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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
It's not done digitally, but it is fake. As others have said, the object is close to the camera and the depth of field is not wide enough to keep both the foreground and background in focus.




posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
As an exercise to show how easy it is to do something like this, I made a fake of my own. It's not particularly convincing - to me, at least - but alas, here it is.



The only digital manipulation was to remove the string holding it up. If I had used fishing line, probably no manipulation would have been neccessary.

My point is that these things are easy to fake and if I had spent two hours instead of two minutes, I could've probably come up with something fairly convincing.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
If it were done digitally, there would be no artifacts. Being done from a real photo would cause some artifacts (which this has), but still detectable by quantity comparison. The only way to fool it by looking at the pxels, is if it was a model in the actual photo hanging by a string.

So, it my guess that the UFO was added to the photo after it was taken, then digiatally copied. I knew it came from an older phtograph, but you can still spot a fake from the artifacts.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
The artifacts are compression artifacts and don't have anything to do in particular with the original image, unless the camera heavily compresses it. Depending on the sensor type of a digital camera, there can be a color bleed on contrasting edges, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. (CCD sensors have the color pixels laid out horizontally inside one conglomerate pixel, if I recall correctly, whereas CMOS sensors have the color pixels stacked depthwise, avoiding the color bleed)

I remain unconvinced that it was Photoshopped in and am quite certain it is a model on a string. I'm not saying it can't be photoshopped - it can, and fairly easily - but honestly, why go to the trouble when the object you're inserting is already a miniature? I don't mean to be rude or snobbish, I just personally think it's a miniature.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
If it were done digitally, there would be no artifacts. Being done from a real photo would cause some artifacts (which this has), but still detectable by quantity comparison. The only way to fool it by looking at the pxels, is if it was a model in the actual photo hanging by a string.

So, it my guess that the UFO was added to the photo after it was taken, then digiatally copied. I knew it came from an older phtograph, but you can still spot a fake from the artifacts.


Nah, dude, youre talking pasteup? How you gonna paste up a blurred object? There were no computers involved, and the artifacts youre talking about arent artifacts of anything but scan quality. This is 35mm film, scanned after being printed most likely in a book. If you're seeing anything it'd be moire pattern. The model was there in frame, thats why it's out of focus..it's close. Simple as that.
A failed attempt at a forced perspective shot of a model. If it'd been moved away a bit you get the focus fooled. Like this one I did:


or this one:


Sorry but there's no way anything was inserted after, computer or otherwise...it simply wasnt available technology for one shot or even a few.

It's just a model on a string way too close.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
It's just a model on a string way too close.


You could very well be right - it may be. It does make sense in the differnt focus points.

I still think it was photoshopped (or pastup - however it was said before PC's) because the very noticably difference in the quantity of artifacts in the craft compared to the rest of the photo.

I very well can be wrong this time, but the method I described above is still something to remember to spot fakes and it does work with both digital photo's and photo's that were digitized from regular film.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
The image posted looks very sharp (modern image no grain) so I have to wonder why is it in black and white.

Pictures in black and white are much easier to pass off. There is less color or envirinoment matching involved. Gray values are more easier to spoof.
In the sample image below its easier to see the image is a 3D composite. In black and white its easier to blend the target areas and values.
If you throw in multiple or real bad compression and obvious details get washed up.


[edit on 30-1-2006 by nullster]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by godservant

Originally posted by jritzmann
It's just a model on a string way too close.


You could very well be right - it may be. It does make sense in the differnt focus points.

I still think it was photoshopped (or pastup - however it was said before PC's) because the very noticably difference in the quantity of artifacts in the craft compared to the rest of the photo.

I very well can be wrong this time, but the method I described above is still something to remember to spot fakes and it does work with both digital photo's and photo's that were digitized from regular film.


I disagree, really all the artifacts are from whatever compression (lossy or lossless) might have done. This is again, not an original scan, but one from a printed book. There's no way an original Meier scan is out on the net.

Why your artifact exists on the mountians and not on the disc on the viewed shot is due to contrast on the disc vs the mountains. Lossy Compression is trying to viewout items not visible based on human perception. It's averaging rates are based on that. Lossless compression is trying to reatin everything of the original scan. More pronouned, less artifact. Thats all, and there's really not any base for proving or disproving anything in that (unless it's a poorly alpha'd edge or something)



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
Thats all, and there's really not any base for proving or disproving anything in that


Could elaborate on that a bit please? Are you saying that artifacts cannot be used to judge a fake?



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Not artifacts like that, in this case anyway.

Of course there's a plethora of others that do/can lead you one way or another. This shot is scanned, compressed cropped god knows how many times, possibly level adjusted, contrasted, all from 90% chance, a book.

The artifacts here are nothing here but compression.

If youre talking typical photoshopped pasting, you might have a hoaxer starting with an already compressed image. You can tell that pretty quick...but thats a bad hoaxer. Lossy after the fact/work is only making that worse. There are many other ways to tell without these compression issues...they dont tell you what youre basing the contention on. In other cases/shots they might, but there will be other more prevailent issues that should be seen first, that should be the real issues with anything.

So...yeah artifacts as you desribe dont always tell the tale and are rather unreliable. I mean thats really already shown to be the case.

EDIT: a good article on compression issues:
kt.ijs.si...

[edit on 30-1-2006 by jritzmann]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale



I wouldn't trust any alien that flew around in a hubcap.

I'm trying to search on the internet and find the video of the Somerset, England UFO sighting that was on Out of the Blue, but lo and behold I can't find it, not even a freakin' still. I wanted to get some expert analysis on it.

Does anyone know the sighting I'm talking about and where to find it?

Peace



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

So...yeah artifacts as you desribe dont always tell the tale and are rather unreliable. I mean thats really already shown to be the case.

EDIT: a good article on compression issues:
kt.ijs.si...

[edit on 30-1-2006 by jritzmann]


Thanks jritzmann, I've learned more - thanks.

I have, however, seen faked photo's that were converted to digital that you could tell were were faked by using the artifacts. I know why you artifacts and I know there are other ways to tell, but I now know more. Thanks.

I believe I might be wrong.... THIS time.
But note, it is still a good way to tell especially with digital pics.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
I believe I might be wrong.... THIS time.
But note, it is still a good way to tell especially with digital pics.


That depends. All in all, seriously, it's not very viable...only so in those pics that are so blatantly obviously photoshopped with some compressed image used for the original...thats the only time.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
i dont see anything?!



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by topsecretombomb
i dont see anything?!


I don't know, do you?



Anyways, here I finally got it. All I have to say is are you kidding me? The O.P. can't be serious.






posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx

Originally posted by topsecretombomb
i dont see anything?!


I don't know, do you?



Anyways, here I finally got it. All I have to say is are you kidding me? The O.P. can't be serious.





I dont know the original poster, but those who believe in Billy Meier, believe it, and aggressively defend it.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 05:34 PM
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.




Don't ridicule yourself godservant. The photograph by Meier was taken on March 26, 1981 At Säckler Durchstelen. The Photoshop program was developed by John and Thomas Knoll in 1987-88. First do some serious research before you post a lie here and pretend to deceive people.

And you say you know digital graphics and do web development graphic for insurance companies ? You lack of knowledge of the world's most popular design program as Photoshop just reveal you are an amateur.
Don´t try to insult our intelligence.

Listen boy, if you want to do a good debunk here first learn the art of debunking and don't invent things, you and your photoshop artifacts !!



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Hehe, it's funny all the Billy Meier debunkers are out here in this thread


I wanted to believe that Billy Meier was really being visited by humans from space but alas, it seems pretty obvious it's a hoax



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
So this van looks to be about 10-15ft from the tree line, yet this huge UFO, which appears to be [based on distance of van from trees] to be 30-40ft in diameter is supposed to be hovering over it and not hitting those trees???

Why does the UFO appear out of focus yet the van is sharp??? Well..because this poor excuse for a ball bearing decorated [oh and probably so aerodynamic too] UFO is being held up in front of the camera while shooting the van in the distance. The attempt to balance the apeture to make them at least appear in the same space is not even that good.

Sad attempt...suprised Bigfoot isn't poking his head out of the woods!



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Seriously, its sad to see all these debunkers. And I do believe in Bigfoot, and so should you. Do some research, dude.



new topics




 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join