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.

 

Saginaw, Michigan, man discovers UFOs do exist; and he has a picture

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smokersroom

Originally posted by azzllin
i believe myself to be the worlds biggest believer in Ufo's



Originally posted by azzllin
people can convince themselves of anything if they try hard enough.


'Nuff said.

[edit on 17/4/08 by Smokersroom]



Originally posted by Smokersroom
'Nuff said.



What were you trying to say? Can you elaborate a little more?




posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by stikkinikki
Where is the square of the original image? I do not VERY EASILY see it.

Did you look at the original image zoomed in? or my image? I said to look at the original image, zoom it in and it is clearly a defined box around the object.

As miguelbmx has shown us similar pixelation oddities due to saturation problems that clearly have a similar surrounding them i am now leaning towards that as the explanation. Meaning i do not think this is a hoax, just a misunderstanding by the photographer.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I do think I see what you are refering to but I don't see a distinct square as I did in the miguelbmx photo I blew up in my post on the previous page.

Look at this photo used to tell me that these black spots show up all the time on a digital camera.







I've been shooting since 2000 on digital so I was suspicious that I had never seen anything of the like before.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by stikkinikki
 
I know what you mean, it doesn't always happen but it happens here and there, i think it might have something to do with the camera quality.
Personally i think aiptek cameras suck, lol but that's my opinion.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by stikkinikki
I do think I see what you are refering to but I don't see a distinct square as I did in the miguelbmx photo I blew up in my post on the previous page.


How about now?





Originally posted by stikkinikki
I've been shooting since 2000 on digital so I was suspicious that I had never seen anything of the like before.

But with a CCD Camera?



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Looks like a doctored picture to me



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I have been thinking a lot recently about CGI photos vs real photos. My thought is this. We expect photos, especially digital pictures to look just like the ones we take of a tree, a person, landscape. What if the UFO/s can't not be captured normally? The fact that they aren't of this world? Why would photos of them behave like normal? They could actually "distort" for lack of a better term the space around them



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
You really have to take your time and look at the photos I am talking about in order to understand there is something funny about the use of the edited square around a CGI image to prove it is fake.

Here are two photos presented in this thread.

This one I am told is obviously a cut and paste because of the squarish shape of the pixels surrounding the ufo:



This photo was used in this thread to give me an example of a digital camera error when shooting into the sun:



They both have squares, so which one is fake?



[edit on 4/21/08 by stikkinikki]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by stikkinikki
 


No... the first picture i first believed to be a cut and paste, however, upon member dissection i changed my point of view and the majority of members agree it is a CCD distortion. Same as the second picture you showed.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
***Mod edit: Please only post relevent to the topic at hand, Im sure the thread you linked will be seen as much as needed,
u2u me if you need any help,
Asala
Super Moderator, ****



[edit on 22-4-2008 by asala]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by stikkinikki
 


So you're saying that because the camera of the guy in the article made a ufo shape all cameras will reproduce the exact same shape and blurryness as his? Comon...

If it's not burned-in pixels because of CCD error I would lean towards photoshop since objects photographed directly against a strong lightsource will be eaten away by the light and what's left will have a soft edge.
We've talked about this before, but I see you devout believers are still so eager to grasp at straws that you refuse to listen to reason...

As always... this is yet another chink in our armor in the battle of reaching any kind of disclosure.

[edit on 22/4/08 by flice]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Looks too much like a digital Camera artifact to me, so you can add me to the CCD error group.

I think the guy is sincere, but he just doesn't have a clue like most camera users.

I've been using digital cameras since the Early Logitech ones back around 1990. Though I'm no expert, I've taken thousands of photos with digital cameras and have seen all kinds of weird stuff that is mostly artifacts.

My artifacts usually turn out white, but it wouldn't surprise me that some cameras do the opposite with the bad data and paint em black.

Though there is always the possibility that the man captured something interesting like a possible anomaly or UFO, the fact that the artifact appears where the sunlight is brightest tells me that indeed the brightness has exceeded the CCD's or firmwares capabilities and it has returned with bad data.

As 99% of all artifacts I've seen with digitals are when looking at the sun - I conclude it's nothing but an artifact and wishful thinking of an amateur.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by flice
reply to post by stikkinikki
 


So you're saying that because the camera of the guy in the article made a ufo shape all cameras will reproduce the exact same shape and blurryness as his? Comon...

If it's not burned-in pixels because of CCD error I would lean towards photoshop since objects photographed directly against a strong lightsource will be eaten away by the light and what's left will have a soft edge.
We've talked about this before, but I see you devout believers are still so eager to grasp at straws that you refuse to listen to reason...

As always... this is yet another chink in our armor in the battle of reaching any kind of disclosure.

[edit on 22/4/08 by flice]


You have misread and prejudged me and my intentions. Sorry to have confused you.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentShadow
reply to post by stikkinikki
 


No... the first picture i first believed to be a cut and paste, however, upon member dissection i changed my point of view and the majority of members agree it is a CCD distortion. Same as the second picture you showed.


Ok that makes more sense to me now. However we are now left with the odd comparisons of the "ufo" appearing to having some definition, shape, differing colors, etc VERSUS the example of a CCD distortion that is very dark (uniformly almost?) and it is not geometric. I will maintain my curiosity of the supposed UFO. Nothing has been proven - I remain skeptical. This is different than clinging blindly to a belief.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by stikkinikki
Ok that makes more sense to me now. However we are now left with the odd comparisons of the "ufo" appearing to having some definition, shape, differing colors, etc


Well the shape is an unknown factor, none of the previous examples of CCD distortion follow a uniform pattern, hence i think the idea of a different shape is not necessarily a good argument.

As for colours, are you referring to lighter middle of the 'object'? If i was to comment on that, i would just say that it was not affected as severely, however, i can understand your question since this is meant to be a digital imperfection and hence there should not be shades, either black or normal. Interesting.

Did you point the colours out in the thread previously? I must have failed to notice it.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join