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: 9
150
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   
all I can say about these photos is: "Nice Photoshop!"

the "UFO" is way to sharp in detail when compared to the rest of the shot, especially in the "cropped" shot. when the resolution of the "object" stays at the same edge detail level as in the "unretouched" photos, even the layman (like myself) can comfortably say "I call BULL----!"

nice try though, pay a bit more attention to how actual photography works, or even take a few photography classes and you'll peg how to countfeit your "ufo"s.




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
Can anyone answer this: By Agent_T (I didn't see an answer on this one)


......

[edit on 27-6-2008 by jhill76]


Why does the left most light look like a copy paste/superimposed image? An artifact of the camera?

(I am, by no means, calling a hoax, merely want to raise a point)



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
reply to post by theukbloke
 


Hi theukbloke,

Just looking at the exif data on the first image and the datetime original is 14/6/2008 which was a saturday but you say they were taken monday before last which was the 16th.

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

Extract below:

** Snip **

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

ASSESSMENT: Image is very likely processed/edited


Any ideas on these to points ?

Thanks


He did say he has the originals, and my guess is that that these were reduces in size via photoshop in order to get them online.

It's unusual for a digital camera to store original images in a lossy format such as JPEG, so Im guessing that these were reduced in size via photoshop in order to post on the forums, and that he means that the true exif data is attached to the originals.

?

Other than that, Im going to wait for the originals to be examined as offered by Springer, before I assess the copies above !





posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodcircle
 


But:


OK for all those people out there that think these images are photoshoped, pls provide a reason why I am will to give up the negatives (the raw images) - I didn't add or change these images.


He said he didn't change the images.

Again:



The Raw Processor is called 'Photoshop Lightroom' made by Adobe (look it up and install if you don't believe me), photoshop was not used. I'll even put one of the files up so you can compair the exif


He says PhotoShop was not used.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
It suggests to me that Jpeg is possible as a file transfer.


Why do you want a lossy compression format as opposed to a lossless one? You prefer to have pieces of the image lost for some reason?

jpg is one of the worst formats for using in identifying anything.




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
amazing photo's

i can't wait to see what the experts will have to say about the raw data.

its either an experimental craft, or a flying saucer from god knows where

but its DEFINATELY not a helicopter.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


Yes he said he didn't use Photoshop. photoshop and adobe photoshop lightroom are 2 different programs. SO it could just be a misunderstanding when he says he didn't use photoshop. He does admit to using lightroom which would give a tag in the exif data as it converted the original images.

as to the pictures the OP posted they are awesome but something just doesn't sit right with me with the pics. I'm going to have to look them over when i'm not so tired and cross eyed. BUt thanks for posting them



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


I was trying to relay the information to the person I responded to that the OP did not use Photoshop, he thought he did to edit the pictures.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76

He said he didn't change the images.


True, after I posted, I read further to discover that he uses Photoshop Lightroom. Apart from the final image, which is a cropped and enlarged copy of the first one, the images weren't EDITED, but retrieved from his camera using Photoshop Lightroom.

So now, that ties in with both Sherpa's findings AND the OP's statements.

Here is an online exif URL to the first image, a rather concise tool for those who cant access a decent Exif viewer.

regex.info...


Creator Tool Adobe Photoshop Lightroom
Date/Time Digitized 2008:06:14 22:28:32.00+01:00
13 days, 10 hours, 4 minutes, 28 seconds ago
Date/Time Original 2008:06:14 22:28:32.00+01:00
13 days, 10 hours, 4 minutes, 28 seconds ago





Again:


The Raw Processor is called 'Photoshop Lightroom' made by Adobe (look it up and install if you don't believe me), photoshop was not used. I'll even put one of the files up so you can compair the exif


He says PhotoShop was not used.


Oh come on, you know exactly what he means.


Unlike traditional image editing software, Photoshop Lightroom is focused on the following workflow steps:

* Library - image collection review and organization - similar in concept to the 'Organizer' in Adobe Photoshop Elements
* Develop - non-destructive RAW and JPEG file editing
* Slideshow - tools and export features
* Print - layout options and preferences
* Web - automatic gallery creation and upload


And he has said that he uses it to retrieve the images from his camera.

Sheesh. Sharks are hungry today eh?



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by bloodcircle
 


Could you explain more on your findings. Especially your last sentence. Just trying to get an understanding of what you mean. Added extra text for a one-liner.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Hey, OP, thanks for posting the pictures. They're intriguing at the least, and the best quality photos of a UFO I've seen in a long time.

And don't let the "flamers" get to you. They may seem rude, but meh, they just want to exclude any possibility of fakes - there's a lot of hoaxers out there. But I'm not saying you're one, of course.

Again, these photos are good. Thanks for posting them.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:05 AM
link   
i loaded a cropped version of each image into Flash MX and played it as an animation

looks pretty convincing to me that its not photoshopped

ATS wont let me upload .swf files, so i really dont know how to post the animation

i tried it as an animated gif,
what a joke for quality



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by theukbloke
Monday before last my ears started humming, and I just ignored it, but then my daughter (the biggest skeptic there is) said she could see an odd green light hovering over the river (River Thames in Hampton, UK) I took a look and at first thought is was a helicopter, but the sound was way off, not the normal thudding but deep bass buzzing sound the lights were wrong as well. The lights were green with very bright white light that was much brighter than I could look at. I grabbed my camera and snapped the following sequence before it shot off towards the south (look at what the light did to my image sensor), the images are shaky as I had to put it on 1 second exposure (well the camera did that for me) as it was dark. I wanted to capture the image in context with the surrounding for you guys to look at. These images were shot in raw and the full exif data is attached to each image.

this is the first one cropped for better detail- look at those lights on the camera's sensor!



Now, am I saying this is an Alien Craft? Not sure, all I know is that is a UFO (to me).

theukbloke


A humming bright light (no make that 3 bright lights) over a highly populated area such as this?

img167.imageshack.us...

I'm sorry but with the recent reported ufo sightings over the UK lately it's kind of bizarre that no one has ever reported this one yet. An object with THREE bright lights that makes a humming sound that anyone can hear around a populated area such as that CANNOT possibly go unnoticed.

And like many classic hoaxes the OP never mentioned the EXACT location of his sighting.

This thread reeks of hoax.




[edit on 28-6-2008 by Macrotus]

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Macrotus]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Macrotus
If everyone in in ATS follows your line of thinking, then the C2C drones, Haiti UFO and all the prefabricated digital lies in You Tube proven and admitted to be fabricated would be taken as truth and we all would be gullible suckers.


Far from it. The drones, the Haiti ufos etc, were all posted by anonymous people elsewhere on the internet on either youtube, or less than reputable websites with an elabourate backstory from a some uncontactable person/s.

They were not posted here by members claiming to have been there and taken the evidence, but put forward as something of interest.

THESE images are from a long term member of ATS who has claimed they are his with a backstory and has most likely seen the end result of hoaxers and jokers, who come in 3 days before, with a whopper of a story and somewhat dubious images/links to youtube. It's not pretty.

That you can compare these images to the drones shows you're not even thinking laterally about what's been posted here, and are merely here to lambast the OP, under the guise of "critical scepticism".


Being sceptical and vicious allows lying scam artists to think twice to post such lies in ATS.


Sceptical yes. Vicious? Shows you to be ignorant in the extreme.




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Macrotus
 


the only problem with your theory is

most people never look up
they constantly look straight ahead or down

how many airplanes do you take notice of on a daily basis?
furthermore, just because nobody else has posted, here, on ATS, doesnt mean nobody else saw it and is talking about it.

every UFO story reaks of hoax to those who don't want to believe



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Thanks for posting your pic's


Mod Note - please review, Warnings for one-line or short responses
One Line or less Responses or "me too" atta-boy comments contribute nothing to the discussion. These include rows of smilies, "you're wrong", or other similar short responses.

[edit on 30/6/2008 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by bloodcircle
 


Could you explain more on your findings. Especially your last sentence. Just trying to get an understanding of what you mean. Added extra text for a one-liner.


I'm not too sure what you need/want me to explain more of, I merely ran his first image through a decent EXIF viewer, to see for myself what exactly was done with the image. In the data there was the information relating to what program was used to save the image, which was Photoshop Lightroom.

That's what UKBLOKE has been saying, but others have been apparently confused by this and assuming that Adobe Photoshop (the photo editing suite) and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom (the digital image management application) are the same, then calling the OP up for it, when he says he didn't use Photoshop.

Simply, he did not use Photoshop the Photoeditor. He used Photoshop Lightroom the digital photography handling aplpication, when he retrieved the images from his SD card.

The term "To Photoshop" these days is synonymous with Editing an image to change/alter it, often to create something fake. So I can understand this, the first time the mistake is made. But to find it still 9 pages later, after it has been explained in detail, tends to show, at least in my opinion, an agenda other than scepticism.

The EXIF data I pasted from the External site, was just a snippet to show that it was indeed Photoshop Lightroom, and not merely an Adobe Photoshop product that the Sherpa revealed - and as someone claimed was evidence of a hoax, somewhere on page 2 or 3.

As for the last sentence, if you mean the one pertaining to the OP's images and Photoshop Lightroom, then I am referring to how the OP claims to retrieve images from his camera.

From what I've gathered, he removes his SD card and pops it into his PC, but the data on the SD card is RAW image format. So in order to load it into a savable and viewable format, he loads it into the only application he is aware of that can work with RAW data, Photoshop Lightroom, and then saves the images. Thus, the images will all have the Photoshop Lightroom EXIF tag inside them.

Obviously, there are other ways to deal with RAW data, but they ALL involve a separate Software package, and they will all append their own EXIF tag, so until we DO have the RAW images for ourselves and load them into OUR applications for viewing then every copy that is converted will appear to have been 'run through an editing package'. There is no way around that.

Now, if you meant the Shark jib,
N/M.. Just felt the waters were getting a bit on edge and once the smell of blood is released, the frenzy is awful.




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by Macrotus
 


the only problem with your theory is

most people never look up
they constantly look straight ahead or down

how many airplanes do you take notice of on a daily basis?
furthermore, just because nobody else has posted, here, on ATS, doesnt mean nobody else saw it and is talking about it.

every UFO story reaks of hoax to those who don't want to believe


The only problem with your theory is :

Most people have ears.

Most people have poseable necks.

Most people have eyes that are sensitive to light even in their peripheral vision.

Most people know know how an aircraft/helicopter sounds like. And like he said:


Originally posted by theukbloke
I took a look and at first thought is was a helicopter, but the sound was way off, not the normal thudding but deep bass buzzing sound the lights were wrong as well.


It's simply bizarre that no one reported this for almost two weeks.

How many airplanes that make a humming sound and have THREE BRIGHT BLUE LIGHTS that is so bright it makes a very sharp outline on a blurry photo?




furthermore, just because nobody else has posted, here, on ATS, doesnt mean nobody else saw it and is talking about it.


This picture was taken on 14th. I'm sure it doesn't take a genius to know people would have reported it sooner than he posted.

Which brings this to:
_________________________________________________________
Why did it take nearly 2 weeks for him to post these pictures in ATS?
_________________________________________________________

Trying to work out the alpha channels and lighting intensity in his favorite 3d/composite/photo editing app and faking EXIF data?



Originally posted by theukbloke

I can do CGI,



Yep.



Originally posted by theukbloke

...but this is not something I would try and fake,



Why not?


Originally posted by theukbloke

....what gain would there be?



Let's see.... ATS points, getting a kick out of suckering people, getting good practice out of your CGI skills, getting to learn how to composite cgi over photos and learinig how to make up stories. I'm sure there's more...


Originally posted by theukbloke

Now, am I saying this is an Alien Craft? Not sure, all I know is that is a UFO (to me).



Wooops, you just said it. Are you trying to unintentionally suggest it was?
So if he thinks this is any extraordinary incident, why does it takes nearly TWO weeks to post photos of it? Anyone in here ever wondered about that?


Originally posted by theukbloke

My Apologies, these have been sitting on my card for a couple of weeks



Riiiiiight...........

You saw a UFO and it took you almost TWO weeks to post it in here and you have


Originally posted by theukbloke

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



Right there in the thread title folks. I can't see why you guys haven't noticed this yet.


Originally posted by theukbloke

been on here for 4 years now.......



And it took almost TWO WEEKS for you to post this in ATS?


Originally posted by theukbloke

been on here for 4 years now and never found a need for attention or even a thread of my own.



Now you have ukbloke.... Now you have.....











[edit on 28-6-2008 by Macrotus]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Macrotus
 



Well maybe comments like this is the reason for him to think twice and thats why it tok some time. I sure would think two times before posteing it here by the looks of it.

He has posted som pictures. Lets not make fool out ouer self before things have been prowen.

If there is no experts here then we shouldent act like one.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Incredible photos. Thanks. You got a star from me.



Mod Note - please review, Warnings for one-line or short responses
One Line or less Responses or "me too" atta-boy comments contribute nothing to the discussion. These include rows of smilies, "you're wrong", or other similar short responses.

[edit on 30/6/2008 by Sauron]




top topics



 
150
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join