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.

 

CHALLENGE: Is this real or not?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
OK,

Here's the answer:

This is a real object. It is called the 'Cloud Gate' (though most people call it 'The Bean'). It is the centerpiece of Chicago's Millenium Park.

It is about the length of a trailer and as tall as a telephone pole. Its entire exterior is made of hard, polished steel. Though it is hollow on the inside, this sculpture is entirely solid on the outside and cannot be seen through. It is a real, heavy object that is nothing like a balloon or tank of reflective liquid.

It is, simply put, a saucer made out of metal that is hollow on the inside...

...just like what we imagine a real UFO to be.

Now do you guys understand the point of this post. Pretty much everyone who has replied to this thread thought that it was CGI/artwork or a picture that had been photoshopped... when.. all the time... it has been true that this is a real, solid object that thousands of Chicagoans have seen. Ad, YES, it DOES look like a balloon or CGI...

...which is my point, exactly. Here we have an example of something that is large, solid, saucer-shaped, and metallic that LOOKS like it was made via CGI. It is, however, entirely real. You can walk up to it and touch (Ok, right now, it's under a construction tent because workers screwed it up, somehow... but you will be able to touch it again in a few months) it.

Now, on ATS, we have dozens of examples of people calling stuff 'CGI', 'fake', and 'balloons' due to features like reflectivity, smoothness, and roundness. Are these, I must ask, true tests of 'realness'?

In short: I provided a picture of a real, solid saucer-shaped object...

and everyone thought it was fake. What does that say about our ability to analyze UFO pics?




posted on May, 28 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Actually all that proves is that the people who replied aren't experts including myself who got it wrong.

It doesn't prove that the photos others have posted weren't faked.

And let's all admit some of the stuff posted on here does look really fake. The stuff that looks good seems to get fair treatment.

Also you didn't set this up as a hey i caught something weird on film kind of post, it was more of a let's play a game kind of post I think people will approach the two situations differently.

imo of course and as always

Spiderj

[edit on 5/28/2005 by Spiderj]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Spiderj,

The point is that this was a test for those that "specialize" in debunking photos. Those people should have put forth the same vigor to figure out which one was real and which one was fake, that they do to disprove a UFO photo.

If you get it correct and can explain how you came to your conclusion then it gives you creadibility. If you can continue to repeat correct results you gain a lot of creadibility. If you get it wrong with your conclusion then you loose creadibility. Continue to get it wrong and you have no creadiblity.

I did notice that there were no real efforts by the usual debunkers and the same efforts definately were not used on this "Test" as used on others. Why is this? Did they not have enough time, could they not tell, not willing to risk being wrong? Just curious.

The picture does look fake, which just goes to show that because something looks fake doesn't make it fake. I've seen photos where my immediate thought was "Fake" but seeing this makes me question my first "assumption".

I've also seen many quotes on this site from debunkers that state "The picture is too clear to be real". What? Somebody takes a clear picture and that automatically makes it fake?

I tend to think many debunkers are as big or bigger fakes as those that make fake photos in the first place and I'm a semi-skeptic my self.

Unfortunately the whole discussion is rather mute until a UFO parks it's self on the front steps of the white house. Even then the government and many of the debunkers will just call it "Swamp Gas".

[edit on 28-5-2005 by 750Aero]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   
hey 750.

i guess i took the thread wrong, i thought it was more of a "hey who's bored" sort of thing as opposed to a real challenge.

I'll agree someone spouting that it's too clear to be real is a bit silly.

There was a little thing on here a few months ago where someone posted a photo of two orbs of light and a jet claiming his friend sent him the photo or whatever and a bunch of people after just glancing at it, including me, started posting about how fake it looked, because it did look really fake.

of course the replies were defensive and people went back and forth and then of course some clever board member figured it it was simon or somebody starting up a new game and indeed the photo was a fake.

so in the end, better to be skeptical if something looks fishy than give a stranger the benefit of the doubt, at least in my opinion.

That's always something i take in to consideration when reading posts is that I know absolutely nothing about the person posting, not even their name usually so i take what they have to say and post with a grain of salt. but that's just me.

I don't believe in debunking for debunking sake but I am looking for truth whatever that may be.


This was a fun game though.

Spiderj



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
Now do you guys understand the point of this post. Pretty much everyone who has replied to this thread thought that it was CGI/artwork or a picture that had been photoshopped... when.. all the time... it has been true that this is a real, solid object that thousands of Chicagoans have seen. Ad, YES, it DOES look like a balloon or CGI...


Alright, i'm a bit late to this post and the answer is already given but i'm confused as to it's point?

For the record i was:
A) A painting
B) Photo of public art

You say it's a real yet 'pretty much everyone' thought it was CGI or photoshopped but it's pretty obvious the first image IS 'FAKE', it's a painting, regardless if it's a painting of a real object or not, the image itself is not real and it's pretty easy to see that.

The second photo looks real, as it is. The detail is much too sharp and the curved reflections are too precise for it NOT to be real, it's a digital camera image of a piece of art. You can see people under it looking up at what would be a trippy perspective.

What's the test here exactly? Can we tell the difference between a painting and a digital image? The object may be the same object depicted in the first image but it's still not real, it's a artists rendition of something that is real.

I work with Photoshop with my job all day. There's always some pretty basic signs to tell a fake from a real photo. This one was pretty easy i must say.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Spiderj,

I agree with you, all I'm interested in is the truth. I tend to look at everything with a vail of skepticism.

I personally would love to see a series of tests for both sides of the spectrum. See how accurate people are when determining if something is real or fake. Personally, I know nothing about photo shop, etc. so any talk about how they prove/disprove a photo is beyond me, basically making a novice sound like an expert, which can confuse anybody that doesn't work with photo shop.

Anyway, at least this creates an interesting discussion.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   


I tend to look at everything with a vail of skepticism.


Yeah that's me too, and I think all of us here should. I'm also in the same boat as you as what I know about photo shop and manipulation could fit on the head of a pin with room to spare.

Although I did successfully superimpose my head over a picture of lee harvey oswald once, it didn't look real but would have made a pretty snazzy avatar.

I think your idea of a photo shop show down thread is good, maybe the person who started this one would be interested in doing that.

Hey, btw did we ever find out what picture two was?

SPiderj



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Being a Chicagoan, I knew what it was, and having seen it up close, I think its really cool.

[edit on 28-5-2005 by invader_chris]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
To be very clear, here...

This is a very real object. It is a large metal sculpture that sits in downtown chicago. It looks 'fake' and unreal even in person.

The reason i used it as my example is that, of all the physical things the public can visit on earth, this is probably the closest anyone can get to something that resembles a 'real' flying saucer or UFO.

...Now, though totally and completely real, it LOOKS fake because it looks almost unhuman. Everyone above (before I revealed the truth) doubted that it was a real thing. My point is simply that when asked to decide if a real thing was fake everyone here thought it was fake because it was so smooth, clean, and reflective.

In short, what I did was show ATS a real 'flying saucer'. Everyone thought it was fake.

My point is that we cannot honestly dismiss most UFO photos because we think they are fake. That's because, when it comes to certain shapes and levels of reflectivity, the human mind cannot fathom things that border on the unreal and make accurate assessment of them. We cannot, in short, decide if a UFO looks fake or real because we do not have the necessary experience in dealing with them. In fact... a true UFO WILL look fake because it will be, by definition, something we haven't encountered in our daily lives before.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Very nice.

Now how about telling the real from the fake is a good discussion.

I just wish it was as simple as you have pointed out only.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
ok...here is my uneducated guess at the challange.


The first pic seems obviously CG work.


Now the 2nd one......COULD be a highly polished sculpture sitting on the fence.


1st FAKE

2nd REAL

Woooooops.....no. This is the SAME object from differant viewpoints. It looks solid............and large...........
Hey I dunno what that really is.........I do NOT think it is a UFO however. Seems manmade.....sculpture..........something shiney to gaze at.


(how did I do I wonder.......I am writting this before reading the other replys to the question)

[edit on 28-5-2005 by theRiverGoddess]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Once upon a time I started a thread about this very topic. It flopped...


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Oh crap!!! I started that thread exactly a year ago as this one with almost an hour difference on the time of day. How's that for a coincidence.

[edit on 28-5-2005 by TheBandit795]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I'm surprised that the first one is real. Looks like a pretty cool work of art.

You say it is a real object, but you didn't say the photo was not altered. I still don't see the reflection of the people in the object. It may be because of the angle, but that's why I thought it was fake. If it was altered to fool us, then that is not fair, it would be like a trick question.


But I understand the point of the thread, and point taken. I just wish we had more proof than a photograph to go on, for UFO cases.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
I'm surprised that the first one is real. Looks like a pretty cool work of art.

You say it is a real object, but you didn't say the photo was not altered. I still don't see the reflection of the people in the object. It may be because of the angle, but that's why I thought it was fake. If it was altered to fool us, then that is not fair, it would be like a trick question.


But I understand the point of the thread, and point taken. I just wish we had more proof than a photograph to go on, for UFO cases.


There are some angles from which you can approach "the bean"/Cloud Gate without seeing yourself until the last minute. It;s truly an amazing work of art... and I'm glad it has helped me argue my point that even very real things can appear unreal.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
WELL DONE!!!!


m...



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Guys...um where dya get the pic? just ask them!!!! email em or sumat



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Pictures of the Bean aren't at all as impressive as it is in real life. I think its the coolest thing at Millenium Park. The spitting mouth fountian thing is just retarded. When I first saw pictures about a year ago of the Bean I thought it was fake too.



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I thought the bean was fake, becuase those people in the picture really do look fake. Like their cartoon or something, so are you sure it is fully real? It looks like someone put the real bean object in a fake cartoon backround



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 321cba
I thought the bean was fake, becuase those people in the picture really do look fake. Like their cartoon or something, so are you sure it is fully real? It looks like someone put the real bean object in a fake cartoon backround


I agree with you


That was my first thought on pic #1... the object/bean/cloud gate looks real, but the people and other parts of background look cgi'd or taken from a totally different pic or scene.

The second pic looks real. A mirror reflection of a beach scene?!

BTW, interesting test




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join