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: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Point well taken PJSLUG. Quite right. Who's to say they 'shouldn't be there'.




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Areal51
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...


It's so funny. On this site we have conspiracies of conspiracies. It's a photo, not a painting.


It was taken by a real photographer in the mid 1800s with a camera that would not be used today. And the aliens didn't pop by to say "cheese!" Those cameras required set-up. You couldn't just get lucky, pull out your camera and "snap" a photograph.

Some people will believe anything.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
wow. you peeps really impress me.....
no crap will fly by THIS BUNCH!!!!



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dagar

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.


Valid point.. the ability to CGI will always ruin evidence anymore. I have a friend who taped a flying triangle for a half hour just over a year ago[from his back yard]. yet if you put it in the right hands they could still justify a hoax claim using computers. you just have to be there anymore [civil war in this case] If someone was going to CGI something it should have been WMD's in Iraq !!



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas
Perhaps, without the obvious signs of a hoax why not give the benefit of the doubt to the possibility. Real or not.


What will it take to make people not believe something so easily? You need to use logic and rational thinking, as well as common sense, to come to a sound conclusion. Don't you find it odd that there would be soldiers looking at a UFO and none of them were pointing their arm in it's general direction? People today would point at a UFO, and that kind of technology is a lot more understandable to us in 2007 than it was in the 1860s.

That is assuming that the soldiers were even looking in that skyward direction to begin with, which they are not.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pjslug
 


Yeah, the people in the foreground are actually looking at the man in the middle of the river.

It's quite obvious on the high-resolution image.

Not so on the low-rez...


Sidenote:

Thanks internos!

I beat you to this one!


But IAttackPeople beat us all!

Maybe the next one will be real, eh?!


[edit on 15-9-2007 by goosdawg]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pjslug
 


Yes, "You need to use logic and rational thinking, as well as common sense, to come to a sound conclusion", for a sound opinion.

I would think it takes more to bring an opinion to the level of proof -- real or hoax. I see the thread's been labelled hoax, so someone must know something more.

Dallas

Edit: I see the picture was referenced in the Contressiaonal Library. I'm not sure if the 1977 indication proves that's the year it was placed in the library but the skiy's pretty clear in that one.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by Dallas]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:33 PM
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?


Why are you freaking out? They wouldn't kick you out for posting another picture of a hoax that supports that the original picture posted was a hoax. It sounds like you're unnecesarily getting paranoid, perhaps maybe you created the picture you just posted? If so, that is a warranted reason to kick you off... (saying you found a picture on the net when you created it).



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I think "Debunked" is a better word than "HOAX". I think the hoax tag implies the OP had less-than-honorable intentions and I don't believe that's the case.

And yes, I think the UFO version was the fake, no contest. But, I don't think the OP had any intention to create a hoax. I think he brought it here for debunking...and it has.

My $.02
Cuhail



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 


I agree with Cuhail's comments. I don't think the OP's intent was to pull a fast one, but clearly, one of those photos was the result of tampering; hence, a hoax. In my opinion, more than likely the one showing an alleged UFO.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I bet it wasn't a hoax or really needs to be debunked. I bet someone doctored the original photo and "erased" the ufo from the real picture.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuhail

I think "Debunked" is a better word than "HOAX". I think the hoax tag implies the OP had less-than-honorable intentions and I don't believe that's the case.

And yes, I think the UFO version was the fake, no contest. But, I don't think the OP had any intention to create a hoax. I think he brought it here for debunking...and it has.

My $.02
Cuhail


I happen to agree with you. It doesn't sound like the OP was trying to fool anyone, just trying to get an opinion on the photo.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
wait a second....how did IAttackPeople FIND that photo? A google where you can put in a picture and it will find other similar pictures doesnt exist yet. So, as far as I can tell, the OP did not post the picture with any particular title. Out the millions of pictures that are online, how was this one found?

just curious.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I bet it wasn't a hoax or really needs to be debunked. I bet someone doctored the original photo and "erased" the ufo from the real picture.


Then obviously you are "ignoring the facts." For a user named IgnoreTheFacts you obviously make it a point to do so.
Go back and read them and you will see why it is fake.

[edit on 9/15/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 




Originally posted by coastlinekid
This is an image I got off the now defunked "counterevidence" website,...


I believe he was just surfing the mentioned site and it was enough to intrigue him into bringing it here. Is this a one-line post? Hmmm...

Cuhail



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuhail
 


no, no I am asking how the SECOND photo was found.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I bet someone doctored the original photo and "erased" the ufo from the real picture.


Based on my personal knowledge and what I've learned about these images, I'd take that bet!


But I wouldn't want to take advantage of you.


Just as I believe the op, coastlinekid, didn't intend to take advantage of anyone either.

And good call, Cuhail, I agree, debunked is the proper term here.

And as long as we keep posting to this thread, the op keeps racking up points. Right?

Here's to you, coastlinekid, thanks for all the laughs this thread inspired.

(I especially dug the "Killer Giant Bush" by Taliesin!) LMAO!



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Oh (head slap), gotcha.
Hmmmm....he did pop up with that awfully quick. It may be that that poster is a Civil War buff and recognized it and knew where to find the original. But, you do bring up a good point.

Hmmmm. Maybe the poster will pop up with his method.
Cuhail



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Dallas
 


I suppose you're right Dallas I was rather critical, but just think how many hours all of us have wasted on ridiculous hoaxes like this. That picture is not uncommon though, so to declare it a hoax is far from irrational. The ufo was clearly added in, along with some minor grainy distortion to make it look like it was part of the original picture.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Cuhail
 


no, no I am asking how the SECOND photo was found.


I guess we'll have to wait for IAttackPeople to come back and tell us all the secret to quickly finding photos online.

In my case, I began my search using the photo credit mentioned by the op; Thomas O'Sullivan.

I quickly determined there was no such civil war photographer, but there was a Timothy H. O'Sullivan from the right period.

As I began plowing through images of his, I checked back to the thread and discovered IAttackPeople had already beat me to it.

Curses!
Maybe IAttackPeople will tell us how to do it when they come back online, but I doubt it!







 
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join