What could this be?!!!

Originally posted by adnachiel21
Is anybody here expert in Photoshop who can say that this photo is genuine and not being tampered with.

It doesn't look photoshopped and if it is it's a very good job.

Only thing I would say is that the image is only shot at XGA resolution.... which is about 0.8 megapixels. The Nikon E5000 camera is capable of 5 megapixel! Would have been nice to have a high resolution image. I've never quite understood people having 5 megapixel cameras and using the lowest possible quality setting when taking photos

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Total Package]

reply to post by Total Package



I think it's a choice of Quanity over Quality. At a lower setting, you can fit more pics on a card.

Who expects to catch a UFO while out snapping pictures? It's part of the frustrating life a UFO chaser leads.

Cuhail

I'm not a photo expert, but here's one thing I noticed:

The shadow being cast by the guy on the roof is to the right -- meaning that the Sun is to the left -- but the shadows on the left side of the "ring" (on both the outside surface and the inside surface) suggest that the Sun is to the right of that particular object.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

I agree...

Also i blew up the image, because the hole in the middle of this doughnut craft was not punched out to my eyes, it does not match the background. It is either giving off ambient light in the center because the colors don't match the sky's spectrum or it didn't get punched out... As you can see in my link, in the white hole of the UFO... I used the color picker in Photoshop and the white colors tend to be in the yellow/green tint area and the white colors outside are all in the blue spectrum... all though all the whites look white in the picture, they have a tint of color to them.
i179.photobucket.com...

BUT it is hard to analyze such a compressed picture, compression can do weird things. I have seen UFOs in my life so i am not trying to actually debunk this, its just the image looks odd.




[edit on 15-9-2008 by Optix]

Completely fake.

And hoaxed.

(You have to work on your shadows more, and if you make a hole in your "ufo" please try to make the sky more realistic inside the hole as well.)


By the way, if we have been paying attention, we will discover some "cliche`s" (or recurring patterns) pertaining to the UFO hoaxes which have been increasing here. The hoaxer's are all doing the same thing "wrong", which gives them away quickly. How interesting.

Maybe in ten or fifteen years, if you stick to it and try to improve, you might start to fool some people. Keep trying buddy.

"WHAT COULD THIS BE???????????????????"

LOL!





[edit on 16-9-2008 by Electro38]

I'm not so quick to judge this one theres no sign it's a photo shop I can see and it's to pixelated to be Identified so for now I'd have to say it's a UFO as in Unidentified flying Object.

The only guess I have is some type of blimp/balloon I think the only way to Identify it for sure is to go back and make sure there isn't one there.

I think in this case it's probably a normal object but the picture just isn't good enough to tell what for sure maybe someone will know the area and Identify it.

It's not normal for a file straight out of a camera to start with a JFIF marker. An image editing software added it. You can check any other picture from a Nikon Coolpix 5000 camera, for example here:
www.imaging-resource.com...

It's been edited, no doubt.

Edit to add: was PictureProject 1.6 software involved in post-processing? Or some other standard Nikon software?


[edit on 2008-9-16 by nablator]

Having just grabbed the image from the original link I have worked a little bit in adobe and with other software I use to investigate this image. Without going into a load of garble, I am a professional Photographer and have also studied 'Hoax' images of just about everything. Its my conclusion that this image has not been tampered with in Adobe or anyother photo manipulating software, All the EXIF is fully intact and by this I mean I have info from the original image that you normally would'nt need or be able to edit. I use professional EXIF reading software that would clearly tell me if this was the original image or one thats been edited to add the shape.

I read the data from the original image which can be seen here:

Original Image Information

Then ran it through Adobe and added a smily face and generally messed about in adobe to change show you the difference in EXIF data that writen to the images. Data that cant be masked basically. Here's the EXIF after a visit into Adobe:

Photochopped Image Information

As stated by me above, I dont know what it is in the image but I will say that the image posted by the OP is genuine.

Currently having issues with my webspace but should be back shortly..

reply to post by StarTraveller


Thank you very much for your analysis.So everyone can just shut up about how the photo is hoaxed,its not.And if you are non believer or skeptic to the point that you can say that this photo is photoshoped or hoaxed i dont know what are you doing on ATS.O i know to debunk hoaxes.So now we proved the photo is genuine and the EXIF data is unchanged.

just like the ATS(AllTopSkeptics) bunch, now that the photo is almost undeniably genuine no one has anything to say. lol

It is not original, because the original image size was 1600x1200px (check ExifImageWidth/ExifImageHeight fields in EXIF data). Please, provide the original, unmodified image if you want serious analysis.

Btw, there's another, very similar "object" on the floor in front of his feet. Just a coincidence?

reply to post by kronos11


Now ve sits and ve vait! Actually I so badly want to believe, but I think experience the hard way has taught many people here not to suddenly go OOOH and AAAH! What did George Bush once say? "Fool me once, shame on uhm ... shame on ... "

To me it looks as though it could be a water drop or a flying Doughnut.

Maybe its just a Camera Anomaly

As i said originally imo,its a moisture droplet of some kind.So its not been tampered with but isnt really of much interest other than at first glance.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Thats Photobucket reducing the res. again. If the OP wants me to host the full res. image then let me know.

reply to post by StarTraveller


I for one, would love to see a full res expanded crop of the pic posted. Is there more detail to be seen? What did you think of my vortices theory? (see my post on page 1)

Hi Mate,

I dont have a full res. of this image, hoping the OP will be able to send me it. I understand what you're saying about the shape. At first glance I can only put this down to poor focus on the object until a full res. version is available for better study of the actual content of the image. I only checked to see if there was any evidence of tampering etc which I could not find on the information retrieved from the image posted. I too look forward to the full res. version

[edit on 17-9-2008 by StarTraveller]

reply to post by StarTraveller


I will sent you the full resultion photo U2U me with your e-mail,thanks.

hi mate,

You can send the image to me at:

[email protected]

As soon as I receive it I will delete the email from this thread and update with the full res. version.

I have also footage of a ring shaped object www.youtube.com...

and stills of the object www.youtube.com... So could be real I don't know.