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.

 

Been on this a site a long time and now I get pics

page: 17
150
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:08 AM
link   
How strange! I noticed number 7 on your list, 1081.jpg, "NOT FOUND". Is this just because that one didn't come out? Or did "someone" remove it?




posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:22 AM
link   
New Animation

I used the new HUGE images uploaded and created this....



All I did was stack all the images in layers, cropped in,
created single images, created animation. I did not alter
or add anything other than the credits layer nor change
any color info. No zooming or anything. Just cropped to
area of action. The animation is at 2000ms.

Thanks for posting some really awesome pictures!



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I, personally, wouldn't be interested in contacting The Sun regarding anything. it's not a reputable outlet, IMO.

i'm waiting for what ATS experts — asked by Springer — reveal with their opinions. i thank The UK Bloke for providing a very interesting thread which i'm hooked on.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Been watching the thread anonymously decided to register. I want to clarify some things for the skeptics, as this is my cup of tea and have been doing professional digital photography for 6 years.


First off, about "photoshop" in the exif data of his photos. Yes, it should say that. Adobe Lightroom, is also called Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, and will leave the print of "Photoshop" in the exif data, even if photoshop wasn't used.

Lightroom is merely a program to "interpret" the raw files and convert them to a format to be printed or displayed on the web, such as .jpeg. In lightroom, you can make adjustments to the photo such as the brightness and contrast, color balance, sharpness, and other such adjustments, but you cannot use lightroom to do "photoshopping".

Second, Raw files (.cr2 is what his camera uses) is a filetype that can't be edited (besides dark room adjusting such as brightness, contrast, and white balance, etc, but even then those adjustments are saved to a secondary file). It's just flat out impossible. So if he provides us the raw files, and it shows this object just as his original post, the photo has not been edited or faked in any way and is indeed real photograph, there's just no way to manipulate raw files. This is why I encourage all of you, if you are going to be shooting photos of UFOs and stuff, to use the raw format and not .jpeg, because raw files are solid proof that can't be disputed. Jpegs mean nothing and can be "shopped".

With all that said, the object could very well just be a reflection in his window, I'll do some analyzing later. But if he has shown us raw files (I haven't read the whole thread yet) then the image is NOT photoshopped, I repeat, NOT photoshopped.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Thanks alot RenderGod! I starred ya for the effort!

Looks good!



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   
wow! just wow! amazing pics UKbloke.. thanks so much for showing these pics. Im not feeling this is other worldly but something of ours. Those green/blue lights are beautiful and I would be interested in why those colors are chosen for that craft, It doesn't seem like there the "hey im here lights" as usually on a helicopter or airplane. Someone mentioned pages back they resemble afterburners, and i'm seeing that too, but not in the normal afterburner fuel we are used to seeing in crafts like the space shuttle.

Im really looking forward to what the experts have to say on this.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by kthulu
Okay ,maybe my post was a tad bit bitter. I aplogize.
Let me restate my opinion, with more positive spin;

I am glad that UKbloke has triumphed, because it means that if someone HAS genuine evidence, no matter how much we fight ourselves, the evidence will shine through.


Evidence? Those pics are not evidence of anything except lights in the sky, however interesting.


and to the guy who said "where would ATS be without the naysayers," I ask you to go back and ask yourself if most of what I am truly talking about was done in a scientific light, or if it was a witchhunt. But I do respect your point.


I re-read a few pages and find no evidence of a witch hunt, only one or two drive-by posts, and many posts with a scientific approach.

I would ask YOU to post those statements or posts here which indicate a witch hunt.


I just keep thinking one day,we're going to come across some real evidence, and people are going to blow over it.


Consider that it's the large number of hoax 'sightings' which cause the real sightings to be lost like wheat in chaff. In fact, we may have a handful of -real- sightings, but we can not tell which ones they are. It's not the skeptical analyses which obscure real sightings.

In fact, my contention is that when/if we have a real sighting of an ET piloted UFO craft, it will be blatantly obvious and not something that will easily be dismissed. Having said that, the capability of those who might hoax has gone up, and it's entirely possible that the military or a heavily funded organization could stage a very convincing sighting. Again, this proves my point that it is not the skeptics which will be at fault, but the hoaxers.

In such cases you'd better hope and pray there are some clever skeptics which out these large-scale hoaxes or else we will -all- be played, big time.



Thankfully, I was proven wrong, and I'm glad for it.



Uh, ok.
Thanks for your comments.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   
I don’t understand why, if you had taken them on the 14th (which was a Saturday) you then waited all that time to take them off the camera, put them on your pc and post on here.

Seems like you are a believer in these types of things and seems like you (given the title of the thread and that you have been a member for four years) “Been on this a site a long time and now I get pics” would have put them straight onto the net for us all to see.

Why wait from the 14th to the 27th

And if my “ears started humming” and then my daughter came to me, telling me of a light hovering over a river near to my house and I “grabbed my camera and snapped” I would not then wait near two weeks to show fellow members of a site, I had been coming too and reading stories about UFO’s for years.

Its just the emergency and anticipation of your text, in that you are expressing with the very title that, you have been on this site a long time and only NOW do you get pics, as if to suggest that you have been wanting or waiting to get something, anything for some years, then that’s where the total rush breaks down in sharing these with anyone, you just sat back and chilled out for two weeks.

Not saying they are fake, no Sir-re, put just something in my head I needed to ask or get out.


[edit on 29-6-2008 by InterWeb]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Well I certainly don't mind admitting I was WRONG..yep.. thats W.R.O.N.G... as in ..NOT CORRECT.. in my assessment of the original pics..and if the O.P requires an apology I certainly do apologise..unreservedly.

But he said he doesn't ..so I won't so ..Nyah.!


But it does make SPRINGER correct in his (*cough*,slightly O.T.T) Bollocking.


The lightroom software did add some artefacts in translation of the raw files.Which gives it some unnatural effects.

These originals are 'the biz' but you cannot really join them together in a 'gif' style presentation and get an accurate representation of the object.

You can now see clearer the one second travel 'motion' which gives the swirling effects.VERY much so in the last new image posted by the O.P.which shows a severe handshake and wobble.
He was aware of this so this one wasn't included in the original post.

..and the multiple strobe flashes when they at highest intensity..(the 'lights')..
..You would generally expect there to be two to two and a half as many lights as there actually were to the naked eye.

This in itself would lead to the theory that it is UK (and terrestrial)based craft.
I couldn't see aliens bothering to check out C.A.A regulations as far as strobe timing.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Second, Raw files (.cr2 is what his camera uses) is a filetype that can't be edited (besides dark room adjusting such as brightness, contrast, and white balance, etc, but even then those adjustments are saved to a secondary file). It's just flat out impossible. So if he provides us the raw files, and it shows this object just as his original post, the photo has not been edited or faked in any way and is indeed real photograph, there's just no way to manipulate raw files. This is why I encourage all of you, if you are going to be shooting photos of UFOs and stuff, to use the raw format and not .jpeg, because raw files are solid proof that can't be disputed. Jpegs mean nothing and can be "shopped".


as a senior computer programmer i know that everything digital can be created and modifyed.. raw files or anything else.

you could make a thing complete in photoshop and save it in any format possible and impossible.

digital images are digital and made of 0's and 1's..

now we have the newly uploaded "raw" files in a big resolution, thats the best we can discuss, to get the raw files from the camera and have some software to show them will not help getting further.

but to ask the OP and other witnesses questions about this maybe will.

in the new images the blue light is green which helps the story along.

offcource "raw" files, made in bitmap or in the camera brands own format is somewhat more raw... but i could still write a program capeable on both reading, writing and creating these.

multiple shots, multiple witnesses, credable images, high resolution these are the things that can hint that these shots are real..
the file-headers can not prove anything true or false



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   
What does it matter if the shots are real or not?

It's a few images amongst thousands of others like it.

The photographer has a somewhat high end DSLR, regularly sees aircraft around his home, and states he was compelled to capture a few shots of this particular one because it was so unusual.

This makes it interesting for a second, but at the same time concerning, why not record the event ? why wait almost 2 weeks too share.

Here's an image of a Helicopter at night with little exposure time. look familiar ?





posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by skywatch


as a senior computer programmer i know that everything digital can be created and modifyed.. raw files or anything else.




Ok, you got me it's not impossible, but the odds are one in a trillion. Raw files simply cannot be edited. There are too many ones and zeros, and you would have to spend years editing the ones and zeros to get anything discernible in the photo, let alone anything you like. Even with that said, I'm still not sure it's possible - there are certain algorithms that the raw file uses, and editing random one and zeros will probably produce a corrupt file which no raw-file reading program such as Adobe Lightroom can open.

Raw format files have been around since 1999 (at least), and in that time still no one has found a way to edit them and produce fakes.



Originally posted by skywatch
offcource "raw" files, made in bitmap or in the camera brands own format is somewhat more raw... but i could still write a program capeable on both reading, writing and creating these.


Reading, yes there are programs that already do that and they are necessities for photographers. Edit them? Yes there are programs that can do that and are also a necessity for photographers.

But what you cannot do is resave the file after editing it to the raw format. You have to then save it as jpeg, tiff, gif, etc. If you can create a program that can resave the file after editing to a raw format, I will personally sell my house and give you $300,000 for the software, because I know I could make billions off it.

If it were possible, trust me, Adobe would have already done it and be making billions off it.







[edit on 29-6-2008 by OrangeAlarmClock]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by theukblokeThe questions must be asked, blind faith is the real enemy.




Very well said, Ukbloke, that's a philosophy I wish everyone would take under their wing. If people make amazing claims then there's bound to be lots of probing questions, it's only natural. The trouble is as soon as people start asking questions other people start getting defensive for some reason, happens all the time here, mostly from blind believers.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by skywatch
now we have the newly uploaded "raw" files in a big resolution, thats the best we can discuss, to get the raw files from the camera and have some software to show them will not help getting further.
Just a correction (or a rephrasing of what you were saying, I am not sure if are aware of it), the newly posted files are not the "raw" files, they are the JPEG files that the camera creates along with the "raw" files so they can be seen on the camera's screen or used in those printers that print directly from the camera's card.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrangeAlarmClock
Raw format files have been around since 1999 (at least), and in that time still no one has found a way to edit them and produce fakes.

Probably no one wanted to do it because the idea behind those files is that they should be a digital version of the negative (or positive, depending on the method) of the chemical process.



If you can create a program that can resave the file after editing to a raw format, I will personally sell my house and give you $300,000 for the software, because I know I could make billions off it.

You should not make promises you can't (or rally do not want to) keep.

Some 16 years ago I recreated a damaged floppy file allocation table by hand to recover the files that were there. It only took me some 12 hours, to learn how to do it and to do it.

Reverse engineering a file format is not that difficult when we know that the result must be an image with some more data (like the EXIF data) in it. Making a program that can convert an image in other format to a "raw" format would be relatively easy, something that an experienced programmer probably could make (including the reverse engineering of the file format) in one month, and I am considering here that most of the time would be for the understanding and testing of all possibilities of the file format.


If it were possible, trust me, Adobe would have already done it and be making billions off it.
They do not have any reason for doing it and they have a strong reason for not doing it, just that.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by skywatch
now we have the newly uploaded "raw" files in a big resolution, thats the best we can discuss, to get the raw files from the camera and have some software to show them will not help getting further.
Just a correction (or a rephrasing of what you were saying, I am not sure if are aware of it), the newly posted files are not the "raw" files, they are the JPEG files that the camera creates along with the "raw" files so they can be seen on the camera's screen or used in those printers that print directly from the camera's card.


The camera does not need .jpeg to print off the card or display on the screen. On Canon cameras, you have the option of photos getting written in .jpg alone, .cr2 (raw) alone, or .jpg + .cr2. You do not need the .jpg at all. Most amateurs use just the .jpg setting because the raw file process is too complicated for them. Most pros use the raw process because it gives them more control. The .jpg + .cr2 setting is to speed up the process of developing, for you can just use the jpg if you want to make prints quick, and have the .cr2 to go back later if you need the negative to make a professional image from.

But most professionals just shoot in the raw .cr2, and later convert the .cr2's to jpegs if they are posting the images on the internet after making adjustments.

Here's an article that explains raw files a bit more:
www.luminous-landscape.com...

Now in this thread's case, the OP has already stated he shot the photo in raw format, and later converted it to .jpeg for web use using Adobe Lightroom. There's no reason to doubt him. I (and just about every other professional photographer out there) use the same work flow, except we might use different software instead of Adobe Lightroom.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   

If you can create a program that can resave the file after editing to a raw format, I will personally sell my house and give you $300,000 for the software, because I know I could make billions off it.

If it were possible, trust me, Adobe would have already done it and be making billions off it.


dont sell your house for someting like THAT...

the camera makers decode the CCD pixel output into some sort of internal "raw" representaion..

simply to create raw files you need to know their internal format or decode the raw file.


its not impossible, its not even hard.
as a computer programmer i would not spend time looking at 0 and 1's for years. my software would do that..

actually i would think a jpeg or gif file is more complicated made than a raw file. in a raw file there is no use of packing the data like there is in a jpeg, in a raw file color code 243656577 for pixel 1235689 is written directly thats why they are really big.

no offense but dont offer my 300 grand for something like this i might just suprise you and make it

[edit on 29-6-2008 by skywatch]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
This is just a little contribution for the people who dont have to much experience in photography. I myself do sit on the fence atm as wheather this is real or not. but to the OP's defense

There has been a few statments that the trees are more blurred than the actual item and that handshake has caused blurryness,
here a 2 simple pics (all same settings inc flash) that i have taken to point out depth of field that effects pictures,

different camera's and in this case different len's exaggerate the effect between 2 objects that have a distance apart from each other




there is a mere 2 meters between these 2 objects and I already have a massive blur of the item that is not the point of focus.

Also as to a statment to placing the camera on a hard object to take pics, 95% of the time there wont be a item that places the camera to point in the correct location and that most D-SLR's dont have a live LCD screen so trying to focus the pic while the camera is on a solid object involves getting into some funny angles to look through the viewfinder. so I dont know about most but placing a 2-3 thousand dollar camera in the dirt if outdoors for the sake of a pic that will most likley get called fake, i think i'll pass



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trigger82
This is just a little contribution for the people who dont have to much experience in photography. I myself do sit on the fence atm as wheather this is real or not. but to the OP's defense

There has been a few statments that the trees are more blurred than the actual item and that handshake has caused blurryness,
here a 2 simple pics (all same settings inc flash) that i have taken to point out depth of field that effects pictures,


Thanks for the post but I think you have completely misinterpreted what anyone has said. Please quote anyone who said the handshake caused blurriness.

What was said, was that the object is much too sharp, with pixel level sharpness.

Ordinarily you can't have a very distant object be that sharp. Of course, the trees will be blurry if you focus on the distant object.

But if both the tree and the object are somewhat distant and neither are moving much in regard to the observer, then you focus on infinity and both should be similarly resolved (slightly blurred).

Here is a cropped altered view.



The image on the left appears to me what it should look like with the settings on 'infinity'.

The image on the right is a cropped original (from the large file upload), and it appears -to me- that the object is too sharp and that it is closer to the cameraman rather than farther away.

Now, it could be an illusion. I'm not a professional photographer.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Here's my reference to the placing the camera on solid ground


Sorry but this is a waste of people's time. Do you not have the common sense to place the camera on a solid surface so there is no shaking. Don't mean to come across as aggressive, but blurry ambiguous pictures do more harm than good.


I just look at things and try to cover the basics ie just cause its blurred doesnt mean its camera shake etc, some pics are dam near impossible to focus without spending lots of time and nerves of what your seeing hurrying you along.
As I said I am sitting on the fence on this one as the pics dont seem quite right, but then again I've never had any pics of strange objects either. even normal pics you think something will be great and it turns out like crap and vice versa



new topics

top topics



 
150
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join