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.

 

January 2007 photo too good to be true?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I just found this brand new photo on UFOEvidence.org, so apologies if someone has already posted it

UFOevidence.org - Green Bay, Wisconsin

My first impression was CGI, but we are going to think that from any 'good' UFO photos. What made me think again is the fact that the 3 photo sequence shows the object behind a tree line... wouldn't that be hard to do with PC software? What are your thoughts?

It seems too good to be true.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by fooffstarr]




posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by fooffstarr
I just found this brand new photo on UFOEvidence.org, so apologies if someone has already posted it

UFOevidence.org - Green Bay, Wisconsin

My first impression was CGI, but we are going to think that from any 'good' UFO photos. What made me think again is the fact that the 3 photo sequence shows the object behind a tree line... wouldn't that be hard to do with PC software? What are your thoughts?

It seems too good to be true.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by fooffstarr]


I think its real and one of the best ufo photos ever!



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Whilst I am going to remain diplomatically on the fence (Good photo, but I don't know enough about imaging to be sure if it's real), I bet next months salary that all the armchair "imaging experts" with a copy of Photoshop will be here soon, crying

"Fake! Look, it has pixels! It must be fake!"

Yeah...

Every picture has pixels you morons...

Or, they might pull out all the stops, invert the colours or show it in negatives, or maybe they'll emboss it and somehow that will prove it's a fake....

I swear, if I posted a picture of my cat an army of these jokers would spend hours in front of photoshop, distorting the original image beyond recognition to "prove" it was a fake....

EDIT: Sorry... had to get it off my chest. It pisses me off so much....

[edit on 21/1/07 by stumason]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
yeah i'm here in wisconsin and noticed this other older picture that i thought was amazing and extremely similiar. Same object?

www.ufowisconsin.com...

Date: February 1, 2003 Dusk
Location: Weyauwega
County: Waupaca

Source: UFO Wisconsin Report

Maybe i'm the only one from wisconsin who can NOT take a clear picture of a ufo


[edit on 21-1-2007 by hiii_98]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
the plot thickens... another incredibly clear ufo picture , with the same "investigator's" name tied to it, supposedly in wisconsin as well....

[Jack Nethering]

www.etcontact.net...

i would really like to think those saucer shaped ships are real, if a hoax its damn realistic to me, but that last air balloon like picture... i dont know about and I dont like one man in one location claiming to have several clear pictures of different shaped ufos...seems fishy. Hope its real!

[edit on 21-1-2007 by hiii_98]



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Nice finds man.

Might be a serial hoaxer, or just a lucky hunter.

I'm still on the fence.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hiii_98
the plot thickens... another incredibly clear ufo picture , with the same "investigator's" name tied to it, supposedly in wisconsin as well....

[Jack Nethering]

www.etcontact.net...



this one is nice would like to see more on this.

re: the earlier two from Wisconsin. they look like those remote control model UFO's(balloons). You could rig any kind of led lights underneath them.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by kronos11

Originally posted by hiii_98
the plot thickens... another incredibly clear ufo picture , with the same "investigator's" name tied to it, supposedly in wisconsin as well....

[Jack Nethering]

www.etcontact.net...



this one is nice would like to see more on this.

re: the earlier two from Wisconsin. they look like those remote control model UFO's(balloons). You could rig any kind of led lights underneath them.


I've got an RC UFO and it isn't one of them. They are near impossible to fly well, and have enough trouble staying above a couple of metres as it is let alone with lights strapped on and above the tree line.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 04:08 AM
link   
When looking at these photos that were taken in Wiscsonsin you should remeber that there is an air base just about 20 minutes away from Waupaca and about 40 from Green Bay.

Not that Im saying that these are military craft (they might be, I dont know), but when I was living in a town called Appleton which was about 20 minutes away from both Waupaca and Green Bay both, I saw alot of weird aircraft, especially when there were airshows going on.

EDIT:

Also, the photos from Waupaca were taken by a woman I believe. If I remember right, she took the photos as she was watching her son sled. However, when she turned the photos into the UFO site, she didnt leave any further contact information. Just a little more info to throw out there to add to the discussion.
I dont think we're dealing with a serial hoaxer here.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Mezzanine]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Whilst I am going to remain diplomatically on the fence (Good photo, but I don't know enough about imaging to be sure if it's real), I bet next months salary that all the armchair "imaging experts" with a copy of Photoshop will be here soon, crying

"Fake! Look, it has pixels! It must be fake!"

Yeah...

Every picture has pixels you morons...

Or, they might pull out all the stops, invert the colours or show it in negatives, or maybe they'll emboss it and somehow that will prove it's a fake....

I swear, if I posted a picture of my cat an army of these jokers would spend hours in front of photoshop, distorting the original image beyond recognition to "prove" it was a fake....

EDIT: Sorry... had to get it off my chest. It pisses me off so much....

[edit on 21/1/07 by stumason]


I agree with you. It seems that every submitted photo brings out the 'experts' here and the conclusions are all the same.....fake. While I'm the furthest thing from a photographer I think there is far too much trust given to Photoshop and off the cuff remarks.

This photo does look very authentic and would be difficult to CGI given the trees in front. However with so many toys/hoaxes out these days it is difficult to be 100% certain.

I'm under the same impression that at any point in time we could be given the holy grail of photographs and still conclude its a fake. I don't think we'll ever have a conclusive photo. The only certainty would be an invasion.


brill



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 06:11 AM
link   
I believe thve been here and probably still are,

if you look at the photo though you will see lights infront of branches that should block the view, a fake I think.

Kind regards

Elf.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   
It looks good but Im always sceptical of a UFO that isnt parallel to the ground. This, to me, indicates that the thing has been thrown up in the air for the photo. This is the case with all 3 pictures.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
I believe thve been here and probably still are,

if you look at the photo though you will see lights infront of branches that should block the view, a fake I think.

Kind regards

Elf.


Yes but if you have a bright enough light behind a branch, then it diffracts noticeably around the branch and it will appear like that, particularly if the branch isn't in focus.

How else is "coming out of the sun" useful?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 06:53 AM
link   
that is so fake its funny. Looks like a modified frizbee with lights. Try harder! Only 3 pictures is suspicious too, did they run out of film?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I have a pretty extensive knowledge of CGI & photoshop but, I am by no means what I would call an "expert".
I have been member of several renowned CG sites for quite some time now and I can assure you that something like this can unfortunately be faked with relative ease.

I am in no way saying that these images are "certain fakes".

Images copied, pasted and resized over & over by passing through many websites will & do obviously lose quality.

So IMO, until an "expert" can actually get their hands on the original image, there is no real way to prove whether or not an image has bee faked....unless it has been done very amateurishly.

So far from what I can see here...if these are fake, then whoever did them seems to know their Sh*t..IMO.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
The image looks consistant with being a real picture, the motion blur and the fuzzy noise all seem to indicate this is a real picture, unfortunatly it looks like it could be digital and there is no way to proof a digital picture.

the branches can be hoaxed but it's not as easy as it looks, you have to capture all the blurs and color bleeding with it, so it'll have to be a seasoned CGI serial hoaxer.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
that is so fake its funny. Looks like a modified frizbee with lights. Try harder! Only 3 pictures is suspicious too, did they run out of film?


I'll give you a few minutes to think about what you just said.......

Done?

Now, why isn't that plausable?

You got it, if it was a frisbee the LED lights that were stuck to the bottom would be spinning with the object. There would be trails, or some evidence of motion.


And (standard disclaimer) I'm no photoshop expert, but......

It looks real to me. Then again, I jsut saw Orville Redenbacher dancing around listening to an iPod on TV yesterday. I think he's been dead for 10 years or so, so it goes to show you what technology can do.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
That's a pretty good picture – or three. We've become so used to blurred pictures that we have to say, "too good to be true", right?

Well, the scary similarity between these pictures and the pictures hiii_98 linked to, makes me a bit hesitant to bite on this one...

Note that Jack Nethering doesn't claim to have taken the pictures - he just "found" them or was sent them by a "contact"...



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   
*raises hand*

Err, anyone notice that the "lights" overlap the branches in pictures 2 and 3?

*sits back down*



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
*raises hand*

Err, anyone notice that the "lights" overlap the branches in pictures 2 and 3?

*sits back down*


That's what happens always you take a picture of a bright light behind a thin object (i.e. a branch)




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join