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.

 

#Debunked# civil war ufo image #Debunked#

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:53 AM
link   
So, have we concluded that the pic was made in Photoshop, or did it require advanced CGI techniques?




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
So, have we concluded that the pic was made in Photoshop, or did it require advanced CGI techniques?


Nope... What we've concluded is that we have two photos, one in which a UFO could have been CGI'd in, and another in which a UFO could have been CGI'd out.

Which one you want to accept entirely depends which side of the argument re: UFOs you prefer to stand on.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trauma
So can somebody put the official "HOAX" in the title so nobody else has to read this god forsaken thread.


ROTFLMFAO!!


I second the motion!

Please!!



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by IAttackPeople
 


How do you know your link's image is first gen from the original neg? Hopefully not 'cause they say so. Does the caption not mention it's a digital off the "original neg"?

Many reports have been made of airborne static UFOs.. it's one of the reasons most general aircraft and weather radar systems fail to pick it up, other than low altitude Ifeel.

Dallas



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Dallas
 


I sat through a seemingly endless download of the 20meg tiff format file.

This was a hi-resolution digital scan from the original glass negative as stated on the very reputable site referenced in the link provided by IAttackPeople.

I then waited through an even more tedious load up into the crappy imaging program that came with the low ram box I'm using to access the internet, in order to analyze the image.

The resolution of this image was sufficient to make out individual shingles and bricks on the buildings across the river, the expression on the face of the man in the center of the river facing the camera, as well as the individual leaves on the trees, as I stated previously.

I examined the area between the roof of the large brick building and the tall tree at the center, across the river in the image, at a high enough magnification to determine the individual film grains.

As much as I wanted to believe that a ufo had been captured on a wet collodion glass plate negative in the year 1865, I am forced to admit it just isn't so.

The "ufo" in the image provided by the op, didn't fly into that low-resolution hoax until the advent of digital imaging.

In all likelihood, in the same year the watermark was added by the now defunct web-site that had the audacity to lay claim to and alter the work of a true photographic pioneer, Mr Timothy H. O'Sullivan.

I can state, as a digital imaging professional, based upon the evidence presented here, and that observed by myself firsthand, that the original image captured in the year 1865, never contained a "ufo" in any way, shape, or form.

With my sincerest apologies to the op, who in my opinion never meant to deceive anyone, I hereby declare this "civil war ufo image" to be a HOAX!!

I would welcome anyone's evidence to the contrary.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 



My impressions too. It looks like a painting of a photograph. The lighting reminds me of Norman Rockwell paintings, though the painting itself is not in the style of Norman Rockwell. But, I guess, IAttackPeople's post says it's a photograph, soooo...



[edit on 15-9-2007 by Areal51]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Please label this as Hoax...

Contratulations to the person who found the original unretouched pic.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by goosdawg


I can state, as a digital imaging professional, based upon the evidence presented here, and that observed by myself firsthand, that the original image captured in the year 1865, never contained a "ufo" in any way, shape, or form.



Is this definte statement based on an examination of the original photograph, or is it based on an examination of a HQ scan of the original?

Bearing in mind, of course, that ANY scanned photo (regardless of resolution) can be:
a/ ... Opened up in photoshop
b/ ... Have an appropiately similar section of sky selected & copied to clipboard.
c:/ ... Have the copied section pasted as a layer over any object. The pasted layer can then be very easily and seamlessly blended into the underlying layer
d:/ ... Be checked under a microscope by any number of graphic experts, without anyone being any the wiser about any manipulation of the HQscan.

Don't get me wrong... The OP's pic may or may not be a hoax. The point I'm making (or trying to make) is that ANY digital pic is opened to accusations of having been manipulated, even those pics that people use to debunk other versions of the same pic.

A pic is essentially evidence of something (even a hoax), but proof of NOTHING.

On a sidenote... I find it slightly amusing how some members here often say they will never accept any presented pic as evidence of anything, then get very annoyed at an OP who won't answer any of their questions regarding a pic.... Why get so annoyed, or even ask the questions, when you've already made up your mind not to accept the pic regardless.
..



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Found this version as well:

www.mooreimages.com.au...

This is evidently the original, however it was so unbelievable that in one version they replaced it with a saucer-shaped craft, and in the other version they removed it entirely. Crazy drones...always pestering us.


[edit on 9/15/2007 by kinglizard]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I think Evasius has adequately punctuated (or punctured) this thread.

Clearly the thread needs a mod-supplied title edit.....***HOAX***

Someone mentioned the possibility of the original photo having been edited to remove a UFO. Heh?



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
goosdawg & Dagar,

Seems to me you both make interesting points in that goosdawg has formed a judgement based on research to the point of analysis w/out the negative in hand.

Dagar, you make pretty-much the same point I was trying to make for the most part. It really doesn't matter if the OP's pic's original or touched as it won't be proven either way without the negative or hoaxer's admission and story of how/when/where/on what sys/prg, etc.. it was made and distributed.

Perhaps, without the obvious signs of a hoax why not give the benefit of the doubt to the possibility. Real or not.
Personally I'd rather encourage people to post threads as this, than discourage their future effort.

Dallas



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dagar
The point I'm making (or trying to make) is that ANY digital pic is opened to accusations of having been manipulated, even those pics that people use to debunk other versions of the same pic.

A pic is essentially evidence of something (even a hoax), but proof of NOTHING.

On a sidenote... I find it slightly amusing how some members here often say they will never accept any presented pic as evidence of anything, then get very annoyed at an OP who won't answer any of their questions regarding a pic.... Why get so annoyed, or even ask the questions, when you've already made up your mind not to accept the pic regardless.
..


LOL


Absolutely!

Quite true indeed!

Your point is well received, good Dagar, and in all good humor!

Splendid explanation!

To paraphrase: ANY image, once digitized, is no longer absolute PROOF of any point of view.

The only valid proof lies outside the digital realm, in the circumstances behind and beyond the image.

With that in mind, do allow me to amend my previous and overly bold statement if you will:

It is my opinion that the high resolution, first generation, "lossless" Tagged Information File Format image I examined, as evidenced by it's genealogy, according to it's source, is a far more reputable resource upon which to base a decision concerning the validity of the claims made of the low resolution, compressed, Joint Photographic Experts Group formated image, containing the purported "UFO" image, according to it's source.

And while it's certainly not "proof," 100% ironclad, it's surely enough to label this claim of a an image showing a civil war era "ufo," a hoax, to the "nth" degree.


And...while we're about it, my own sidenote, if I may:

I might use a subtle application of the clone tool, aligned, on a separate layer, using ample and varied sample points, to cloak the evidence of anything I didn't want to show in my final image.

But that's the power of Photoshop, for, just like opinions, there's a million and one valid ways of seeing things through.


[edit on 15-9-2007 by goosdawg]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Literally tens of thousands of people report stuff that shouldn't be there, all of them can't be crackheads. I don't know what you are afraid of. Oh yes I do, the unknown.


Well, I wouldn't say that they "shouldn't" be there. Who's to say they "shouldn't?" Humans? Why, because we think we own this planet? We don't. These visitors have been coming around for millions, maybe billions of years. Perhaps they lived on the surface of Earth at one point in time. Perhaps they are a natural part of our ecosystem, affecting the planet in ways we are unaware of.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
That must have been one very still UFO. At that time, exposure times could be very long by today's standards. There was no such thing as a "snapshot".

Oh, and here's the original photograph sans UFO

[edit on 15-9-2007 by IAttackPeople]


Well, you know what the conspiracy theorists will say don't you? "The Library of Congress must have airbrushed out the UFO to repress the truth!"



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Trauma
 


"Be Ration not Critical"

That's quite the signature. Yet, somehow it does not fit in with your one liner.
Seems to me your one liner says nothing about the topic but is an attempt to ridicule the thread. Just out of curiosity on what basis or whatever did you arrive at hoax?

I know I have at times looked at things and thought no, it can't be real. Hopefully I have since become more open minded to the possibilities regardless of non-admitted debunkers ** continual attempts at slashing the messenger and as well as the message.

Dallas

Edit: S/B **Debunkers & Disinfo specialists


[edit on 15-9-2007 by Dallas]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I'll probably lose all my points and be kicked off the forum for this, but this image was also found on the internet.




Mods, I'm sorry, please don't kick me, it will never happen again. I just notice the OP's picture was in a photobucket account, which means that it was manipulated most likely by the OP and then uploaded. All hoaxes should be given the same weight, right?



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas
Real or not. Personally I'd rather encourage people to post threads as this, than discourage their future effort.


As would I, in all sincerity.

In truth, at first, I set about to disprove the evidence presented by IAttackPeople, I so wanted the op's image of a civil war era ufo to be true.

Alas, the evidence I sought was not to found, much to my dismay.



Originally posted by Evasius
This is evidently the original, however it was so unbelievable that in one version they replaced it with a saucer-shaped craft, and in the other version they removed it entirely. Crazy drones...always pestering us.


Now that's just silly.


You realize of course, in due time, on another thread, this image will be offered as proof positive that The South suffered their crushing defeat at the hands of General Ulysses S. Grant, because The North did indeed possess technology far, far ahead of their time.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dagar
Nope... What we've concluded is that we have two photos, one in which a UFO could have been CGI'd in, and another in which a UFO could have been CGI'd out.

Which one you want to accept entirely depends which side of the argument re: UFOs you prefer to stand on.


No, we haven't concluded any such thing. As you say, we have two photos. One obviously has been photoshopped in with a UFO, and the other is the real photo with no UFO. So how about saying the most likely (and in all probability) is option #3: the UFO was never in the photo to begin with. It's much more of a stretch to say it was CGI'd out.




[edit on 9/15/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Guy's I don't blame the OP for anything. The picture was found somewhere else and brought here for analyzation. The picture was presented as a find, not as fact. Please don't judge the poster on this. I'm glad he brought it here so it could be debunked and we'll recognize it later when someone else who hasn't seen it before brings it back.

Thank you coastlinekid. Don't let them bust your chops.
Cuhail



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taliesin
I'll probably lose all my points and be kicked off the forum for this, but this image was also found on the internet.



Mods, I'm sorry, please don't kick me, it will never happen again. I just notice the OP's picture was in a photobucket account, which means that it was manipulated most likely by the OP and then uploaded. All hoaxes should be given the same weight, right?


We shouldn't state so if we cannot prove it.
There's at least another one in the web
alienphotos.k-netti.nu...



goosdawg, as usual you made a great work


Edit to remove pic from the quote

[edit on 15/9/2007 by internos]




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join