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

Click here for more information.

reply to post by jhill76


Being an skeptic, doesnt make you an expert!!! A skeptic is just that... now tell me what your qualifications are and then I will give you the credit.

You can ask all the questions you want and still have no clue, to me an expert is someone who have posted their qualifications here, not some armchair skeptic that only troll around disrupting threads, not implying that you are but I have seen many of the type here of late and its really frustrating.

reply to post by skywatch


All you guys that eat, breath and sleep the fact that there are UFO's need to thank skeptics for keeping UFO's in the realm of reality. Its because of skeptics that mainstream american will even look at the fact they may be real. Dont beat up the skeptics. We dont know this guy and all we have is pictures. Within the first couple of post we found out that what we were looking at was not the raw data but pictures that had been thru photoshop and other adobe software,,,2. we found out the date was wrong.. why did they sit on the camera for so long before posting, would you not post the next day, and 3. We found out from the guy himself that he can edit and do CGI work(hence the photoshop program) So his original posts were not straight up and other factors came to light later on...So in reality I want to thank the skeptical people and the people who do take second looks at these things so WE all dont look like fools and believe blindly

Originally posted by Macrotus
reply to post by theukbloke

 

Those shots are definitely CGI. Composited over actual pictures because the sharpness of the object is so painfully obviously. This is a digital camera wer are talking about. A moving object taken with a normal digital camera COULDN't be that sharp.

HOAX.

It's so blatant that if no one believes this is composited cgi then you've been living in a cave.

HOAX.

C'mooon why is the fabricator is dumb enough to put a little bit of blur filter to make it more believeable is beyond me.

HOAX.

So why isn't there anyone else reporting this?

Conclusion:

HOAX. CGI. Case closed.

Simply your opinion, I for one has faith in this, but not too much of course

Anxious to see how this one ends.

fake.

it just looks absolutely wrong. it's not bright the way something in the sky is bright, it's bright the way I make something look bright on photoshop.

it could be true, it could be real, but I seriously doubt it.

and I have seen UFOs.

they weren't anywhere near as close, and you can see them any clear night.

that thing does not belong to that picture.
and it seems to be deliberately blurry, as in a digital cam with the flash off for the BG, then superimposition of the image..

real cool looking, though.

reply to post by Bunch


I am not disrupting this thread, you can see that through my posts. So, you don't want anyone to come in and ask questions? That is totally absurd in my opinion.

I work for the federal government as a computer scientist in the Summit Federal Building downtown Atlanta. Graduated from Indiana University, top of my class. A member of four renowned accrediting bodies.

Originally posted by Macrotus
reply to post by theukbloke

 

Those shots are definitely CGI. Composited over actual pictures because the sharpness of the object is so painfully obviously. This is a digital camera wer are talking about. A moving object taken with a normal digital camera COULDN't be that sharp.

HOAX.

It's so blatant that if no one believes this is composited cgi then you've been living in a cave.

HOAX.

C'mooon why is the fabricator is dumb enough to put a little bit of blur filter to make it more believeable is beyond me.

HOAX.

So why isn't there anyone else reporting this?

Conclusion:

HOAX. CGI. Case closed.

I concur that it is indeed "painfully obvious", mainly the brightness of the light is extremely bright but also very contained, normally there would be more of a glow around it, if it were outputting that kind of wattage (unless it's aliens with advanced LCD technology ) It just generally looks so out of place that I can't even consider looking into it further.

reply to post by jhill76

Yes. It's not as weird as it looks. There are 4 components, 2 fixed lights one white, one blue, and two white lights flashing about once per second.

Very unusual.

Originally posted by Macrotus
reply to post by theukbloke

 

Those shots are definitely CGI.

It's so blatant that if no one believes this is composited cgi then you've been living in a cave.

HOAX.

C'mooon why is the fabricator is dumb enough to put a little bit of blur filter to make it more believeable is beyond me.

HOAX. CGI. Case closed.

We have rules of decorum and respect when posting here. You are making accusations without any proof other than your opinion.

The OP has offered to supply the RAW images to the people that the OWNERS of ATS are having evaluate them.

Please refrain from making accusations until the experts have actually proven what you want to declare without basis.

THE OP made no claims of ET origin just that it was unidentified to him.

How can something be a hoax when no claim is made.

MANNERS please.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by NephraTari]

Originally posted by nablator
reply to post by jhill76

 

Yes. It's not as weird as it looks. There are 4 components, 2 fixed lights one white, one blue, and two white lights flashing about once per second.

Very unusual.

How can you tell that the lights are flashing once per second from still photos?

Also I've never seen anything shine that bright except afterburners, and if he was able to snap a dozen pictures I don't think this "craft" would be moving that fast.

OP

ats forums have been hit with a lot of easy debunking photos videos lately, your sturring up the pot with this one, which to me is a red flag.

Awesome pictures!

i appreciate your passive honesty and how your not even TRIPPIN off the skeptics here.

my questions is, how did you explain this UFO issue to your daughter ,what was her reaction, sorry if this question has been asked/answered

reply to post by jhill76


First, I never said you were disrupting the thread. I said that I have seen many members lately doing so. Second, thanks for posting your qualifications, at least myself and others can know where you coming from.

Those who know me around here know that I'm on the fence on many of these threads because I dont consider myself qualified to come to conclusions on the issue of CGI. What I dont like is seen members that have the qualifications that I have jumping to absurd conclusion just because "it doesnt look right" or " is too blurry" or "is too clear".

[edit on 27-6-2008 by Bunch]

I will be the first to admit that the light sequence and the shape of the craft are not like any plane or helicopter that I have ever come across or seen in any video or picture. That doesnt mean that crafts like this do not exist here on Earth, government or otherwise, but sure is hard to explain


Great find UK, Thanks to you for showing these off for us even in the face of scrutiny. I would love to hear from a photo and/or CGI expert and get a pro's take on this.

Either way, good of you to bring some excitement to the board today. Cheers.

reply to post by alienj


At the same time we dont know what skeptics come here and what agenda do they have. Yes skeptics kind of balance the ufology field but there are some out there that have their mind already set.

Healthy skeptcism is good, blind is not and on top of that we have to deal with the trolls and the disinfo people.

reply to post by Macrotus



We have been hoaxed of many times around here I understand the mediate call for a hoax.

Springer is on it, lets see where it leads. If it is a hoax he'll take names and busts heads. Metaphorically speaking of course.


Roper

Great pictures

i don't think these are cgi, the bluring of the lights in relation to the bluring of the tree branches is the same and is consistent in each shot, leading me to believe whatever was photographed was in the sky at the time

in the 3rd picture the white and blue lights have blur streaks the same distance as the double blur of the tree branch bellow it.

Originally posted by NephraTari

How can something be a hoax when no claim is made.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by NephraTari]

Hence the genius and sneakiness of the thing.
It is an "avant-hoax" leading us to the precipice of madness and cannibalism!
It feeds on our fears and consumes our pixels.

Originally posted by theukbloke
My Apologies, these have been sitting on my card for a couple of weeks and I checked the exif for date and must have got it wrong (I transpose numbers in my mind 14/6 became 16th for some reason). It was the 14th as the exif shows. I can promise that these images came right out of Adobe Lightroom - not photoshop - I have the raw files for inspection and don't know an image editor that can edit raw files - do you?

C'moooon. You can make up any excuses that you want.

EXIF data can no longer be used as an indicator of validity of a photo.

Off the top of a google search, EXIF data editors and information to alter EXIF data :

www.bluechillies.com...

groups.google.com...

So the probability of those photos to be fake is 50/50.

I'm leaning on it being fake as no one other than YOU have come forward in reporting a very bright object in the sky.

reply to post by stikkinikki


They use light sources to shine on obscure objects below there craft. They shine light if they are looking for something as well.

reply to post by jhill76


So American Military University is further study after your degree from Indiana Univ?