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: 4
125
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Photoshop adjustments:
Levels filter, increased contrast
Image Enlargement

Observations:
Jpg compression artifacts are consistent throughout image, suggesting this particular image was not retouched

Areas of red color around object are also consistent with compression artifacts, suggesting the red color is present in the original

electrobus.com




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I'm putting a write up on these photos on my ATS Analysis board in 2 minutes that includes a 4th shot that no one has yet seen.
My ATS Analysis Board

Have a look, the 4th shot is very interesting.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   
wow. how on earth did you ever even see that ufo? did the sender alert you to it?



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Just to give you an idea.

This picture was shot this weekend by myself in Venezia, Italy. I made it with my Nokia N73 phone, 3.2 mega pixel.


[img]
[/ img]

maybe it helps.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
wow. how on earth did you ever even see that ufo? did the sender alert you to it?


No, or at least no one really informed me. Springer just said he didnt see it, and informed me just before I posted he still doesnt. (I'm sure he will now that I've circled it) LOL...ya gotta look really good for it.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by Crakeur
wow. how on earth did you ever even see that ufo? did the sender alert you to it?


No, or at least no one really informed me. Springer just said he didn't see it, and informed me just before I posted he still doesnt. (I'm sure he will now that I've circled it) LOL...ya gotta look really good for it.


I have to say that I nearly deleted the 4th image when I looked at it thinking it was an extraneous addition to the series sent by mistake.


I couldn't see it until I saw it circled in yellow in Jeff's forum.

Springer...



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Hi all! I'm new here. I just joined so I can show you the panorama I made of the 3 pics. I was curious to see how it moved as the three pics were taken. For what it's worth, it appears as though the photographer walked closer to the trees as he/she took each pic.

ENJOY!







posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I have VERY STRONG ISSUES with the photo's being shown in this thread because the color saturation of these photo's are just too much for my little brain to wrap around considering that they were allegedly taken by a camera phone. In short, it's very apparent to me that these photo's were at least altered color-wise in an image editor before being sent to this forum.
No matter what the mp count is on a camera phone, the fact that such cams lack those photographic adjustment features found on digital cam's of the same quality, even photo's from a 3.2 mp camera phone looks like a 2 mp most noticeably in terms of the richness of color where a 3.2 mp looks just like a 2 mp because of this.
So to say that these photo's have not been tampered with, at least in this regard, is simply not true.
So here's my point of contention; if these photo's have been tampered with color-wise, which they most certainly have as this is VERY APPARENT -- IF they were taken by a camera phone, then have they also been tampered with in other area's too e.g. insertion of a UFO and then doing a retake of that tampered photo by a cam phone or low quality cam in the right lighting conditions to get better results color-wise so that those ocular distortions/artifacts that are typically seen by such low quality cams show up in the final image??
Once again, if anyone can post a camera phone photo here, straight from the cam where we can view the EXIF Information of that photo in an image editor -- a photo that's got the same kind of color saturation and richness as these UFO photo's posted in this thread, then this may allow me to change my opinion on these photo's sent by anonymous....







[edit on 7-2-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
I have VERY STRONG ISSUES with the photo's being show in this thread because the color saturation of these photo's are just too much ....


I reluctantly tend to agree. While I initially considered these images very good, there are some color-related issues (like you said) that seem "too good" for a 0.3mp camera phone CCD.

All the UFO material in the news is certainly causing a rash of photos here, there, and everywhere in a way that is reminding me why I didn't like being involved in UFO sighting research some 20 years ago.

-sigh-

Due to Springer's excellent work with Coast to Coast, people have become aware of us as a source to send potential sighting pictures. I think it's still important to present images that we receive so that our members can analyze and discuss, even if the source is questionable... but I fear we're just going to get more and more of these, making it difficult to identify what is real out of those that are not.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Palasheea,

Well given the fact that the image is 640x480, then it's obviously the original size... and a sucky camera. But you're in luck. Cuz I have a Treo 600 with a 640x480 cam, and I took a crap-load of pics in Switzerland last year.... even some ufe pics. So hang on and I'll upload 'em and see if that may help.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Edward Rose]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I don't know if this will help. But here's one of them. This is completely unaltered... not even "re-saved," and came directly from the phone-to-the sd card-to-my computer. The pic was taken somewhere in Switzerland on a trip from Zurich to Amsterdam. (Yes, Amsterdam
)




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edward Rose
I don't know if this will help. But here's one of them. This is completely unaltered... not even "re-saved," and came directly from the phone-to-the sd card-to-my computer. The pic was taken somewhere in Switzerland on a trip from Zurich to Amsterdam. (Yes, Amsterdam
)



wow, not incredably bad for a camera phone
.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Yeah. I caught the same object in the pic right before it...

thisisthriller.com...

I don't think it's big deal though. I know ufo buffs are looking for the Holy Grail of ufo pics. This ain't it


But I DO think The Visitors are carrying on a charade, as they could choose one person TOMORROW to take pics and summon ships, and you would all have your Holy Grail. Problem is, that person would BE The Holy Grail and all Hell would break loose... LITERALLY


All we need is just a little Petience


[edit on 7-2-2007 by Edward Rose]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I personally dont see the color as any issue. I've got some cell pics that are pretty brilliant actually.

I do see the common chromatic issues that are associated with camera phone lenses, that I dont think would be present within a reshoot scenario, and if they were used in such a way I'd expect them to be twice as bad.

I think Edward's shots of color has an equal amount of saturation, and show the same aspects we see in other cell cam shots, a relatively hot center and more often then not in high contrast areas, the inability of cell cams to relate accurately some spectral data. I see this in both Ed's (second more high contrast shot) and the LaSalle shots. There is an overall purple/blue-red wash over the pictures consistent with limitations of cell cams. Take it into photoshop and do an auto levels and you'll get a better picture of that aspect, just as an example. So I dont see an issue of oversaturation, we're also all looking on different monitors that may or may not be corrected. Lets not forget this looks like a really sunny day which would yield better colors then overcast or extremely hazy ones.

But the colors dont seem out of reach to me for a cell.

I wish I knew someone at a place that made the cams for cell phone and we could send it to them and see if they note any oddities. If anyone has such a contact, my email is jeff.ritzmann AT gmail.com

I also have to say that again, we have NO CLUE what camera/phone it was. Lets face it here folks, we're relatively in the dark here. We gotta work with what we have, thats why it was one of the smaller write ups I've ever done for some, in my opinion pretty compelling pictures.

Edward-thanx for posting those before I forget to type it.

NOTE EDIT: Ya know, it just occurred to me that perhaps some of the perception of saturation might be due in part to the chromatic issues of cell phone optics and their inability to relate spectral data correctly. The overwash of purple or red/blue due to the high contrast of the overall shot might be part of some people's view of it being too saturated.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by jritzmann]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Here are some pics I took with my Nokia 6233 2MP camera phone. There are no UFOs in these and they have not been touched up or anything.

A plane of some sort



Train moving in the foreground



Slingshot at BDO


[edit on 7-2-2007 by Klaxmexalix]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
LaSalle UFO - Cell Phone Photo Compilation - Animation



Object appears to be gaining distance over time?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   
If the photographer did move then she possibly moved to get a better shot BECAUSE the object was moving.
I know when im taking photos of something moving, ill move around, back up and move closer to get the best possible shot that i can.


Originally posted by ignorant_ape
just my 0.02 groats , 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 .

my opinionon only - YMMV



[edit on 8-2-2007 by Kr0n0s]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Klaxmexalix
Here are some pics I took with my Nokia 6233 2MP camera phone. There are no UFOs in these and they have not been touched up or anything.
Train moving in the foreground

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Klaxmexalix]


Thanks Klaxmexalix for posting these photo's. I checked out the EXIF INFORMATION ON YOUR PHOTO'S AND FOUND THAT #1, YOUR PHOTO'S GIVE THIS INFORMATION AND #2, THIS INFORMATION CORRELATES TO THE INFORMATION YOU GAVE TO US ABOUT YOUR PHOTO'S.
I'm impressed by Picture006 because the vibrancy of its colors so far comes closest (not quite but almost) to the vibrancy and colors of those UFO photo's sent in by anonymous.

But your other photo's have those same chromatic tonalities and level of saturation and vibrancy found in the vast majority of camera phone photo's.

At this point, I still think that anonymous' UFO photo's posted in this thread have been colorized in an image editor because those colors are simply much too bright to be from any cam phone that I know of. But I do admit that Picture006 is very good... colorwise. The best I've seen so far!







[edit on 8-2-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edward Rose
I don't know if this will help. But here's one of them. This is completely unaltered... not even "re-saved," and came directly from the phone-to-the sd card-to-my computer. The pic was taken somewhere in Switzerland on a trip from Zurich to Amsterdam. (Yes, Amsterdam
)



Edward,
I opened this one up in Photoshop to find out the EXIF Information and found out that this photo has no information at all about it. This indicats that this photo is not straight from the cam to this forum --

In any case, the color tonalities and color vibrancy of this photo are no different from what we see in the vast majority of camera phone photo's.



[edit on 8-2-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edward Rose
Yeah. I caught the same object in the pic right before it...

thisisthriller.com...

I don't think it's big deal though. I know ufo buffs are looking for the Holy Grail of ufo pics. This ain't it


But I DO think The Visitors are carrying on a charade, as they could choose one person TOMORROW to take pics and summon ships, and you would all have your Holy Grail. Problem is, that person would BE The Holy Grail and all Hell would break loose... LITERALLY


All we need is just a little Petience


[edit on 7-2-2007 by Edward Rose]


Edward,
Once again, I opened this photo in an editor to find that the photo that you posted in this post, does not include any EXIF INFORMATION e.g. brand of camera, mp count, etc.... there's no information at all about this photo that's attached to it. So this means that this photo is NOT the original photo that came directly from your camera phone or whatever camera was used to take this photo.

To me the photo you are showing here looks as if it's been altered/colorized in an image editor to make the photo more vibrantly colored than what the original photo was straight from your cam.

I'm sure you must have the original version of this photograph which would include the EXIF Information about it because it certainly does match in color vibrancy to those anonymous' UFO photo's posted in this thread.

I'm very excited about this because this would indicate that cam phones do in fact produce photo's with such bright colors like this.

So could you please post the original photo of this photo that you are showing in this post so that we may view the EXIF Information about it to confirm that this photo has not been altered in any way before you posted it in this thread?

Click on the link below which gives information on how you can post your cam phone photo directly from your cam onto this board.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 8-2-2007 by Palasheea]



new topics

top topics



 
125
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join