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: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
ah...the name was mentioned. alright. case closed.

Nevertheless this gets me thinking. maybe I will do an ATS search of the people most eager to cry "hoax" in the last years and learn from this who the cover-up-agents are.




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I bet someone doctored the original photo and "erased" the ufo from the real picture.
If someone erased the UFO from the original, how did the UFO reappered in the copy posted?


Unless you were not talking of the original but about the digital copy from the original glass negative.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

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


As a test, I found it in under 30 seconds here, Using "photographs civil war mill stream" as my Google search terms.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


OOOooo, you're good!!


Now, what search terms would best serve Skyfloating's hoaxer search?



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 


Found it here, using "civil war ufo photo". That may not be my only results....standby.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I have never witnessed a forum-site so eager, quick and professional to prove UFO-photos as hoaxes. That is suspicious
I wonder how many genuine cases got covered-up this way.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Dude, one of those photos is fake. I don't think that can be argued. Now which is most likely to be fake? A photo with an added UFO, or for some dumb reason, a photo with a UFO removed? What is suspicious about it?

[edit on 15-9-2007 by MrPenny]



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


I'll tell you what's funny -- your inability to understand standard English. Where do I say, "I believe" in my post? All of the useful info in your response is in the post by IAttackPeople sourcing the original photograph. Everything else is just your use of my post to give yourself an excuse to whine.


To make it even more clear: I made comments about how the photo impressed me; its appearance, the lighting, and not its subject matter. I did not make comments related to the authenticity of the photo, nor did I state a position on it, though I did reference IAttackPeople's post and the source therein.

Maybe you should go back to bed and get some more sleep, or better, take the time to comprehend what you read.




[edit on 15-9-2007 by Areal51]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

Dude, one of those photos is fake. I don't think that can be argued. Now which is most likely to be fake? A photo with an added UFO, or for some dumb reason, a photo with a UFO removed? What is suspicious about it?



relax, I wasnt referring to you or to this thread but to hoax-calls in general over the past years.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
As for old UFO pictures I think this one hasnt been proven a hoax yet

www.ufoevidence.org...

[edit on 15-9-2007 by Skyfloating]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   
This thread needs more parody Photoshops! Those are hilarious!


More than just finding the "original" photograph, I think the points people have made about the rigors of Civil War era photography making a "OMG! A FLYING DISK HOVERING IN THE SKY! QUICK! GRAB THE CAMERA!" photograph highly implausible and pointing-out what the soldiers are *actually* looking at go further in debunking this one.

After all, *it is possible* that a photograph was all setup to be exposed and a UFO appeared in the sky and everbody turned to look and the UFO stood still for the 3-second exposure time needed for a wet collodian plate photograph. Then "they" doctored the UFO out of the scene and the OP picture is the real deal.

As for how I found the original; I just googled "civil war photographs", got to this excellent site and did a search on "mill".

[edit on 15-9-2007 by IAttackPeople]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I have never witnessed a forum-site so eager, quick and professional to prove UFO-photos as hoaxes. That is suspicious
I wonder how many genuine cases got covered-up this way.


With your logic you assume:
1) UFOs are genuinely alien spacecraft (since we couldn't have had secret government UFO projects during the civil war, yet you are still arguing for this picture)
2) People who use logic to attempt to debunk a picture of a UFO all have ulterior motives.

Some good points were made about civil war photography back then. Also, let's say there was less doubt about the picture with the UFO, and we really needed to know which was the original. If it was that convincing and earth-shattering, someone could go and request a copy of the original where it is held, check for the "UFO" and if it did not exist, have the picture analyzed for signs of having been altered to remove the UFO.

Ockham's Razor: The most likely possibility is the one that requires the least amount of assumptions made.

With a healthy does of skepticism, the logic assumes:
1) Civil war photography was probably not good enough to capture a UFO unless it sat parked in the sky, conveniently, for a few minutes while the photographer took the picture (and even then I doubt you would be able to see more than a faint blur in the background and not the distinct shape of a "sports model".

If we assume UFOs are genuinely alien space craft, and that skeptics are mixed in with cover up agents hired to troll forums debunking photographs, then suddenly we have to make a monstrously huge amount of assumptions about the government, the world we live in, speculative assumptions about the aliens and their motives, assumptions about reasons we don't know more about all this publicly, etc.

Ockham's Razor says it's a fraud until more research is done, which requires the original, so good luck.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
As for old UFO pictures I think this one hasnt been proven a hoax yet

www.ufoevidence.org...

[edit on 15-9-2007 by Skyfloating]


The compressed image is of too low quality to make a judgement. You need a high quality scan of the original print or even better a good scan of the negative. Obviously an original print exists because it has been scanned. Do you know where a high quality uncompressed scan is available? Whenever they are not made available the whole thing becomes suspicious.

Hoaxers usually refuse to provide them for some reason. There are obviously safe ways they could provide them without worries of loss or theft if they are legit. Then you have to decide if the object is something that can be identified. Is it suspended from something? Is it thrown like a Frisbee through the shot? Is it a know object like the famous garbage can lid?

I check out all these threads looking for the real thing. That is what I want to find. Not the hoaxes. The real thing is like a precious gem in that it may take a lifetime of searching to find one.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


Yeah, I read everything you posted just fine. And I replied to it BEFORE you edited your post to include the part where he thinks it's a photo. It's not my problem you can't tell the difference between a photo and a painting, buddy.

Secondly, it wasn't specifically directed towards you in general, but since you're making such a fuss over it and getting so defensive, there must be some validity to what I had said.

[edit on 9/15/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
The compressed image is of too low quality to make a judgement. You need a high quality scan of the original print or even better a good scan of the negative. Obviously an original print exists because it has been scanned. Do you know where a high quality uncompressed scan is available? Whenever they are not made available the whole thing becomes suspicious.


Not always. A lot of the originals are in sometimes such poor condition that the Library of Congress will discard them after they are scanned. That is one of the reasons they started scanning these old photos at high-res: so they could be archived forever. Most of the times this is no big deal. If the photo exists now in a high quality digital format, it can be reproduced. Unfortunately, when a UFO case is involved though, originals are needed. Too bad the government doesn't care about our needs.




Hoaxers usually refuse to provide them for some reason. There are obviously safe ways they could provide them without worries of loss or theft if they are legit. Then you have to decide if the object is something that can be identified. Is it suspended from something? Is it thrown like a Frisbee through the shot? Is it a know object like the famous garbage can lid?


But how exactly would one guarantee the safety of his photo if he provided them to someone for analysis? What ways are you referring to?



I check out all these threads looking for the real thing. That is what I want to find. Not the hoaxes. The real thing is like a precious gem in that it may take a lifetime of searching to find one.


And we must keep doing this. But how do you know you have never seen the real thing in a photo? I'm pretty sure that if you have seen most of the UFO photos out there you have seen a genuine UFO. They can't all be fakes. And if you haven't, then how would you know what the real one would look like when you came across it? All you have to base what a UFO looks like is from what you have already seen in other photos... unless of course you have seen one up close with your own two eyes in person, which would be pretty incredible.

[edit on 9/15/2007 by pjslug]



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:42 PM
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".


Your exactly right. Those people are posing as that is how these shots were accomplished. They would have been posed by the photographer and told to stand perfectly still for a few seconds. That is why the portraits of that time always had people looking so unnatural with the too wide eyes and the strained looks. Photographers were true artists then. The poses in this photo are examples of the best and I'd guess that is why this photo is important in addition to the historical value.

The symmetry alone of the UFO exposes this in my opinion. I'm attaching a zoom with no re-sampling and you can see the impossible symmetry. I have no problem labeling this a fake. Considering the length of exposure this can't be probable.




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Not to mention, because of the resolution of the picture, even if the blur somehow could look "convincing", it's just too blurry.

Take a Look at This

Considering I can cook that up in 10 seconds...



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I might as well carry this a step further. This time I did re-sample to show the shadows and highlights more clearly. I made no other changes.

You will notice the arrows pointing to the highlights showing the direction of the sun. It looks like the evening or in the morning which is the preferred time of day for staged photo's. Mid-day is always avoided. Too little contrast and this shot has beautiful contrast. This means the exposure time was very long.

If you look at the arrow pointing to the UFO you will see no highlight or shadowing of any kind. The highlight should have been nearly blown out on that side. It is not and the lighting is equal all around the UFO. Another nail in the coffin.




posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by pjslug
 



You need to re-read my post and click on the link in the quote I was responding too. Different photo.



posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by pjslug
 


Whatever, Dick Tracy. Even if you did quote before I finished my post, you failed to comprehend what I wrote. I didn't make a comparison between a photo and a painting, I expressed what the photo appeared to be to me, which was in reference to another poster who got the impression of a drawing. Deduce or infer what you like. You're not solving any cases.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join