14-4-2005 by jritzmann]




posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   
great post !


i like what your doing here


it will teach a noob- photo analysis guy like me a few things
i dont know anything about this stuff

but im going to go ahead and say that

1 ) the object looks very close up and small
2 ) the object also looks far away and large

i can see both perspectives equally
so agian im quite confused
lol

i looked for shadows in pic 1 and 2; but the trees seem to be blocking any view of the shadow we (might) see

now dont get wrong; i have seen some ufos fly overhead with my own eyes
and the stuff ive seen did resemble this vaguely
but then agian dont all saucers look vaguely similar ? lol


from as far as i can tell; just by visually inspecting the photos 1-2 up close; the photos seem real
but then agian Jurrassic Park looked REAL and it was made with primitive computer graphics 10 or so years ago...
so looks dont mean anything

but ill go ahead and go with you on this

if i were to judge the photos as *up close small objects*
---- id guess it were no more than 10 to 20 feet away and by the angle of movement from 1 to 2; id even go so far as to say the object was Thrown and acts like a frisbee; and is falling to the ground

if i were to judge the photos as far away and large
---- id guess that the object was no less than 100meters away *roughly 300 feet* and its size is around 30 foot diameter

keep in mind im no expert and im just Guessing
and im not smart enough to know wether the object is actually far away or close up
from my own point of view; without any signs pointing to its *distance* like shadows etc;

id say theres no actual real way to tell how far away it is

well
thats my attempt
as poor as it is


hope some others post soon so we can go on to part 2



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   
My guesses


1-slightly more than image 2 (look at the tree density, the homes)
2-30 feet
3-very hard to tell. comparing size of prior images with objects of size... maybe 200 feet ?



edited because of the mix up.


[edit on 14-4-2005 by Dulcimer]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
hey btw
just out of curiousity

why does everyone get all ticked off about copyrights and others posting their photos
ive seen it countless of times with countless people

i mean come on tho
seriously
lol
its just a stupid picture
its not like you painted the mona lisa or something

its a worthless photo

its like me getting pissed that you stole a half-eaten burger out of my trash can
pretty rediculous indeed


*dont take it wrong , i just am kinda confused by seeing literally thousands of people get mad about photos being "theirs" and stuff*
also i would never use anyone elses stuff
i was never a theif and nor will i ever become one so dont worry mate

i try my best not to piss anyone off you know lol

now in a world where people Shared things

i might be inclined to make a copy of the pic and show it to a friend or two

but since its copyrighted and its not mine
lol
ill leave it alone because i dont want to get sued thrown in jail and executed in the electric chair over some pointless graphics or photos

(*notice im a great rambler *



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:36 AM
link   
My interest in copyright is purely not to have the photo posted and touted by some joker as being "real", when nobody knows anything about it yet.

Thats how hoaxes start, and it's what I combat against rather harshly in my chosen angle of study in this field. We're not out to confuse or mislead anyone, and photos like this of already dubious nature find their way to everything from other net sites or even Television, and are accompanied by B.S. stories, and heresay...muddying the waters.
So thats why...not because it's anything posessive or anything like that.

However, I have done copyrighted artwork in years past that has ended up on album covers, taken from one of my company websites. I was never asked for permission, and the album was sold, so some jackwad got paid....and he got paid using a product with my work on it. I never saw a dime. I'd have gladly sold him the artwork or possibly even given it to them...but no one asked. So they got a nice letter from a lawyer.
Totally separate circumstance and reason, but it is why some people get pissy over images. My artwork takes a long time to create, and it's not easy. Bottom line, it's my work and I get paid. When I dont, and someone steals it, they get served. It's business.

This however is just done to protect anyone from ever believing some crap story about a photo that looks good, but may not be all it seems.

I dont deal in any cash whatsoever in analysis, never have and never will. I personally feel it to be unethical to accept money for analysis no matter how many hours it takes. Anyone who does accept cash for such services as it applies to UFO studies, will in my opinion give the public or the shooter any answer he wants to hear. He paid you, and youre nothing more then an analyst on a leash. Unethical.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I don't know how to debunk these photos, but it obviously looks fake.

To me it looks like the shadows from the houses and the saucer don't match up. There's no shadow on the right side of the saucer like there are shadows on the right side of the houses. The saucer looks more crisp than the houses... like the picture of the houses have a higher contrast? More faded looking? It appears closer to the shooter than the houses.



[edit on 14-4-2005 by CloudlessKnight]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
thanks for the reply to my question jritzmann!

i didnt know how cutthroat the buisness was!
are you Serious people will take someone elses work and SELL it???

People do suck man ; and that proves it....its sad

Now i understand why you have to painstakingly cover yourself
because people are evil lol....

i should have known that already but i guess i wasnt thinking very straight


hey well thanks for explaining it to me and
Im Very sorry you had to go thru that type of legal BS because someone stole your work

I understand 100% why you copyright it now
I Would TOO !

nothing wrong with protecting yourself from future problems /theives

keep up the good work jritz!



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I'm not any good at estimating distance but the lighting indeed seems abit akward on the saucer. Looking at that you'd think that sunlight is coming from behind the shooter, but the houses etc. dont support that. Am I totally off?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
The only image flaw I have found on this... is surprizingly just JPG Compression.

I just sampled the 1st image.
Odd tho... this is either rendered DIRECTLY onto the pre-existing image or a really good fake.

Color Morph Showing JPG Compression (Allows you to see altered images AKA: Photoshopped)


Something I found of intrest.
You can see the colors of the trees reflected below... seems a tad out of place for its angle in the original image.



EDIT - Forgot my opinion on these... heh.

Personally... fake.
The ships seem a little too crip as also they are the center of attention... colors seem to bright overall not as they should be.

But whoever did this... bravo, and nicely done.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Xabora]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Shots were taken from 3rd floor balcony. No, the light on all these checks out. It would be above (of course) and slightly behind (almost noontime sun) the shooter. The houses in the background are showing light on their roofs. Note that the shadows on the ground by the houses are close to the buildings edge. Heh? Right, sun is almost direct overhead. Disc is showing correct light for that direction.

Shadows on the disc...well, the disc is almost chrome-ish...so thats not going to show shadows in the normal way is it? Nope.

More contrast then the houses...well sure, the houses obviously are farther away. Focus on the image he's shooting is what the auto focus does.

"I don't know how to debunk these photos, but it obviously looks fake."

I'm not tryin to slap your knuckles, but thats like "I dont know how to drive a car, but I'll pick ya up in an hour.


Seriously though, I'm not sure what "obviously looks fake" means. Thats real subjective, and I might point out that some "unknowns" photographed and verified look a little wierd too....this aint a picture of a bird. It's outside what we normally see in the air. If we threw a semi truck in the air that high it'd look fake too. Many dollars and many followers have been gained by pictures alot less good looking then these. Believe that.

Anyway...so far we have the guesses that the disc is about 30 ft away.

Again, based on the trees being 40 ft from shooter, how large would you say the disc is, how far, and why? Dont just gimme a number. Tell me what makes you arrive at your guess.
Hint? Ok....
The shots all involved no zoom. Think field of view.

EDIT: Take note of the disc in shot 1...before it appears to be over the trees. See any reflection of trees in the bottom? How bout shot 2 when it appears to be right over the trees...notice the reflection? Hmmm....ponderous man.

EDIT2: Xabora-crisp is not the issue. We might as well figure as technology gets better in terms of cameras and video, being as fantastic as it is now, we're going to start seeing ALOT better footage of UFOs. UFOs are not always blurry images in bad photos. Also, if the disc was slow moving, framing would be acceptable. Shutter speed on the camera would blur a fast moving image, this thing must have been almost still...? Hovering towards? Also remember auto focus, is going to lock onto what youre shooting. If he's shooting the disc...eh? Gonna be sharp.

Hmmm...if it's over the trees in shot 2....

Ponder on...part 2 tomorrow during lunch.

Nite nite.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by jritzmann]

[edit on 14-4-2005 by jritzmann]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
i would estimate the size to be a bit bigger than a pie plate, or a dinner plate.

just looking at the tree tops, and then look how small it gets far away. it cant be very big. i could be horribly wrong.


Cug

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
I have the following information:
Shot with a digital camera an Olympus C-5000 5.0 megapixel auto focus/normal focus range of 50cm. Focus for shots is auto. 2 shot in somewhat of a succession, the third at a different location approximately 80 yards away, in the opposite direction.


First thing. This info is not definitive as it can be changed, but many people don't know about the Exif info

The camera used was a HP Photosmart 735 3.2 MP camera not an Olympus C-5000
deck0.jpg was taken at 11:10:11 on 04/03/05
deck1.jpg was taken at 11:10:32 on 04/03/05
yard_rear.jpg was taken at 03:54:28 on 04/05/05

So what we have here is two possible untruths 1. The third picture was taken 2 days later and it looks like the time was reset incorrectly (unless the moon was VERY bright
) or the Exif data has been tampered with. 2. the camera that was actually used was of lower capability and diffrent manufacture than what was described.

EDITED to add. The time on the 3rd pic might not be incorrect.. the camera could be set on am/pm and not a 24 hr clock.

If the camera used was an Olympus C-5000 then the images show deliberate tampering and can not be used to draw any conclusions.



1) How far away in each shot?
2) How do you come to that distance?


1&2 The lens is set at a focal length of 9.6mm the fstop is 6.3 HP do a little calculating and I see the focus range is about 10 feet to infinity. The object seems to have the best focus and I'd guess it is from 15 to 20 feet away.

In yard_rear.jpg I would not draw any conclusions on that.


EDIT: One more thing, the images were edited using Adobe Photoshop CS for Windows, (on 2005:04:13 at 22:42:10 shortly before posting) And that alone would increase suspicions about the authenticity of the photos as most people don't use photoshop for snapshots. And you have to assume that people who do own photoshop also know how to use it.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Cug]


Cug

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
"I don't know how to debunk these photos, but it obviously looks fake."

I'm not tryin to slap your knuckles, but thats like "I dont know how to drive a car, but I'll pick ya up in an hour.


Seriously though, I'm not sure what "obviously looks fake" means. Thats real subjective, and I might point out that some "unknowns" photographed and verified look a little weird too....this aint a picture of a bird. It's outside what we normally see in the air. If we threw a semi truck in the air that high it'd look fake too. Many dollars and many followers have been gained by pictures alot less good looking then these. Believe that.


Actually "just looks fake" can be a strong indicator. The human eye is used to seeing shadows and light work is certain ways.. when they are off you might not be able to figure out why it looks fake but you still know. The old campfire ghost story trick of holding a flashlight under your chin gives the person an "scary" look because the light and shadows are in the wrong places. What's the difference between a good painting and a masterpiece? correct use of light and shadow is the answer in many cases, it just looks better.

Anyway back to the pictures

A superimposed image of the first 2 shots, I lined everything up using the trees and houses. the object is falling.


Another thing to look for when you verifing pictures is the source of the pictures.. these pics are hosted on the site of a movie prop collector. Yea I'm bored today



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cug

1) How far away in each shot?
2) How do you come to that distance?


1&2 The lens is set at a focal length of 9.6mm the fstop is 6.3 HP do a little calculating and I see the focus range is about 10 feet to infinity. The object seems to have the best focus and I'd guess it is from 15 to 20 feet away.

In yard_rear.jpg I would not draw any conclusions on that.



Thanks for putting that in words I couldn't. The most obvious thing about the first two photo's to me was the short focal length, indicating the trees are far behind the 'object'. Is all that stuff really recorded on a digital photo?



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
How are you able to get information on the camera from the picture? Is it attached, and can only been seen using profesional software? Or can this be done in Photoshop?

To me the disc looks to close to be real, and not level to the ground in either photo.

Looks like a small model tossed into the air.

When you zoom in, the resolution goes to crap at the same time as the trees, so must be approximately the same distance?

[edit on 4/14/2005 by Hal9000]


Cug

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
The Exif data is used in pretty much in every digital camera. Ideally it's used by the printing machines to help with making adjustments that result in a better looking print. It's also used by some cataloging programs to help find an image in a large collection.

All I have to do is right click on the file and click on properties



But I use Linux, it might be there on windows too. If it doesn't all you have to do is open the jpg in a text editor (Notepad should work).

The Photoshop info is a bit deeper, I ran a program called strings on it, it just shows you lines of text in a binary file. but Notepad should work here also.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   


ÿØÿà JFIF  H H ÿá
ÌExif MM * 
   †   –       ¨   °(    1   ¸2   Ó    ‡i   è Hewlett-Packard hp photosmart 735 H  H Adobe Photoshop CS Windows 2005:04:13 22:42:10 ‚š   n‚   vˆ"    ˆ'   d   0220   ~   ’‘   ‘   ¦’
 ®’   ¶’
 ¾’
 Æ’   Î’   Ö’    ’    ’    ’
  Þ  0100            ,    ð¤   ¤   ¤   ¤   æ¤   ¤    ¤
   ¤   Å B@ w d2005:04:03 23:10:11 2005:04:03 23:10:11 u d  d  d 5 d
| d ' d Å d d    R98   0100        ^   f(       n  
V H  H ÿØÿà JFIF  H H ÿí Adobe_CM ÿî Adobe d€ ÿÛ „ 


Well that gives you some of the info but most isn't decipherable to us 'humans' (using the term loosely since we all know there's more aliens than humans here).
There's also a lot more info in this pic than usual, when I've open pics in text editors before I've never seen camera models listed - maybe those pics were just scanned?


Cug

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Scroll down a bit, and make sure you have word wrapping enabled. it's there.

Well I tried to post it, but the Exif data is in XML and the board thinks it's HTML so it strips ooout most of it.

One more thing.. I just noticed that the cameras clock looks to be set 12 hours off. so the date in the last pic should be one day earlyer.. but still taken at a much later time than the first 2 pics.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Cug]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Alright j-ritz, here's my opinion, and it very well could be laughable in the end. Don't forget that to me an Etch-A-Sketch is high tech equipment.


Shots 1 and 2 were taken from some kind of raised platform in order to make the distance of the object harder to determine. I'd say this object is hanging from the end of a long rod by some light test fishing line. The rod is being held from behind the photographer. The distance of the object seems to be between ten and twenty feet away. The shadows and light directions have already been discussed, so I won't rehash.

I can't figure anything out about shot 3. Too hard to tell.

Sorry if I jumped ahead. I'm ready for Part 2.

Peace


p.s. I do not see any kind of evidence for a propulsion system on this craft.


[edit on 14-4-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
jritzmann, you're the image expert, but looks to me like pic 3 could easily be a model suspended from one of the tree branches. As mentioned, lines such as fishing line can easily be scrubbed out nowadays, so nothing too hard there.

As an aside, the method of pics 1 and 2 may be what Meier used for his infamous pics. I think you're somewhat familiar with that...no?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join