Been on this a site a long time and now I get pics, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 149 times

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:25 PM by jhill76

reply to post by theukbloke

I am not doubting what you say. Just someone else posted that on page 1 and there was no answer, so I posted it. I for one and a hardcore skeptic on ufos. That is my personal stance and I am not infringing on anyone else's.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:26 PM by skywatch

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by theukbloke

Because Photoshop was in the image information.

EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- --------------
SW :[Adobe Photoshop ] [Save As 06 ]

You have to understand you said these came straight from the camera, why would Photoshop be included in the image information. You still have not answered this, this was posted before me.

You have to understand, posting on ATS, you will get asked hard questions.

Sherpa wrote that only the first image had been through PS.

well the first image was also cropped for showing us a better view.

this is proberly why this image has been saved again.

the other 12 hasnt

cant belive that you dont even read the original post and not even sherpa

this has been up for 20min and you allready fill up the thread with nasty questions instead of giving us a little break

i wish ATS had a rule for expelling people for advocating ignorance

it really spoils some people willingness to start a new thread

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:27 PM by jhill76

reply to post by skywatch

Talk to me in U2U, I have too much respect for myself and others to debate this issue with you on the OP's thread.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by jhill76]

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:29 PM by Badge01

reply to post by theukbloke

Here's what seems odd to me:

Note the reflection:

I'm not particularly doubting your story. I'm just saying it looks like a light reflected in a picture window. The light looks like it was hung on a string with a white and blue light, then started oscillating, then filmed as the cameraman moved around. (note how the perspective of the tree changes, meaning the cameraman was not standing still. By moving the cameraman makes analysis more difficult, but in the same way adds questions as to why they were moving while looking in the viewfinder.

No matter the source, you usually don't find exceptional sharpness of a object with distant trees which are blurry.

I'm critiquing the photo, not you.

What kind of camera did you say you were using?

Thanks for your patience.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:34 PM by Badge01

Originally posted by skywatch
Sherpa wrote that only the first image had been through PS.

well the first image was also cropped for showing us a better view.

this is proberly why this image has been saved again.

this has been up for 20min and you allready fill up the thread with nasty questions instead of giving us a little break

i wish ATS had a rule for expelling people for advocating ignorance

it really spoils some people willingness to start a new thread

Well, first of all the OP said -none- of the images had been photoshopped.

Second, who is advocating ignorance?

People with real information will not be deterred by questions or analysis, in fact that's why they post here.

Thanks for your post, though.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:41 PM by October

You guys are incredible flaming the poster so quickly. I counted a handful of people thanking the poster and the rest pushing and nudging through each other to be the first to flame it.

Not the way to go in my opinion.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:41 PM by theukbloke

my camera is in the exif data, it is a canon 40D, I cannot comment on your findings - looks like a lens flare to me (it was very bright). The tree is in my driveway so it is 10 meters away(max), the object must have been a 1/2 - 1 mile away? not sure to be honest

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:42 PM by sherpa

reply to post by theukbloke

I am just looking through the user manual for your camera and it seems you can connect via usb, whether this would help I am not sure but they do say this:

If you select an image captured as RAW+JPEG or SRAW+JPEG it will be counted as one image

Canon user manual

Page 150.

It suggests to me that Jpeg is possible as a file transfer.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:43 PM by theukbloke

reply to post by Badge01

The crop was done in lightroom not photoshop

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:43 PM by jhill76

reply to post by October

We are not flaming the OP. We are simply asking questions, in no way were we rude or vulgar. Look through our posts.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:45 PM by skywatch

Originally posted by Badge01
People with real information will not be deterred by questions or analysis, in fact that's why they post here.

Thanks for your post, though.

To much/many critics can make it imbearable to write at ATS

take the chemtrail example.. people will rather riducule it than going outside and look at the sky..

thats not very funny if you live in the intense spraying area..

not funny to discuss after youve tried to make your point through page after page of the same lies.

im not sayng that in this case there should be no questions asked.

but if the only one he has cropped is the same as the one found saved be photoshop i think its irrelavant to the subject, the picture is not different from the other unmodified, what you are really discussing is weather photoshop modifies the original fileheader when you crop it... even if the original is not modified... computer programs tend to do this kind of thing.

its not relevant to the subject if the rest does not have the photoshop mark

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:45 PM by Ceara

Wow I've never seen anything like that before!! Please keep everyone here posted.

It sort of reminded me how the shuttlecraft in TNG looked. Really neat!

Thank you so much for sharing.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:51 PM by jhill76

Originally posted by skywatch
its not relevant to the subject if the rest does not have the photoshop mark

But, the person said who found the photoshop tag:

One other thing, I have not checked the others yet but this first one seems to have been through photoshop.

If someone posts information, we can expect people to ask hard questions, that is what the theme of this site deny ignorance. We strive to find the truth, if we are wrong we will admit our mistakes.

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:57 PM by Comatose

reply to post by sherpa

Why do you keep going on about JPEG? Surely the RAW format (which he is willing to provide) is of a better standard than JPEG compression?

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:57 PM by skywatch

Originally posted by jhill76
If someone posts information, we can expect people to ask hard questions, that is what the theme of this site deny ignorance. We strive to find the truth, if we are wrong we will admit our mistakes.

as far as i can tell, you strive to disrupt logic. to change the subject.

only one image had photoshop. only one is cropped.

maybe the OP is telling the truth

maybe the crop program /which was not photoshop did the header info..

you act like if theres something the auther denies, then its all wrong..

its the police kind of way you work, interigation of irrelevent things dont make people guilty. neither does clues.

why dont you wait till you get the origanal files and have some people look at that instead of clinging to this "clue"

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 07:57 PM by shunia

1st of all i like to say g8t job that you posted these pics here. Second i asked senior members of ATS to please intervene in this matter. i saw moderator already forwarded to pic expert.3rd is it crime to post at ATS we just recorded & clicked as man q you asking the guy who posted why dnt you guys ask all to MOD who controls UK SKY. Sorry to say but you too rude to him who posted these pic here .Again i say bro good job because not many did it .Now day when in uk average you came 600 times on cctv cam every day if i am not wrong. And gov sniffing on you like dogs

[edit on 27-6-2008 by shunia]

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 08:00 PM by jhill76

reply to post by skywatch

No where in my entire posts did I say this was a hoax. I asked one simple question to a small fact. I do not have to wait for the original files, I am asking about these ones.

Show me where in my threads, that I have tried to disrupt logic please. I did not say the OP is lying anywhere in my posts, where did you get that from.

I am a Computer Scientist bud, I don't have to wait for "other people".

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 08:03 PM by shunia

reply to post by jhill76

I am a Computer Scientist bud, I don't have to wait for "other people".

Wows g8t then so man just send all your pic to our Computer Scientist
And lets see what he had to say about it

reply posted on 27-6-2008 @ 08:05 PM by AGENT_T

reply to post by theukbloke

First ,thanks for posting these.They're certainly interesting.

The only thing I have a problem with is the 'sharpness' of the 'lights'.
For a one second exposure picture of a moving object+handshake too..
I can't understand how it has straight,very focused edges.

In this pic the left 'light' looks like a 'clone' of the middle one..exactly the same edge on the bottom left of each 'light'.
It looks like a 'clone tool' job..Not saying it is.. just that's what it looks like.

But for me the oddest thing is that 'straight' edge..almost single pixel sharp.
I have trouble getting that kind of resolution using a tripod with a fast exposure in daytime.

Curious..