Alien on Ilkley Moor Photographed?- 1 December 1987, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times

reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 02:00 AM by optimus primal

reply to post by the00110001

Now there's some interesting photo manipulation! Excellent job! You really brought out a lot of detail there. It does fit his description quite well. it almost looks as if his right, our left, leg is lifted up onto that rock.

It could still be a doll propped up, but with this enhanced version you've put forth I'd hazard an opinion and say it's quite a unique photo and I'd give it a 20% chance of being an actual ebe. Maybe someday we'll know for sure

good work!

reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 02:07 AM by alienesque

Originally posted by the00110001

Slightly bigger version click link
img514.imageshack.us...

I work on Photoshop all day and while bored with work thought i'd see if there was anything to this image after seeing some attempts by other posters to enhance it.

I did this quick adjustment BEFORE reading the original post about the story behind the photo and surprised myself that it actually does fit the description. I've seen the picture in the past without it's story but never really thought much about it.

It could be a trick of light, a hoax or an EBE - i don't know, i'm just interested in photo touching and enhancements.

There's no doubt that there's extra noise and information in the web file i used that's come from various scans, prints, compressions. A high-res scan of the original photo or negative would probably show a different result, possibly a clearer alien or possibly debunking the form that's suggested completely.

I've used green to enhance it, there's a consistent blue/green but not as prominent as the false color enhancement i've done:
Assuming it's real and not a trick of light, this is what i can see.

- foreshortening of it's right arm as if it was bent at the elbow either raising or lowering it's arm.
- the light on top of it's belly which suggests it has a rounded belly and a sunken chest.
- shoulders slightly turned like it's ready to turn to it's left and move up the hill and away.
- a really long left arm with a BIG hand, thou detail in the hand is lost and i haven't tried to guess it.
- spaces for big black eyes and a pointed jaw.
- an enlarged skull, reminds me of Crowley's Lam or a 'star child' skull - a 'love heart' shaped head. (see google if unfamiliar with those images).

That's there to be seen..... but it doesn't mean it was there. It means it's interesting from a enhancement point of view and without hard evidence, inspiring from a 'are we alone' point of view.

I'm not putting this forward as proof of any kind but purely as an example of what is suggested in the photo from the usable detail... could still be a shrub thou!

nice..could 'he' be carrying something?

reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 02:10 AM by optimus primal

Interesting idea. His raised hand does look smaller than the one hanging at his side. As to what he could be carrying, no idea.

** I keep typing him because typing it seems too bothersome to me

reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 02:17 AM by the00110001

Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by the00110001

Now there's some interesting photo manipulation! Excellent job! You really brought out a lot of detail there. It does fit his description quite well.

It could still be a doll propped up...

I was just thinking if it was a doll and a setup then it's going to fit the description in the story so it's the chicken vs the egg. The story could be real and this is a real photo OR the photo could be setup and the story made afterward.

At least the story and photo do actually correlate unlike a lot of UFO/EBE photos once you dig a little deeper.

Passes a couple BS filters IMO but isn't definitive because it's still open to interpretation without a better copy of the original.

Is there anything else to this event? Any more photos? Any more proof on the claims/person?

Anyone got a better copy of the photo?

reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 02:29 AM by the00110001

Originally posted by optimus primal
Interesting idea. His raised hand does look smaller than the one hanging at his side. As to what he could be carrying, no idea.

The hands lose a lot of detail because there's a heap of color noise that's mixing everything up.

The foreshortened right arm could be long but it's almost pointing straight at you from the elbow which makes it look a lot different.

The long left arm could be holding something or it could be blending with a some shadow on the path and diffusing the detail. Hard to tell. I think you can see where the wrist is and the hand begins but after that it's pretty much a noisy blur without much detail.

It's pretty much speculation from this point i think. Maybe there's someone that knows a lot more about this event?

reply posted on 28-8-2008 @ 04:37 AM by Denied

reply to post by the00110001

Great work, thanks for working on it, looks alot like et from the film, this photo would of come out not too long after the film, 1982 it was released i think.

The body shape is strange, especially the hands and arms.

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 12:40 PM by mrixxx

Don't really mean to sound negative but its more photo`s out of focus

As they are out of focus its far easier to hoax them.
I have taken thousands of pictures over the years with all different types of camera and never had images that bad...
Whats the odds of someone taking a photo of something so rare and getting that bad quality

?

Nothing there to fuss over really, well in my personal view anyway.

Cheers
mrix

[edit on 7-11-2009 by mrixxx]

reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 07:34 PM by Chadwickus

Giving this one a bump!

reply to post by mrixxx

I do agree and understand what you're saying but the original looks like it got washed out from the sun, hence the poor quality.

Also, the photo could have been exposed to the elements, deteriorating it's quality as well.

reply posted on 5-12-2009 @ 11:54 AM by Nathwa

There really does not seem to be a strong case for it being fake, so I am going to go with my eyes and my gut and say it is real. I would really like to see some more discussion on this photo though, because if it is real like I think it is, there should be alot more analysis and commentary in this thread then there currently is.

reply posted on 15-1-2010 @ 11:06 AM by convilkley

I live close to Ilkley and have always been interested in this case.
I've been trying to track down the japanese TV show "Nippon TV" that featured the only interview of the abductee, so far without any success, any ideas ?

I found this footage which is pretty cool, the initial investigators discuss the case

Part 1
Part 2

These days sightings in the area are almost always red orbs flying around...

reply posted on 7-1-2011 @ 07:52 PM by Unknown Soldier

This is one of the most intriguing and incredible cases in my humble opinion.

S&F

reply posted on 8-1-2011 @ 04:45 AM by Prevalent_Disease

Originally posted by Denied

Something strange was noticed in the picture. Appearing on the hill at exactly the spot where Godfrey says the UFO was, is a white square. Could it be that Godfrey had gotten a part of the UFO in the shot unknowingly? Godfrey was not sure.

Do you see it?, i dont.

[edit on 8-1-2007 by Denied]

I think I can see something

It kind of looks like a white dome.

reply posted on 8-1-2011 @ 05:45 AM by Kandinsky

A retired British UFO researcher, Jenny Randles, was one of the investigators of the Ilkley Moor incident. When it comes to UK cases, she's someone who was worth paying attention to. Frustratingly enough, before she left the scene she made a comment about this case...

While the witness has stood by his story for years, there are nagging doubts that have recently grown.

Fortean Times with J Randles

Thanks a bunch! That's all she says and not a word since about it.

reply posted on 8-1-2011 @ 06:46 AM by torsion

reply to post by Kandinsky

Here's an uncommon photo that gives some scale to the "creature". Sorry about the quality!

Pictured is the late UFO investigator Arthur Tomlinson standing in the same spot as the entity.

Spencer's hypnosis session took place at Tomlinson's home. Tomlinson appeared on Channel 4's Clive Anderson Show discussing the case. According to Tomlinson Peter Hough asked for £200 to use the photo on the show but they offered him £100 which he accepted.

reply posted on 8-1-2011 @ 06:51 AM by Kandinsky

reply to post by torsion

Thanks. I hadn't seen the image before and have saved it to the pile.

reply posted on 8-1-2011 @ 07:04 AM by torsion

reply to post by Kandinsky

Not sure what Jenny Randles' "nagging doubts" are but I vaguely recall reading in Fortean Times letters page some years ago a suggestion that it may be a potholer with diving gear - his hand is holding his flippers! A scuba-diving potholing dwarf, perhaps!

reply posted on 8-1-2011 @ 07:17 AM by Kandinsky

reply to post by torsion

I think the doubts could relate to the regression hypnosis. She had concerns about that in general, but many of us do. Other than that, there hasn't been much of an odour of hoaxery, but we can never rule it out either.

As cases go, it's one I like and especially as it's not a million miles from home.

If you're interested some of her doubts about regression are in this '91 article from the old NUFON magazine. Here!

reply posted on 8-1-2011 @ 07:43 AM by soon2

Does anyone have a CLEAR picture of an alleged alien ?

reply posted on 8-1-2011 @ 07:55 AM by Kandinsky

reply to post by soon2