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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Yeah these photos are quite similiar. even the trees are similiar. its weird these photos look the same but not really?




posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I wasn't expecting something so close to earth and/or so big. I don't know if it's fake, though.



posted on Mar, 23 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Just a generic question but why do UFO's have/need running lights? Especially the green/red combo that resemble plane running lights? Curious.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Looking at the first picture the craft seems kinda small. It looks like it is as high as the tree tops and not much bigger than a frisbee. The other two are close up pics and is hard to tell about them. Just seems to me if the craft is that low it shoulsd appear much bigger than that. There's something about the lights that just don't seem right. And does anyone know how small an alien can be? Like in Men In Black with the little alien inside the guys head. I know that's just Hollywood but what if some are that small. Could be real or fake. Up to the experts on this one.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I remember the last one of these pictures, the one with the big 'ball' of light in the middle? It turned out to be fake, and I proved it way before anyone else did because of a fault the photoshopper did.

Anyway, the photoshopper did the same fault in this one, not saying it's the same photoshopper though. Have a look:



The circled area shows a light smear. The smear is supposed a direct cause of the long shutter time and apparent shake of the camera (alternatively movement of the object). However, in this case, the smear started Inside a branch.

This is directly controversy to how smears of this kind works. The guy obviously just photoshopped something 'cool' into the picture and didn't stop to think what it was actually supposed to be. If you still believe this is real, you believe that the lights of this craft can penetrate thick tree branches.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Sorry Drexon, but as a photographer, with nearly 10 years experience, I'd have to disagree with you there. I'm with the others who think that these are not obvious fakes.

I have seen the exact same "light-bleeding" effect before, and it does not mean that the object has been faked. It's just the way light behaves!

Also, your assumption that the "smear" started "in the branch" is wrong. In fact, it is the other way around - from the way the smear looks, I would draw the conclusion that the UFO is moving from left to right.

Somebody said earlier that the reddish look of the finer branches was evidence of a fake, but this is no more than a common lens aberration, called "Chromatic Aberration", where dark objects against a light background appear to have a color fringe, in this case red, but depending on the optics, it can be almost any color. This aberration is most obvious on fine structures where contrast is highest, in this case the finest branches.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   


I have seen the exact same "light-bleeding" effect before, and it does not mean that the object has been faked. It's just the way light behaves!

Also, your assumption that the "smear" started "in the branch" is wrong. In fact, it is the other way around - from the way the smear looks, I would draw the conclusion that the UFO is moving from left to right.

I respect the fact that you've been a photographer for that long, but you still didn't really explain why it's smudged over the branch. If anything it's not the way Light behaves but the way the optics in the camera treats the light. You'll agree that we have no way of knowing if the craft moved left to right or vice versa, but seeing how the photographer had the time to take two pictures I think it's safe to assume that it wasn't moving all that fast. This means that any apparent shake of the photographer would have more relevancy. The movements of the photographer play a bigger role than the movement of the UFO so to speak.

So yeah, in conclusion I still don't see how the light could've overlapped that branch to begin with. Please add a more 'hands on' explanation than "It's just the way light behaves!'.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Why is it when these photographers see a UFO so close the first thing they do is stand amongst a load of trees so that there is branches in the way.
Also as someone mentioned earlier why only take 3 snaps, if its a digital camera why not take a movie, if its a standard camera then why only 3 from the same position i would take 1 or 2 from my immediate readiness with the camera, i would run to an angle so i can get the UFO at the top of the picture with the horizon at the bottom.
I certainly dont believe that when you take ANY picture of the sky theres a damn tree right next to you.
Heres what i think, It is fake, the 'UFO' is very small and not far from the ground, the camera is placed on the ground with a few thin twigs somewhere in front of the camera to give the impression it is huge trees and the object is huge and high up. Thats just a theory that pops into my mind.
Before you accuse me of being a nay sayer to all UFO evidence then you are so wrong as i have my own experience with a UFO that i would swear in court on the events and it was certainly impossible to be a mistaken helicopter/plane/meteorite/weather/swamp gas.
I just cant believe a simple 3 photos of something that would worth a full film and i cant stand videos of UFOs that suddenly end and not show what happens next.
Much like these photos, what happened, did they take 3 snaps and walk away and not take a picture of it taking off or moving or changing shape/color/etc ?
I have seen so many fakes that I tend to be suspiscious of anything i see, and this one is no different.
"oh a UFO, i may never have this opportunity to see one in my life again, and this is so close and clear that it will be breathtaking, i will take just the 3 pictures and save the rest of the film for some crap at home!"



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
while i agree i would take many more than 3 pics. who's to say that this craft did not just speed off at an incredible rate before the 4th was taken?

also, without tree branches is makes the photo much less believable because there would be no point of refference.

it is much easier to accurately fake an object in a clear open sky than it is to get one being and between tree branches.
Now I'm not saying that the branches mean its real, as the first thing i thought of was it wouldnt be that hard to photoshop a tree over top.

the fact is, no picture on the internet will ever be inconclusive evidence of aliens. Theres just to much possibility.

While i would like to believe this image, it doesnt really strike me as "alien". I'd be more inclined to believe its millitary or experimental black projects.


as far as the so called "balloon" on. I'm not convinced. it looks so impractical. Doesnt look very aerodynamic. at least a saucer could cut through the atmosphere.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon
I respect the fact that you've been a photographer for that long, but you still didn't really explain why it's smudged over the branch.


As an earlier poster said, "light bends". It's an effect called "diffraction". See following link for an explanation of how diffraction works: en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by Drexon
If anything it's not the way Light behaves but the way the optics in the camera treats the light.


Strictly speaking, it's a mixture of both - an image is the result of the physical properties of light and also of the optics which the light passes through - no two optics are the same, and will therefore produce images that are not alike. Each lens/optic has its own characteristic signature, and will "conduct" light in a slightly different way, that is until we find a way to produce optics that are flawless at an atomic level.


Originally posted by Drexon
You'll agree that we have no way of knowing if the craft moved left to right or vice versa,


Yes - good point. Since both the branches and the UFO show motion blur, then it's fair to assume that the camera was in motion if nothing else. I was wrong to assume that the UFO was moving.

Without further analysis (which I'm sure could be done to determine if indeed the UFO was in motion by comparison of the smudging differences of both the UFO and branches), I think all we can say for sure is that there was camera motion, but I can tell you that to me, the way the light has smudged, is indicative of either right to left motion of the subject (which we have already ruled out for the reasons stated above, for the moment at least), or left to right motion of the camera.

As others have stated before in this thread, this is most lightly due to a slow shutter speed under unfavorable lighting conditions, which these photos all bear the hallmarks of.. overcast sky, noisy (high ISO).


Originally posted by Drexon
but seeing how the photographer had the time to take two pictures I think it's safe to assume that it wasn't moving all that fast. This means that any apparent shake of the photographer would have more relevancy. The movements of the photographer play a bigger role than the movement of the UFO so to speak.

100% agree with you there.


Originally posted by Drexon
So yeah, in conclusion I still don't see how the light could've overlapped that branch to begin with. Please add a more 'hands on' explanation than "It's just the way light behaves!'.


To me, for what it's worth, the photo does not look like an obvious fake - everything photographically feels right to me on this one, but that does not rule it out as a setup - ie. scale model hoisted up in the air somehow, although it does not look as though any wires have been air-brushed out, which would make this a rather hard feat to achieve..

To me, if anything, capturing a UFO with a slow shutter speed (as it seems to be in this case), would add to the authenticity IMO, since this would suggest the UFO is almost stationary as you rightly suggested (judging from the similar look of the motion blur).. how hard would that be to do with a sizable "model-craft", without wires!? The more I look at this one, the more it screams real!



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
This is only my opinion but I believe these photos to be real.If someone were to photoshop them I presume they would have picked scenery with less tree branches.This would have made their job easier and made the craft more visible to whomever they were trying to convince.As far as why there are only 3 pictures,Please people put yourself in the photographers shoes.The third picture in my mind was taken too close for comfort and had it been myself , I would've gotten the "bleep" out of there as fast as my legs could carry me.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Now that I think about it some more, the mechanism for the lights appearing to be in front of the branch is much more simple than diffraction (apologies for backing the red-herring there). Camera shake is what caused it in this case I think..

Take a pinpoint light source, next to an object like a branch. Now open the shutter on a camera, and move the camera, then close the shutter. If you moved the camera the right direction, then the part of the sensor (or film) which was previously having the image of the branch imprinted on it, now has a light source focused on it.

During the time the camera is in motion, the light falling on to film/sensor is less, so the image it leaves behind trails/tapers off, which explains the smudge, to everyone's satisfaction now, I hope



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
CHUD> Alright, you bring up a good point and I guess I'm somewhat more convinced it's real, though not fully, as these pictures in my mind would be helluva lot more famous by now and the photographer a lot richer.
At the end of the day I Did debunk a very similar UFO photograph a while back, I just wish I could find it. It was behind some tree branches as well (seems to be a popular theme don't ask me why).



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Thanks Drexon,

All I'm saying is, this is something I'm quite familiar with seeing as a "naturally occurring" artifact due to shake, and the photos should not be discounted on that basis alone. I am into astro-photography, and see this happening all the time with all kinds of light sources, from fire-works to street lights, but mostly stars.

To me, the flaws all add to the photo's credibility. Most hoaxers would probably not think to include them IMO, but there are probably others here on ATS better qualified to answer that than me, so I'll leave it at that.

Might I also humbly suggest, that if another photo has been "debunked" for the same reasons, it should be looked at again (if you can find it again
) in light of this.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Ah, we actually obtained a 'non-blurry' version of that photo, showing an obvious CGI work. I have no idea why it's not in this thread though, it seemed so similar. =/



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon
...these pictures in my mind would be helluva lot more famous by now and the photographer a lot richer.


Not that I want to derail or jack the thread, but has any UFO photo ever made the photographer rich?


Originally posted by Drexon
At the end of the day I Did debunk a very similar UFO photograph a while back, I just wish I could find it. It was behind some tree branches as well (seems to be a popular theme don't ask me why).

In my mind, a UFO behind a tree is more convincing in terms of size comparison than a UFO in front of a tree. Isn't that why we prefer photos and videos of UFOs passing behind buildings, clouds, et cetera? I think Billy Meier took this to its most ridiculous extreme with his film of a disc literally flying rings around a tree and even crashing through its branches.


— Doc Velocity



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Drexon
...these pictures in my mind would be helluva lot more famous by now and the photographer a lot richer.


Not that I want to derail or jack the thread, but has any UFO photo ever made the photographer rich?


Originally posted by Drexon
At the end of the day I Did debunk a very similar UFO photograph a while back, I just wish I could find it. It was behind some tree branches as well (seems to be a popular theme don't ask me why).

In my mind, a UFO behind a tree is more convincing in terms of size comparison than a UFO in front of a tree. Isn't that why we prefer photos and videos of UFOs passing behind buildings, clouds, et cetera? I think Billy Meier took this to its most ridiculous extreme with his film of a disc literally flying rings around a tree and even crashing through its branches.


— Doc Velocity


Probably not, but I believe that bogus alien autopsy film did net some significant cash for the hoaxers when Fox bought the rights.

ONe thing about this photo,is that it is fairly persuasive that it's not a model because of the scale.

However, it could still be a fake, and as usual, "UFO Evidence" is nothing of the sort. They posted a reduced size GIF here, so there's little hope of doing any real analysis. If there's provenance, they aren't telling. EXIF data isn't available to extract. Youneed provenance and the original, unprocessed image,or you have no evidence.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
that is true it would have to be done on a blue screen and thats obviously not the case it say its authentic



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Light stays imprinted in an image while dark colors are replaced by light. If that wasn’t so, no photo could be ever be overexposed.

The fact that the light is streaking over the branch shows that the aircraft was not edited into the photo. The photo was streaked from left to right. Also, the very faint streaking of the branches are 100% constant with the streaking of the lights on the craft.

The photo would be edited if the streaking was behind the branch in this case because the movement is due to unstable hands. However, that doesn’t mean the craft is not a fake.

Since the craft in this photo (depicted as a large one) would be difficult to dangle from a string it must be in fact smaller than it looks. What may be going on is that the branches are smaller than they look and the craft is really close to the tree. Notice how the craft looks larger in the cropped photo because of fewer references.

The photo with the craft in plain sky is probably no larger than it looks, probably not much bigger than a garbage can lid. Its not behind the farthest trees, its between the nearest and the farthest trees. Also, it looks like its not much more than 10-15 feet off the ground.

Comparing the behavior of the disc in this photo with the stories of how advanced ufo’s maneuvers are also throws a damper on the credibility of the photo. If its antigravity technology they have, they do not lean. (they would probably stay parallel to the horizon not tilting upwards like a plane taking off)

These photos are probably a result of dozens of shots/tries and a case of tennis…or Frisbee elbow. As far as the lights go, I could wire up something like that in no time, a little wire, some LED’s, soldering iron, battery pack, and some good craftsmanship to fabricate the disc.

Good photography though.

[edit on 25-3-2007 by TheMadHatter]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
As usual, I have to agree with the general consensus.

From my initial look I thought it looked real, and from my many other glances I also though it looked real. But then...we're not really debating the picture, but the object within the picture. I'm sure the photo is 100% genuine, but as for the "UFO", then who the hell knows. Not me.

Unfortunately, I have no technical knowledge or ability when it comes to analysing photos, so my opinion really counts for nothing, but I still like to beleive.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join