Sorry if this has been posted already I've fallen behind on this thread.
/38v95o
Any chance the pic was part of this?
Could it be a drop of water?

Btw rampagent is likely a fraud. He has refused my attempts to independently verify his story. Not a good sign.

Originally posted by cheepnis
Sorry if this has been posted already I've fallen behind on this thread.
/38v95o
Any chance the pic was part of this?
Could it be a drop of water?

Btw rampagent is likely a fraud. He has refused my attempts to independently verify his story. Not a good sign.

At the top of this page under the menu bar you can see the two "Hoax #1" and "Hoax #2", one of them compares the picture to that picture you found.

I saw a UFO around the time of this report. The shape is infact similar. However what i saw was far greater then what you see in the picture. What I saw was pure metallic and it didn't look like any other ufo. It was not of a circle shape, it was more elongated. There where a lot of curves on it . If one was to see it one would have clearly seen the outline of a door and part of the window, it was surprising similar to almost what I believe to be car (i saw it). I don't really care if anyone doesn't believe me, I know what I saw and I am just speaking to tell the truth

if you want to contact me:
AIM s/n: pistolpacked

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
No it doesn't, like i said, most people KNOW that a blob can be put on to an image as i siad before.

Proof positive that an anomaly can be introduced to an image whilst retaining compression markings and the overall integrity of the image, subverting any analysis on brightness or pixilation etc. If it’s not proof how about evidence, substantiation or corroboration?

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
The original looks a little bit more "there" than yours does, so PROOVE is a little too strong a word......."confirms",that images can be altered, may be more appropriate.

Six and half a dozen.

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
Ok, thats cool, but there would be NO point in compairing the anomalies in your attampt as there would abviously be too many.

I'm not following you, too many what?

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
Im not trying to be rude, im just merely pointing out that i think all you prooved was that blobs can be put on images, which i think most were aware of.

k, so it's proof, err, I mean confirmation that, had I created a nice looking 3D image and incorporated that into the image instead, it shows that it can be done in a straight forward manner.

Unless I'm proved/confirmed wrong by one of the analysis guys on here?

here is the photo that nobody_1 just posted so you don't have to d/l it thru the site he posted.



edit- photo removed- intrepid beat me to it...

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Lab Rat]

Originally posted by Lab Rat
OK- I may be incorrect, but here is my take on the location.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Lab Rat]

Thank you for finnaly puting up the diagram of this, and kudos to the person who found where the 1st photo came from, at this point we have the exteme possiblitly that this is a fake, and take in to acount the phone from the man in japan, and his photo, so we now have to move on and take a diffrent aproach, and let this part play out.


Things we can do now take time and research. It is mentioned that flights were delayed. Unfortunatly, the flights were most likely held in flight patterns well above the low could ceiling on that day. THe flights in a pattern would however of had the opertunity to see the object "Shoot through the clouds, and leave a hole in the clouds". There is a decent chance that people on these flights could have seen the object burst through the clouds, and mabye as well as the hole in the clouds.

!st we would have to found out the flights that were cancelled, then find people on the flight, and then find out if they indeed saw the event, and then get thier acount

Problems, i doubt any of the information we need to get can be accessed by us citizens. Things such as passenger manifest are most likely destroyed after some time.

Have to go to work now, but ill be back in 8 hours, i think that we should form a kind of commitee, to start to look into this and try to get ahold of some of the information. Got to go.

Someone else pointed this out, but wouldn't the alleged UFO be right in the path of planes landing on the runway? If you compare the congestion pic to the UFO one, you can see that the UFO would be close to incoming planes...and wouldn't that have been a HUGE problem?

And why would it take someone over two months to send this photo? I don't think money was paid for the picture, so that can't be it. Wouldn't someone release the picture soon after it happened, or at the very latest when the story broke on major news networks?

Originally posted by Semiazas
Is it possible to change the EXIF code and edit out the "Adobe"?

Yes it is, and it's also possible to change the creation date of an image too.

The other thing is that craft were have we seen it before .
Its the craft from the china ufo video anyone agree?

Sorry WW, I will ask in the other thread.


[edit on 1/25/2007 by Hal9000]

If the "TKain" post about position is assumed:

Since both photo are taken in the same direction,

- Congestion photo shows planes landing from SW into the ENE wind on 4R, which seems reasonable.

- UFO photo might have planes landing into to W or SW wind on 22L, which also seems reasonable.

The UFO is at the other end of the runway. It would be visible to the planes as they land and not be in the inbound pattern. For it to have even a chance to appear over the terminal, someone would have to be to the north of the terminals and then misjudge to UFO's distance in back of the building so that it seemed to be over the building.

I looks like the shooter could be at the hotel and get the picture with the correct angle to the line of inbound planes.

It almost looks like a line of steel power line towers across the far background of the picture. Any know of any there near the airport?

k, so it's proof, err, I mean confirmation that, had I created a nice looking 3D image and incorporated that into the image instead, it shows that it can be done in a straight forward manner

Yes, but i have yet to see any one make a "nice 3D image" and incorporate it, to compair.

you prooved the image can be miniputed, not faked.

Faked implies that you have "fooled" people into believing it was real. you did not.

you confirned that a "similar" copy could be made.

I cannot "prove" my skills at building a house by "confirming" i can build a shed.

Prove is a strong word, thats all im saying.

Peace

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]