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.

 

Big UFO pic! Amazing!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Here is an amazing photo of a ship hovering above a van...




I dunno, but this looks authentic.

[edit on 30-1-2006 by sanctum]




posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Pictures like that make the whole Alien-UFO community in general a laughing stock within the media and people who don't believe. Thats what they see they laugh and dismiss it they see none of the other more "believeable" photos or "official" documents that sound and look like they could give someone an open mind.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by Mikomi]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I am a firm believer in aliens now! That pic rocks.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
My guess:
Something they found on a scrapyard and attached some balls from ballbearings on top of it and put it on a string.

It shure look autentic, by that I mean, It´s something real, not CGI.

Here is the pic
iwasabducted.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
What in a scrapyard looks like that?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
WOW
now i truely belive. LOL. that looks like a pully system for belts off an engine or something.


jra

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
That's one of Billy Miers (Did I spell that right?) photos. I consider him to be a fraud. Also that UFO isn't as big as it looks. Note how it's slightly out of focus compaired to everything else. It's actually quite close to the camera. This technique is used in movies a fair bit, when they want something to look bigger than it actually is. Unfortuantely for Billy, that he didn't focus his lens appropriately.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
can some1 give me another link to this pic...for some reason the pic u posted is reaplced with another pic that says "this website stole from iwasabducted.com" ...ya idk but a link would be appreciated



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
JRA.....

I respect you opinion, and your right to one, however i must disagree.....

Look at it carefully. There is nothing that indicates this is a fraud. In my opinion, it is genuine.

Even if this particular pic is a fraud, I am not denying the existence of UFOs...that would be downright nutty, keeping in mind all the evidence.





[edit on 30-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Yeah, how are you guys seeing this? All I see is the 'stolen from iwasabducted' thing. I went to that site but I can't find what you're talking about. Could someone post it?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
can we have a link to the pic that the post is about i do see it all i see is a jpg image saying "this site is stealing from iwasabducted.com".....as if



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   
The easiest way to see the pic is to go to www.iwasabducted.com...
, then type the rest in at the end of the addy.

It's really not worth the effort, tho



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Sorry but that doesnt really strike me as a genuine pic.

Could you imagine the furor that would cause if it was genuine? If I had taken that i would have plastered it all over the local news by now.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
LKD, the more research you do into Billy Meier's photos & claims, you'll then see the indications that this photo and all of his photos of UFOs are frauds. You might want to check out this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't deny the existence of UFOs either but B.M.'s story is just one big "B.M." if you know what I mean.


Originally posted by LetKnowledgeDrop
JRA.....

I respect you opinion, and your right to one, however i must disagree.....

Look at it carefully. There is nothing that indicates this is a fraud. In my opinion, it is genuine.

Even if this particular pic is a fraud, I am not denying the existence of UFOs...that would be downright nutty, keeping in mind all the evidence.





[edit on 30-1-2006 by LetKnowledgeDrop]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
It has to be one of the worst fakes ever . I could do this in a couple of seconds and have better results.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
That would be WAY to easy to fake. Anyone who thinks that is geniune for a second cant have seen some of the better pictures that people have put on this site in the past.



[edit on 30-1-2006 by conspiracy123]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
LMAO

I believe in ETs more than the next person next to me, but I also believe they don't travel the galaxies in a saucer pan lid



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
That IS a fake, and I can prove it.

In a digital photot, there are artifacts when something goes from dark to light, or vice versa.

To explain, below is a close up of the hills against the sky.



Notice the artifacts above the tree line, the squares in the sky. This is what happens in digital graphics almost always.

Now here is a close up of the edge of the craft.



Notice how it lacks the artifacts off the edge in the light sky. THis means it was photoshopped in. While the craft does have some artifacts, it is a big difference in the quantity of them compared to similar area's of the graphic.

I do web development for a large insurance company and do much of their graphics. I know digital graphics. If I was to create a fake, I would add artifacts and then no one would be able to tell if it was real or not - sort of like I did here. Good thing the creator of this fake didn't know that.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
That IS a fake, and I can prove it.

In a digital photot, there are artifacts when something goes from dark to light, or vice versa.


Good find! It really annoys me how people fake these UFO videos and pictures. I mean what do they even get out of it?


[edit on 30-1-2006 by conspiracy123]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
That IS a fake, and I can prove it.

In a digital photot, there are artifacts when something goes from dark to light, or vice versa.

To explain, below is a close up of the hills against the sky.



Notice the artifacts above the tree line, the squares in the sky. This is what happens in digital graphics almost always.

Now here is a close up of the edge of the craft.



Notice how it lacks the artifacts off the edge in the light sky. THis means it was photoshopped in. While the craft does have some artifacts, it is a big difference in the quantity of them compared to similar area's of the graphic.

I do web development for a large insurance company and do much of their graphics. I know digital graphics. If I was to create a fake, I would add artifacts and then no one would be able to tell if it was real or not - sort of like I did here. Good thing the creator of this fake didn't know that.




Umm, it's not Photoshop...this was out long before that, or home computers for that matter. There's nothing "telling" about the shot's pixel average, other then maybe a bad scan or compression.

It's a small model, close to the camera, and some of the found objects used to make it have been identified:



More Meier silliness.







 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join