It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A 3D Look at the Stan Romanek Still

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:23 PM
anyone notice the similarities between punkin head and this...?

Stan's feeble attempt at re-incarnating the game!!!

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:39 PM
there is no doubt there is something in the window. is it living breathing? i doubt it. i am guessing blow up alien doll from gift shop or something like that, someone under the window holding it up. if i am 10 feet from the window with a camera and i see an alien i would have to almost jump through the window to get full body photos, if i had the nerve lol.. its gotta go somewhere and i would have to see where. just like the massive flyover i am thinking hoax!!!

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:50 PM
I have never before been embarrassed to be a member of ATS.
How can anyone take this "picture" seriously?
I mean comeon, look at it, its as phoney as a three dollar bill!

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:51 PM
I'd have to agree that we will need to wait for the video for answers.

Good to see more people experimenting with Photoshop and learning. The more people that understand how it works the better. It makes people harder to hoax.

I'm afraid their is not enough information in the available copies of the still to reach any conclusions. What is there is there and it is not much. As to the layer thing, the other person was right. You would need an original .psd or a .png which would at least have the alpha layer intact. No help there. Not to mention, what is lost in compression for posting to the Internet.

What we need is the raw images from the original source. I usually consider everything a hoax unless the presenter is willing to provide the raw photo's or footage.

I'm going to buy the video when it appears, if it appears. Probably won't cost much I expect. I'd rather not be limited to, or associated with, the pirated copies that are sure to show up on the Internet. There is nothing to be learned from these low quality You-Tube type postings anyway.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:09 PM
I had heard that Romanek agreed to take a lie detector test. Has anyone heard anything further on that topic? Clearly, nothing we can do can prove what is in the picture. We can determine (as has been done here) that it's not 2D which limits the possibilities somewhat. But there is no way to prove that it isn't a hoax with the information available. Even when the DVD is released we won't be able to make a definitive determination unless manipulation of the images can be determined. What if there is no manipulation present? And the lighting and images are consistent with a 3D object? That still won't determine that it is/is not a hoax. Just becasue the object 'looks' like other hoaxes doesn't necessarily make it a hoax. I'm disturbed by the 'for-profit' angle of this whole thing but even that, in and of itself, doesn't make the whole thing a hoax. I know several people who, if they found themselves with 'THE' video, would absolutely go the profit route if it was offered. I think Romanek needs to be vetted. The lie detector test is a good frist step.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
I have never before been embarrassed to be a member of ATS.
How can anyone take this "picture" seriously?
I mean comeon, look at it, its as phoney as a three dollar bill!

I consider myself a master at photoshop (no arrogance intended), and I also love photography, and I can't see anything wrong with the image, although the original isn't on this thread. I can't see how putting it through those particular photoshop filters is gonna tell you anything. The plasticized filter distorts the image to make it look like plastic which doesn't really won't tell you anything..All in all the image doesn't have sufficient enough resolution or clarity to determine if its fake or not, but nothing in this image screams fake to me..I wonder how you came to the conclusion that this image is fake?

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:01 PM
You asked for a fake image to compare your findings. There's a video on you tube that is a fake. Didn't know if you needed a pic - hoping the video will be as good.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:27 PM
Nice work gary

I think alot of people here are forgetting or perhaps have not bothered to research enough to know that this is not a pumpkin because.

1. when is the last time a pumpkin blinked at you?

2 when is the last time a pumpkin had cheeks move?

3. A room full of press have seen and confirmed those factors about the video this photo is taken from

Can we please stop with the uneducated inanimate object explanation?

It would be nice to see my fellow posters here actually reasearch enough to not make statements that do not fit for well known reasons.

What remains is

1. perhaps an elaborate mask.. however that is doubtful considering how thin and long the neck is supposed to be.. so we are left then with....

2. CGI which most press and the film experts ought to pick up on..
OR ....

3. a VERY elaborate and expensive puppet of Hollywood quality.
and finally..

4. the real deal.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by NephraTari]

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 08:42 PM
this really doesnt prove anything. a 2d image like that really only contains two kinds of information, pixel by pixel, a value of light/dark (im sure theres a technical term, but i obviously dont know it), and a color. its purely 2 dimensional. there is nothing you can do to it with a photoshop filter that will show you where any contours are, because there are no contours. the algorithms used in these kinds of filters processes the image based on light/dark values or color information. all the plastic wrap filter (which is what is seems you used) would do is highlight the already visible lighter areas that make up the "face" or whatever it is.

i have no opinion about whether this is real or not or what it may be if it is, im just saying these kinds of "tests" dont really prove anything.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:00 PM
I hadn't focused too much on the technological perspective taken by gary. Nice work

What I had been wondering about is why a space alien with the technology to come to Earth from far away would look at some dude, who has been known to have "associated" with aliens before, through a window 10 feet off the ground?

Doesn't seem right to me, but I'm not ruling it out til I see the video.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:30 PM
i thought it was the room his teenage daughters were in?
or did i missunderstand something?
as for the op, nice job on at least trying to make some pregress mate

and, im gonna sit on the fence with this, i want to beleive, but seen too many fakes to get excited these days

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:50 PM
Thanks for all the kind words guys. I may be looking at this backward but I have a theory.

A carpenter will tell you you can put a nail in with a hammer, and you can use a hammer to take it out.
A plumber will dig a hole with a shovel and he'll fill it in with a shovel.
A mechanic uses the same wrench to put the part back on your car that he took it off with. So tools can serve several purposes.

If this is true why should we look at Photoshop or Paintshop, or any of the other imaging editors, differently? Since those programs are routinely used to debunk pictures, why can't they be used to validate pictures as well?

Maybe we should start an ad campaign. "It's not just for debunking anymore." It might make me a million.

Meanwhile PH Jr. Stopped by this afternoon. Wouldn't you know it? Those little aliens who can't see over the steering wheel drive red cars! How inconspicuous can you get?

He looks like a piece of screen stapled in a frame painted white. I've posed him in some different spots and taken pictures. Can't work with the color pics though.

So for my next project, PH Jr. has to be black and white-isized so we can run the same tests on him.

(By the way, I did tell him to wash his windshield even if he can't see over the steering wheel.)

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:04 PM

Originally posted by babylonstew
i thought it was the room his teenage daughters were in?
or did i missunderstand something?

I think he thought it was a peeping tom trying to see into his daughter's room, but the tom had the wrong room. Luckily, Stan had his video camera handy to capture the onlooker.

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:25 PM
the funny thing here is that many people find it weird that an alien would want to peek in someone's house and what they don't get is that it's probably an abduction thats going to be taking place .....

i have been abducted at least a few times for w/e reason and the first time it happened it was a day after i saw a UFO for the first time guessing these beings have a way of detecting things maybe something they need out of a certain human being for w/e .....this one night before i got abducted i could have sword i saw an alien face peeking through the bedroom window it was dark grey and it moved/hovered from left to right so fast i can barely make its face out

this video is probably real i dont see how it can be a fake....the only way it can be a fake is if someone played a prank on both of these people and they didn't know it ....which i HIGHLY DOUBT just my .02

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:59 PM

Originally posted by wisefoolishness

so the 'alien' was looking in the wrong window, and whats his name was filming the wrong window which actually turned out to be the right one to catch the 'alien'?
ok, glad thats clear

still opened minded tho

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:54 AM
I may be wrong but I believe Romanek has other footage from other locations in his home as well. He had reported for years that aliens had been observing him. Anyone familiar with Bud Hopkins work (and others) knows that abductees have routinely reported 'contacts' going back years and even being multi-generational. So that, at least, is consistent.

I'd still like to know more about that lie detector story but have been unable to find anything further on it. I believe that would be a very good start to sorting thsi whole thing out.

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:10 PM

Originally posted by garyo1954

But we know it isn't painted. so anyone have any ideas where we go with this now?

[edit on 6/2/2008 by garyo1954]

[edit on 6/2/2008 by garyo1954]

How about right into to the Trash can with the rest of the lamer than lame hoaxes perputrated on this communities beliefs in ET's for the SOLE PURPOSE of makeing a Buck??

I think that would be a pretty darn good start myself.

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:36 PM
Yes, Stan has other footage. You are correct on that point.

Yesterday I framed a screen and spray painted an image on it to test the idea of punkin head being paint and cloth.

In an attempt to replicate the conditions of the still we have, I did resize the pics I took.

Punking head II is white paint on a black screen. He was set on the ledge outside a window. This is evidenced by the reflection of the ceiling fan and the camera flash. Part of the reflection of the doorway runs through the frame that holds PHII.

Compare that image to the Romanek still in the original post, if you will.

Next I made a negative of PHII, just to compare to the negative of the still I made of the Romanek still. Again the Romanek still was posted in the first post.

Again you can see the reflections. The one thing I was impressed with was how strong PHII came out! Remember this is a painted image on SCREEN.
I would imagine it could be no less on a T-shirt or solid object.

Finally, I plasticized PHII.

Now I have to admit I didn't expect to see the shadowing affect that is apparent in this one. I expected it to be flat. And of course, it is very flat considering it is paint. And while it is not totally flat, the shadowing around the head is not drastic as in the Romanek still. Also note there are no bone structures around the eye as in the plasticized Romanek still.

I'm putting that one here for comparison. You can see the curvature of the head in the Romanek still and you can observe what appears to be bone structure around the eye.

I am definitely of the opinion that the Romanek still is of a three dimensional
figure outside that window.


posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:46 PM
there IS no curvature. the plasticize filter renders the image based on dark/light value. thats why it seems to render depth, because the lines of an object tend to be darker than the surface facing you. the reason the still from the video shows more "curvature" than the one you made is because the image is grainier and the face itself less consistant in its shade.

note that im not saying that its not a real, 3d object (head or pumpkin or otherwise), just that theres no photoshop filter that can prove that from a 2d image.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:09 AM

Originally posted by dave420
There is nothing to be gleaned from the photo - there is no such thing as a photo or video that can prove/disprove aliens. Nothing. Any can be faked.

The only real evidence in this whole debacle is the fact the guy is going to release a DVD for money. That kind of throws a shadow of doubt over the claims made.

My money is on it being a hoax.

Yes a picture could EASILY be faked, but assuming he really does have several minutes, then that would be VERY hard to fake, and he would need to spend weeks making it look real, or us CG artists will spot it as a fake straight away.

So I guess once the video is released we will know for sure

[edit on 4-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in