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.

 

I havent seen this one before....

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
This link to C2C has an image that I havent seen before. The closeup shows an bit of an arrowhead/triangle shape to it. Can anyone tell if the have been layered or pasted in or PSed in anyway? (Stuck at work, No PS here)

Up front, a decent image IMO.




posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I don't think anything has been pasted in. I think some one took a beautiful picture through a car or van window and caught the reflection of someone's headlights in it.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I'm no expert, but it does'nt appear to have been photoshopped into the image. I tend to agree with the possibility that the picture was shot through glass, and some sort of reflection is causing it to appear in the sky.



Enlarged a bit more.



Anyone else want to take a crack at it?

From one picture it is hard to tell for sure, either way. But the skeptic in me, says no ufo. But the believer in me says, maybe.

At least I can tell you that it's not a seagull.


[edit on 7/14/2006 by Mechanic 32]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Agreed. The color of the "UFOs" are a good, close match to an ordinary light bulb, and includes inner reflections from the shades. Some kind of dumb reflection, that somebody is either too stupid to realize, or is purposely trying to pass off as authentic.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
if you read the article in detail at the very end the guy says he took it outside on the railing of the cruise liner so Reflection is not an option on this one guys

"Nate sent us this update: I wanted to say that many people have said that I was inside when I took this picture. I just wanted to comment that I was completely outside at the rail of the ship when I took this photo, thus eliminating any possibility of reflections of any kind".


[edit on 14-7-2006 by Skeptik1st]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
And yet the person that took the pictures has this to say:


Nate sent us this update: I wanted to say that many people have said that I was inside when I took this picture. I just wanted to comment that I was completely outside at the rail of the ship when I took this photo, thus eliminating any possibility of reflections of any kind.


As for me, I have no idea if it's real or not. It is interesting though.

wupy



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptik1st
if you read the article in detail at the very end the guy says he took it outside on the railing of the cruise liner so Reflection is not an option on this one guys

"Nate sent us this update: I wanted to say that many people have said that I was inside when I took this picture. I just wanted to comment that I was completely outside at the rail of the ship when I took this photo, thus eliminating any possibility of reflections of any kind".


[edit on 14-7-2006 by Skeptik1st]


Initially I looked at the picture and didn't read the article attached to it. My bad. I still say that it is a reflection, maybe lights from the ship reflecting on the lens. I don't believe that this was Photoshopped or that there is any attempt at deception. My primary reason for saying reflection is that these "objects" are large enough that if they were not reflections he would have probably seen them when the picture was taken.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Hmmm, I wonder how many people, seeing a picture like this, imnmediately assume it's a UFO.

Probably just a reflection.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
The main image with the scenery looks somewhat like a reflection but not at all up close. But like all these things, a believer will see it as real and a non believer or debunker will find all manner of explanations.

Let's be honest. Short of full disclosure, is there ever going to be a photo that proves anything. Virtually every photo in existence has been dismissed. I seriously believe that no photo of any description will do. No photograph exists or will exist that will be accepted as proof.

On the basis that we don't know what it is, yes it's a UFO until such time as the object is identified.

Hypothetical Question: If the photographer says he saw it flying and moving etc and making impossible manouvres, does that add credibility? or will the believers still believe and the non believers still have doubts?



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Prote:

I think that it can go both ways depending a persons willingness/unwillingness to believe the integrity and truthfulness of any given eyewitness testimony on something like this.

If he had indeed added that the object was the intent behind taking the photo in the first place and performing typical UFOish manuevers, some would see that fact adding credence or weight to this object being a craft of some sort.

Others may take into consideration the fact that his intent was not to photo an object, he didnt see it when the photo was taken and more or less just threw the image out there to see what others thought of it would tend to lend a certain amount of credibility to his statements and thier truthfulness.

Me personally, I wish I could look these people in the eye while listening to their statements so I could make a more in tune judgement about the story given. And even that could be misleading in itself - one who to the bone believes what they are saying can "appear" as very truthful yet be completely wrong in what was seen/experienced. Well, maybe not wrong but they may have mispercieved what happened. Stress does some funny things to memory sometimes.

As far as the image itself goes, I think that it definately could be a reflection if it wasnt for the closeup shot. I think that the fainter light to the right of it IS a reflection of the "object" possibly due to the type of lens(es) on the camera he used. That closeup gives the object a little more solidity IMO to be a simple reflection. It even has a diffenrent pixel texture that the sky around it. But, yes, it is an object that is at this point unidentifiable.

BTW, yes I think we can rule out seagull on this one as well....



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
So far verdict = undecided.

We have a genuinely Unidentified OBJECT. Still don't know whether it was actually flying, or not.

But from a still picture, I cannot disprove, either.

But there is clear evidence; that it is NOT a seagull.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
BTW, yes I think we can rule out seagull on this one as well....


On the other hand, the dots are just where one would expect to find a raptor: gliding just beneath the cloud deck on the updrafts that form under a billowing cumulous cloud.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
What I would like to know is why the enlargement has different colours and why in the first photo there are clear JPG compression artifacts noticeable but these do not appear in the enlargement.

The enlargement is a 400% enlargement, if I tried to enlarge the original photo I could never get a picture looking like the "enlargement".

Another thing, it would help believe the intentions of the guy who took the picture if the picture still had the EXIF data, but this as been erased.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Another thing, it would help believe the intentions of the guy who took the picture if the picture still had the EXIF data, but this as been erased.


Both pictures have exif data, and both have been resized from the original image size:

File name : /home/rand/cache/alaska_ufos071106b.jpg
File size : 17370 bytes
File date : 2006:07:15 08:57:56
Camera make : NIKON
Camera model : E5900
Date/Time : 2006:06:21 09:19:58
Resolution : 541 x 361
Flash used : No
Focal length : 42.1mm (35mm equivalent: 203mm)
Digital Zoom : 1.800x
Exposure time: 0.010 s (1/99)
Aperture : f/4.9
ISO equiv. : 64
Whitebalance : Auto
Metering Mode: center weight
Exposure : program (auto)

File name : /home/rand/cache/alaska_ufos071106a.jpg
File size : 58441 bytes
File date : 2006:07:15 08:57:51
Camera make : NIKON
Camera model : E5900
Date/Time : 2006:06:21 09:19:58
Resolution : 576 x 396
Flash used : No
Focal length : 42.1mm (35mm equivalent: 203mm)
Digital Zoom : 1.800x
Exposure time: 0.010 s (1/99)
Aperture : f/4.9
ISO equiv. : 64
Whitebalance : Auto
Metering Mode: center weight
Exposure : program (auto)

For comparison, here's the exif from an untouched E5900 image:

File name : /home/rand/tmp/DSCN0335.JPG
File size : 884779 bytes
File date : 2006:07:15 12:30:07
Camera make : NIKON
Camera model : E5900
Date/Time : 2005:06:01 12:36:45
Resolution : 2592 x 1944
Flash used : No
Focal length : 12.7mm (35mm equivalent: 61mm)
Exposure time: 0.0097 s (1/104)
Aperture : f/5.9
ISO equiv. : 64
Whitebalance : Auto
Metering Mode: matrix
Exposure : program (auto)


www.imaging-resource.com...
Nikon Coolpix 5900
Image Resolution: 2592x1944, 2048x1536, 1600x1200, 1024x768, 640x480
Movie Resolution: 640x480, 320x240


Hex dumps show traces of editing: image 'b' certainly went through Apple Quicktime and Adobe Photoshop:

0000:0000 .JFIFExif..MM.
0000:00c0 .......` ..NIKON.E5900..H.......H......QuickTime 7.1.2.
0000:0100 2006:07:11 11:33:28.Mac OS X 10.4.7..!
0000:02c0 .1....2006:06:21 09:19:58.2006:06:21 09:19:58...................
0000:0900 AppleMark.ÿÛ.......................................% ..#...!,!#'
0000:0e40 ¡ÃëR.Q.x¤..ÓÖ.:..[R.ÿÙÿí.>Photoshop 3.0.8BIM.í.Resolution......H
0000:1140 ....8BIM...New Windows Thumbnail...........p...K...P..bp...y....
0000:1180 ÿØÿà..JFIF.....H.H..ÿî..Adobe.d.....

So, basically, we've trying to analyze altered images.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
If it's a true pic, it could be the infamous Aurora plane of the US gov.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I cannot believe this. I think it must be reflections because they look transparrent. I have a feeling that it's headlight reflections.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand

Originally posted by ArMaP
Another thing, it would help believe the intentions of the guy who took the picture if the picture still had the EXIF data, but this as been erased.


Both pictures have exif data, and both have been resized from the original image size:


Doh!! I was looking in the wrong place.


That site kills the browser that I am using now (Opera), so I had to see the EXIF data with another program, and I was look at a different type of information thinking that I was looking at the EXIF data.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Is it possible that the only reason that the photos were modifed was to decrease image size to allow posting on C2C? Is it possible to tell from the Exif data whether there was any cropping/pasting/layering done to the images?

Is the different pixel structure around the craft on the closeup a result of resizing or insertion from another image?

Based on the photographers comments about the environmet in which the photos were taken I think we can nearly drop the reflecting lights inferences. He is on a cruise ship in the waters off of the Alaskan coast. If there is any reflectivity I would think that it would most definately have to be from the lensing of the camera. I suppose that it could be deck lighting maybe, we would have to more about the ship he was on and his position on the ship to determine that along with TOD and more environmental info (weather, etc.)

I think that the closeup shows too much of a solid shape to be summarily dismissed as reflections or other vaporous apparitions.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
Is it possible that the only reason that the photos were modifed was to decrease image size to allow posting on C2C? Is it possible to tell from the Exif data whether there was any cropping/pasting/layering done to the images?

I do not know for sure, but I think we cannot know what treatment the pictures went through.




Is the different pixel structure around the craft on the closeup a result of resizing or insertion from another image?

The result of resizing should be bigger squares, but the image should look exactly the same.

Bellow you can see an magnification of the "UFOs" of the first picture using fractal interpolation. Unfortunately, the program I have only works with monochrome pictures and only 255 colours.



But as you can see, the JPG artifacts above the leftmost UFO are still visible and the quality of the rest of the UFO, especially the whiter lower part of it, are not visible.

Bellow is the original with a 400% magnification.



In neither of those pictures I could create the smooth look of what is supposed to be the magnification of the bigger photo.



I think that the closeup shows too much of a solid shape to be summarily dismissed as reflections or other vaporous apparitions.

That is precisely what I do not like in those images, the closeup should not look better than the original, but in this case it really looks better.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
OK, i've looked at the photo and honestly, i'm quite astounded by so many 'Reflections' comments.
Generally on this board(and other places) i'm one of the first to say that the image, picture or video is not what it appears to be, or that someones story has a far more logical explanation - even though i believe we are 'visited' without doubt.
But this is a first for me, i'm genuinely impressed by this picture.

For you reflection people, have another look at the photograph. The full one.
Now, we are told that this was taken from a cruise ship. OK, so lets assume this person took it from behind a glass sheet(window or whatnot). I have a question, where are the other reflections?
The Day is obviously overcast, it also seems that the day is darkening towards evening. Add to that, these two lights, if on a ship, would be part of a network of lighting that would all be switched on. So, where is the rest of the lighting refelection.
The lights are quite bright for a reflection, so some thing else WOULD have been reflected in the picture too.

Now, as for another possibility, car lights, again not quite.
Look again at the pictures(both).
If these were a reflection of headlights then there would be some more of the car visible.
Instead what we have is a bright light on top and underneath(in both cases) we have a gray coloured rectangular shape(maybe saucer but can't quite tell).

One final note is that the objects are not facing the same way.
The object on the left(from our perspective) is on a dive left motion at around a 45 degree angle(from 90 position), the on the right is in a sharper right dive say around 60 degrees.

No, this is truly a UFO, in that i believe without doubt that this is not a refklection.
I'm not sure what it actually is, be it Alien, Man or 'other' but its a find that is worthy of proper discussion as opposed to outright banishment as a 'reflection'.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join