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.

 

More "Anonymous" Chicago UFO images

page: 3
125
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   
There is something more than a little unsettling about these images. Yes they look hazy but from the analysis i have seen so far I think it looks real.

Thank you Springer, what is going on up there at the moment!!




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Well I'm going to Re-create it in an hour or so, wich will Lend a good Insight to how that new pic is just the old hoaxed object streached a bit and layerd into a cellphone pic

see you soon, I'm going to have crassoints and coffee first

[edit on 7-2-2007 by TrentReznor]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   
In my humble opinion, the photo's posted in this thread have been colorized in an image editor. This to me is very evident because camera phones, regardless if they are 1.3 mp's or 2 mp's do not produce such richly colored photo's as those found in this thread.

And because those photo's have been altered/tampered like this in an image editor, I'm very cautious to say that the UFO is real in them. I think that UFO has been added to those photo's. As we already know, that's very easy to do in one way or another but not without a lot of fussing with it ... hint, a picture of a picture to make sure the ocular distortions are there in the final results.

At any rate, if anybody disagree's with me that these photo's are not from a camera phone, then take a photo with your own camera phone and post it here to prove that you also get such richly colored photo's with your camera phone too! I would like to see that.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   
ok I used the Object in this image




CVopy and pasted the object into a pic I just took through my bedroom window just now

SAME OBJECT used, See how different I can make it

I did all this in under 10 mins!!!





and



Anyone just flicking threw these are ***FABRICATED****Enjoy and try and Prove there fake(even though they are



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   
OK please excuse my crappy paint skills but I was intersted in the flight path of the object. Looking at the three pics you can see that the camera is level at all times but the disk lowers in the sky and tilts upwards slightly in pics 2 and 3:

Pic 1

uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats41082_UFO_flight_path.JPG

My black scribble/dot is where the object is in pic 2, it has lowered in the sky slightly:

Pic 2

uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats41084_flight_path_2.JPG

Again the disc is lowering in the sky and tilting upwards on the right side of the object. In pic 3 (sorry can't post no more upload space) the object has dropped even more.

Looking at these pictures in sequence leads me to believe that this could possibly be a frisbee thrown from some height high and to the left of pic 1 and it's taken a gradual path and tilted up. The camera straightness bothers me too, it's too perfect, almost as if they were ready to snap the object "On queue". Fishy in my opinion.


Edit:: Are the pictures showing??



[edit on 7/2/07 by October]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
... but from just a cursory glance it is obvious to me that the photographer moved between shots [ LOOK @ THE FENCE ] - dempendant on range to target , that will radically alter the perspective - and give a false illusuion that the object has moved , or has moved a far greater distance than is infact the case .


If you overlay the three shots, they seem to have been taken from relatively the same position [+/- a step or so]


Originally posted by October
...The camera straightness bothers me too, it's too perfect, almost as if they were ready to snap the object "On queue". Fishy in my opinion.


That doesn't seem the case here, especially considering the need to rotate in order to align them.



For the most part, it appears all three shots were taken from the corner of one paddock, and each successive shot required them to pan further to the right.


$.02



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

If you overlay the three shots, they seem to have been taken from relatively the same position [+/- a step or so]



mea culpa .

note to self , do not post opinions when i have just got up from a nap



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Point taken Palasheea



I don't have a Cellphone with camera on it so I used my cam and set the ress to 640*480 With Low Quality mode for shooting with, to simulate a Cellphone, .

But I f you like I could Put one of my Modified "objects" into one of the

"Cellphone taken UFO pics"

How about that?

or maybe somebody like you can Take a pic outside your window for me to use?

Maybe it will be harder than I thought

[edit on 7-2-2007 by TrentReznor]

[edit on 7-2-2007 by TrentReznor]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrentReznor
I don't have a Cellphone with camera on it so I used my cam and set the ress to 640*480 With Low Quality mode for shooting with, to simulate a Cellphone, .


Because you *can* simulate a supposed "UFO picture" does not prove the picture is fake.

I think everyone here realizes many things are possible with Photoshop to the point where any digital image must be suspect. I wonder if it's possible to have these images sent directly to ATS from the originator's cell phone? If possible, that action may help to remove some degree of doubt.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrentReznor

Point taken Palasheea



I don't have a Cellphone with camera on it so I used my cam and set the ress to 640*480 With Low Quality mode for shooting with, to simulate a Cellphone, .

But I f you like I could Put one of my Modified "objects" into one of the

"Cellphone taken UFO pics"

How about that?

or maybe somebody like you can Take a pic outside your window for me to use?

Maybe it will be harder than I thought

[edit on 7-2-2007 by TrentReznor]

[edit on 7-2-2007 by TrentReznor]


I deleted my other message.... Great that you can do that with your cam -- it does seem to get ALMOST similar results as with a low quality cam... but not quite.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by TrentReznor
I don't have a Cellphone with camera on it so I used my cam and set the ress to 640*480 With Low Quality mode for shooting with, to simulate a Cellphone, .


Because you *can* simulate a supposed "UFO picture" does not prove the picture is fake.

I think everyone here realizes many things are possible with Photoshop to the point where any digital image must be suspect. I wonder if it's possible to have these images sent directly to ATS from the originator's cell phone? If possible, that action may help to remove some degree of doubt.


Good Point and great that it's possible to NOW send photo's directly from one's cell phone to this forum. Check out this link...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
THIS BOARD IS COMPLETELY COMPROMISED!



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Digital Cameras need to be able to take vector pics in my opinion...but that technology is pretty far off...as far as being affordable to the consumers



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by A SINCLAIR
THIS BOARD IS COMPLETELY COMPROMISED!


< APE gives the offending item a swift kick

HUSSAR !

integrity is restored , and the was joy throught the board



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Totally agree with you "mister.old.school" 100%

but what worried me was that the object in the new pic Is Exactly the same as the object in the Pics we all know are Hoaxes in the main Thread

its just been streach a bit like I did

What are the chances of this "new pic" if its a real object, would be exactly the same as the Object that somebody Fabricated in the Original O'Hare photo
?????



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c


If you overlay the three shots, they seem to have been taken from relatively the same position [+/- a step or so]


Yeah because the mirror is in the same position... that is if it was done with a mirror lol.



Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

That doesn't seem the case here, especially considering the need to rotate in order to align them.

For the most part, it appears all three shots were taken from the corner of one paddock, and each successive shot required them to pan further to the right.


If a mirror was used it would give off that illusion.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I dont get what ur trying to prove, UFO pics have been faked and always will be, whether your using a darkroom photographic technics, a mirror(?!?) or photoshop..and so? Does that mean ALL ufo pics are faked?? No.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by A SINCLAIR
This board is completely compromised. (edited to remove caps)

You mean with guys that are "on the job" (so called "goverment shills"...) or folks running a personel agenda (the so called "hardcore skeptic" or the "hardcore sheeple")? Yes, I for one think that this is possible (to say it in a polite way...)

I'm thinking about this since I came here.

Anyway just my 0.02$

->BTT



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I've noticed a lot of people talking about the pixel size of camera phones here. Couple points...

1) Very few people have a "mega-pixel" camera phone. Most are VGA. I myself have a 3mp, my buddy has a 5mp. If you have a 1.2, you're ahead of the game in my opinion.

2) This was taken from "mom's" phone. In my experience it is kids that want the cool mega-pixel phone, NOT mom. Mom wants cute, easy to use, simple.

I sell thousands of phones a year so the statments come from first hand knowledge. I'd bag this thread unless junior or mom wants to put their money where their mouth is and provide some actual facts.

My $0.02



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrentReznor
but what worried me was that the object in the new pic Is Exactly the same as the object in the Pics we all know are Hoaxes in the main Thread


I've thought about that also. Is this the look of objects currently visiting the area or are their a few folks on the same hoaxing bandwagon? I'd say a mix of both (which doesn't say much).

Maybe the lack of sharpness is in part due to the reported spinning of the object. (Eyewitness, the person driving toward O'hare from the Earthfile story).

Did someone who interviewed Eyewitness determine if the counterclockwise spin was based on a view looking down on the top of the object or side, or was it based looking at the bottom. Usually the clock face is considered to be on the top of and object. I thought this might help in the photo analysis at some point. Probably not enough to affect the pic but one never knows.



new topics

top topics



 
125
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join