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.

 

Clearest UFO picture ever?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Wow it kinda looks like a spacecraft from the movie Buckaroo Banzai.
I have long believed that Alien engineering and Mechanics have very little in common with ours. Cool pic btw.




posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Event Horizon
 

a cooked turkey?



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
To me, it looks like a Swedish Jet fighter from the 50's, the J29 "Tunnan". It seem to have about the same "fat" shape as Tunnan, which is unusual for a jet fighter. Just my humble opinion of course, but I think it might be just that. I'll provide a link, so you can make up your own mind.

Edit: When I compare them, I see that it doesn't have the exact shapes of the Tunnan. Might be the picture that's distorted, or maybe it's not a Tunnan after all. Let's assume I just threw out the idea as a theory.


[edit on 19-11-2007 by David_Reale]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Looks fake to me, you can see a blurring "halo" where someone went around the edges of the blob and used a mixing and then blurring tool.

Btw i'm not a professional by any means, but my grandmother has around 30 or so pictures collected over the years which by some method or another became ruined, or needed people removing from those photos. As the resident computer nerd of the family this job fell to me, and i've spent probably a month of actual time fixing those (and i didn't even get paid!) and i can see that a pretty bad effort was done around the edges there, the further you zoom out the easier it is to spot it. One thing you absolutely must do when editing pictures is to make sure that your work looks good once zoomed out.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Probably a 'Boeing Bomb'. I wouldn't doubt that there is a much larger aircraft directly above the "UFO" in question if you know what I mean.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   


I think the aliens are the turkeys and this thanksgiving they will revolt against the human race
and we will be eaten by the turkeys and all



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightmare_david
I don't know if it's fake or not, but there's no reason to just accuse the person who posted it of faking it.

Since you're such an expert, explain how you came to the conclusion that the person who posted it here made it themselves.


I was using the "you" as meaning "someone." Take it easy. Relax. This is just a simple, happy UFO forum. No need to get all wound up.


I was just demonstrating what I feel are a few of the obvious flaws in the photo, which could possibly help the OP recognize something like that as junk so they won't embarrass themselves in the future.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I'm hungry for turkey



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Well, it appears to be above the clouds. If this was taken during WWII, then I'm thinking it's an aircraft that has been hit and is starting to go down. Doesn't mater though - with no provenance, it's of no use as evidence for anything.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
that's so strange.
Is this a Thanksgiving hoax?
If so keep the threads real.
But if not, it's super strange.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
The pilot should know his goose is cooked!



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by nighttowel
 

Ok, that much appears plausible... as your EXIF data indicates that this image was taken by a modern FinePix digital camera... however, my gut still says fake.


Exif IFD0

  • Camera Make = FUJIFILM
  • Camera Model = FinePix A500
  • Picture Orientation = normal (1)
  • X-Resolution = 72/1 = 72.00
  • Y-Resolution = 72/1 = 72.00
  • X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
  • Software/Firmware Version = Digital Camera FinePix A500 Ver1.05
  • Last Modified Date/Time = 2006:01:01 00:01:40
  • Y/Cb/Cr Positioning (Subsampling) = co-sited / datum point (2)
  • Copyright Owner =
  • Unknown tag: Tagnum = 0xc4a5 ===> data = (TAG DATA REMOVED FOR LENGTH)

    Exif Sub IFD

  • Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 10/200 second = 0.05000 second
  • Lens F-Number/F-Stop = 330/100 = F3.30
  • Exposure Program = normal program (2)
  • ISO Speed Ratings = 200
  • Exif Version = 0220
  • Original Date/Time = 2006:01:01 00:01:40
  • Digitization Date/Time = 2006:01:01 00:01:40
  • Components Configuration = 0x01,0x02,0x03,0x00 / YCbCr
  • Compressed Bits per Pixel = 20/10 = 2.00
  • Shutter Speed Value (APEX) = 452/100
    Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/22.94 second
  • Aperture Value (APEX) = 340/100
    Aperture = F3.25
  • Brightness (APEX) = 233/100
    Brightness = 5.03 foot-lambert
  • Exposure Bias (EV) = 0/100 = 0.00
  • Max Aperture Value (APEX) = 340/100 = 3.40
    Max Aperture = F3.25
  • Metering Mode = pattern / multi-segment (5)
  • Light Source / White Balance = unknown (0)
  • Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
  • Focal Length = 640/100 mm = 6.40 mm
  • Maker Note = (TAG DATA REMOVED FOR LENGTH)
  • FlashPix Version = 0100
  • Colour Space = sRGB (1)
  • Image Width = 640 pixels
  • Image Height = 480 pixels
  • Focal Plane X-Resolution = 4442/1 = 4442.00
  • Focal Plane Y-Resolution = 4442/1 = 4442.00
  • Focal Plane X/Y-Resolution Unit = centimeter (3)
  • Image Sensing Method = one-chip color area sensor (2)
  • Image Source = digital still camera (DSC)
  • Scene Type = directly photographed image
  • Custom Rendered = normal process (0)
  • Exposure Mode = auto exposure (0)
  • White Balance = auto (0)
  • Scene Capture Type = standard (0)
  • Sharpness = normal (0)
  • Subject Distance Range = unknown (0)

    Exif IFD1

  • Compression = JPEG compression (6)
  • Picture Orientation = normal (1)
  • X-Resolution = 72/1 = 72.00
  • Y-Resolution = 72/1 = 72.00
  • X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
  • Y/Cb/Cr Positioning (Subsampling) = co-sited / datum point (2)


  • [edit on 11/19/2007 by damajikninja]



    posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 11:48 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by damajikninja
    reply to post by nighttowel
     

    Ok, that much appears plausible... as your EXIF data indicates that this image was taken by a modern FinePix digital camera... however, my gut still says fake.

    Besides, everybody knows that turkeys can't fly...ask Herb Tarlek about that.



    posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:03 PM
    link   
    This really looks photoshopped to me. I've used the 'film grain' filter a few times before, and it is almost certainly used here.

    HOWEVER, I found a couple shots of UFOs on ufoevidence.org that seem similar in design.

    turkey UFO 1
    and
    turkey UFO 2

    I realize they're not totally the same, but they seemed similar to me...

    [edit on 19-11-2007 by oxgoad]



    posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:14 PM
    link   
    IMHO this is a photo of a SCREEN, most likely of a PC one.

    Reflections are clearly visible in the upper corners and at the bottom we can see the edge.
    A doctored pic showed on the screen then caught on camera.



    posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:29 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by nighttowel
    reply to post by Dallas
     


    Hey, a few years ago I used to print alot of UFO pictures (don't ask...) This one I have always liked and I found it the other day when I was cleaning. So I took a picture of it using my camera.

    Here is a picture I modified of the UFO.




    Nighttowel --

    I'm a little confused. Did you say that the OP was a picture you took of an existing printed picture of a UFO. That seems obvious by the glare. But then what exactly is that in the post that I am referencing? That is obviously the same "object/turkey/poo" that was in the OP (same angle/similar lighting,etc. But definitely darker.)

    Please explain what THAT ABOVE photo is. I don't understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying you created the photo in the OP from the photo above?


    EDIT TO ADD:


    Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
    ...Besides, everybody knows that turkeys can't fly...ask Herb Tarlek about that.
    ...


    That is one of my favorite All-Time TV moments. Thanks for the memory!

    But the exact quote came from a distraught and guilt-ridden Mr. Carlson, not Herb Tarlek, and that quote was:

    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly"
    Funny stuff!

    And don't forget Les Nessman's on-air report:
    "It's a helicopter, and it's coming this way. It's flying something behind it, I can't quite make it out, it's a large banner and it says, uh - Happy... Thaaaaanksss... giving! ... From ... W ... K ... R... P!! No parachutes yet. Can't be skydivers... I can't tell just yet what they are, but - Oh my God, they're turkeys!! Johnny, can you get this? Oh, they're plunging to the earth right in front of our eyes! One just went through the windshield of a parked car! Oh, the humanity! The turkeys are hitting the ground like sacks of wet cement! Not since the Hindenburg tragedy has there been anything like this!"

    Sorry for the "slightly off topic" part of my post, but I thought it was keeping with the spirit of Thanksgiving.

    Happy Thanksgiving to all in the U.S. (and belatedly to all in Canada)

    [edit on 11/19/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



    posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:41 PM
    link   
    reply to post by internos
     

    Nice thinking, but wouldn't there be scan lines visible in the image? Also, there would almost certainly be reflective glare - not just bright areas. Screen photography tends to blur too, cuz most cameras have a hard time focusing correctly on the screen for some reason.

    My impression is that this is exactly what the OP said it was - a picture of a picture. Photos have that glossy surface on them, and if he laid it down on a table top surface to photograph it, it could very well be reflecting the ceiling lighting.

    Who knows - I just wanted to point out that the bright corner regions do not 100% certify this as a screen-photo. IMHO!!!

    EDIT: Just noticed the "line" at the bottom of the image. That would be explained by a screen shot... or could that be the bottom edge of the photo?

    I still think this is somehow faked though... and maybe not by our OP, but somewhere down the line, I think this image was "generated". Again, IMHO!!!!


    Ok, now I have to get back to work. Shame on me for allowing myself to get sidetracked by ATS!! Wrangell76 will kick my butt if she sees me goofing off during work hours!


    [edit on 11/19/2007 by damajikninja]



    posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:51 PM
    link   
    I am still going with my gut. Turkey thrown out of a UFO passenger window in disgust......no dressing .....no gravy...they decieded to order a ham...and later Marcel found it in roswell...half..eaten..



    posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:04 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by damajikninja
    reply to post by internos
     

    Nice thinking, but wouldn't there be scan lines visible in the image? Also, there would almost certainly be reflective glare - not just bright areas. Screen photography tends to blur too, cuz most cameras have a hard time focusing correctly on the screen for some reason.

    My impression is that this is exactly what the OP said it was - a picture of a picture. Photos have that glossy surface on them, and if he laid it down on a table top surface to photograph it, it could very well be reflecting the ceiling lighting.

    Who knows - I just wanted to point out that the bright corner regions do not 100% certify this as a screen-photo. IMHO!!!

    EDIT: Just noticed the "line" at the bottom of the image. That would be explained by a screen shot... or could that be the bottom edge of the photo?


    Very nice pointing out

    At this point, it doesn't matter whatever it is: it can even be a doctored pic copied on a dvd and then showed on a TV screen.
    Or a photo of a pc screen.
    Or a photo of a printed photo.

    But whatever it is, is CONCAVE, %.
    Anyway, there could be many kind of glitches, but it could happen even to obtain an almost "clean" image:



    That kind of soft reflection could be determined by a layer of powder...

    Who knows: that was just an opinon, and of course i could be 100 % wrong



    posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:12 PM
    link   
    the first thing that came to mind was turkey, but since reading that everyone also says turkey i say turkey!.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    0
    << 1    3  4  5 >>

    log in

    join