Disc over pier - Clear photo

Originally posted by Mukiwa
I have noticed over the course of a number of months the following trend: It does not matter what is posted, some one will always consider it to be a photoshoped image. I would really like to know wha tthese people woould have to say if there was no photoshop for them to blame the image on. Really, lets think positively, photoshop is the easy way out of saying its a fake. give photoshop a break, come up with something more original and scientific.

If photoshop (or any other application for image editing) did not exist, then the question changes to "Would there be so many images of UFO's".

You cnt ignore the fact that there are some good artists out there, and there are plenty of people who will like to throw about fake images as real.

YOu HAVE to include the possibility that it is shopped. Or else you may aswell grab a bible and just believe - it would be the same thing. I, personally, have to discredit doubt 100% for myself.

Having said that, I will also not take others evidence of fakery if I know or suspect something isnt right in what they say.

If I read someone say they conclude fake based on *insert reason* and I know theyre not correct, at least IMO, I will not let that change my opinion.

But you cant deny the facts. People do fake, and some are extremely good. People do debunk, and some are extremely opinionated.

Gotta sort it into perspective, not ignore possibilities.



*edited, why do lesser symbols corrupt the words after them ?!*

[edit on 22/4/2007 by badw0lf]

Originally posted by spearhead
here's a UFO i snapped with my 2mega pixal D600

i trimmed the image down for size but did not adjust the res.

fly foamy fly.

he wasn't traveling awfully fast so i had time to load up the camera and snag him before he hooned through the stargate next door.

can this offer an adequate comparison.

[edit on 21-4-2007 by spearhead]

[edit on 21-4-2007 by spearhead]

I call fake, because that is obviously a fake 'chimney shaped' object to the right. It's been photoshopped in - the lighting is all wrong. Definitely not on the original.




There should be an (unless there is, I've not see it) area for people to do stuff like this, with the full intent of saying how they did it, etc, so there are comparative images to look at.. and to show off...

I would say that the photo is genuine but it shows nothing more than a seagull.

The picture was taken in a seagull habitat and the object is seagull coloured and seagull shaped.

The finer details are missing because of the size and compression of the photo.

Birds in flight and in profile always momentarily produce the classic saucer shape.

I've emailed UFOs Northwest (ufosnw.com) asking for the original, hopefully they might give it to me. If they refuse or claim not to have the original then that will be case closed imho as they said in their article.

Also the camera model, date, and other information was associated with the file sent by the witness. Generally any software editing will remove these attributes which suggests that the photo was sent as output from the camera.

That tells me they have the original, so we'll see what happens.

Originally posted by torsion
I would say that the photo is genuine but it shows nothing more than a seagull.

The picture was taken in a seagull habitat and the object is seagull coloured and seagull shaped.

The finer details are missing because of the size and compression of the photo.

Birds in flight and in profile always momentarily produce the classic saucer shape.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one. I can see things that would be futher away in the picture based on size very cleary and no details are missing due to size or compression. What should be noted is how the left side is shiny and reflective and it is consistent with the shadowing. Not to mention this person said they saw the disc approach and then pause for roughly 5 seconds and take off again.

Well I never got a reply to my message, so as far as I'm concerned ufosnw.com has no credibility what so ever and the picture must be fake or they would have had no issue sending me the raw image.

If UFOSNW visited ATS and clicked on the front page link to the
"Semi Transparent UFO!" thread started by member "-UFO-",
he would be scared poopless by the way -UFO- is being called to
the carpet over his 2 photos. I don't know why members
flagged THAT thread to make it the #1 ATS story, because it
puts our forum in a bad light for first time visitors.

Originally posted by carewemust
If UFOSNW visited ATS and clicked on the front page link to the
"Semi Transparent UFO!" thread started by member "-UFO-",
he would be scared poopless by the way -UFO- is being called to
the carpet over his 2 photos. I don't know why members
flagged THAT thread to make it the #1 ATS story, because it
puts our forum in a bad light for first time visitors.

That's because -ufo-'s image has clearly been shown to be fake, yet he still trys to deny it.

ATS is about denying ignorance, and if that involved exposing frauds and liars, so be it. These fakers are the ones painting ATS in a bad light. Being open minded doesn't mean believing every hoaxer who comes along... though those that DO believe everything they are shown/told might wonder why certain posters get such short shrift..



[edit on 1-5-2007 by nowthenlookhere]