It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Unknow object caught on picture.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:09 PM
Man, it's impossible to win with you guys. "It's too clear", "it's too fuzzy", "it's a bug", "it's a bird".... You discount every bloody option!

When are you going to get it that we don't know enough about the way they move to be able capture the image well every time. Not only that but most people who do so, do so inadvertantly. It's a matter of fate and luck in these cases. Yet another thing altogether if you're out there looking for evidence. Must be why we don't have much that way, eh?

I agree with healthy skepticism. I disagree with pedantic nay-sayers.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:19 PM
I agree, I see some impossible "debunks" in this and other threads most of which make no sense at all.

Debunk for a genuine reason and be skeptical but the debunk should be sensible and justified not some of the stuff, "its moving wrong" or "the camera angle i wrong" and some of the things ive read. Its like people are assuming what a UFO caught on film must move like, or where you have to be standing, or that every filmer is a pro not just someone grabbing a cam and filming as best they can.

I posted a thread on some very nice UFO 'fleet" footage and the response was "helicopters, birds and sats", despite the fact that capturing any of those objects moving or looking like that would be a freak event in itself the debunk is no more believable than saying its little green men.

Ill debunk something if I see good reason to do so, but im fair enough to say when I dont see any immediate indications of hoax or an easy normal explanation that its a valid call for a UFO.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by silver6ix

One must be able to prove a hoax to be able to say something is genuine. You must rule out all avenues first otherwise it's just an opinion.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:29 PM
Eh, please don't think that it's my interest to "debunk" this one: it's a regular procedure to rule out FIRST all the mundane / natural explanations: only after doing that you can call something UFO. In my opinion, the pic is interesting, despite we have not the original which is most likely bigger and more detailed. Besides, thanks to free_spirit now we know even the location of the pic: i dunno how many brands of birds have a reflectant plumage: i know that pigeons may appear almost metallic in some shots, but my knowledge in birds is extremely poor. To offer a series of possible explanations can just help a fair debate; to try to dismiss the pic with one line claiming that it's photoshopped and offering zero corroborating evidences does NOT help the evolution of the discussion and besides could be annoying.

I hope that this difference is clear.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by malignant_tumor

Proving a HOAX requires reasoned and factual analysis and conclusion, not just debunking based on the most amusing explanation you can find.

Look at the thread I posted on the triangle "fleet: for an example.

Somone posted

1) Helicopters
2) Birds
3) Birds

Now all three of those explanations and more far feteched than the idea of UFOS, at least a UFO has a chance of looking like that, helicopters and birds definately do not so why try debunk based on something completely wild and fantastic?

Come up with rational explanations and reasons, not just wild answers.

In terms of this thread I wholly agree with people saying bird or bugs are possible answers, thats a fair and reasonable point. But saying "its obviously photoshopped: isnt reasonable. If its photoshopped its done very well and only someone who specialises in studying images could really tell us that as theres no obvious signs of it.

If an image expert comes in with an analysis and shows its hoaxed thats perfect, good work by someone whos qualified and able to figure that out.

[edit on 17-10-2008 by silver6ix]

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:06 PM
Looks like a photoshop job, especially due to this unexplainable purple blue colour here, see pic.

[edit on 17-10-2008 by bicnarok]

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:10 PM
hopefully i can provide original photo soon.
i have to wait when preson who is author of this picture comes online

picture is taken backseat of bike by bikers wife. At the moment she didn't see nothing unusual in the sky, but after uploading photos into pc discovery was made.

I can assure that this is not photoshopped because these people do not know nothing about this stuff. They using computer to read some newspaper, store pictures and play some games

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:24 PM
Some of these things are quite obviously hoaxes, like that alien autopsy vid post. Looks like a first year FX student's mid-term project. But this pic, imo, is quite authentic-looking.

I don't understand hoaxers in the first place though. I'm one of those "honest to a fault" sorts. I don't know how I worked in an embassy for nearly a decade.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:12 PM
no body is calling you a hoaxer or a fraud. you had a picture, or your friend did, with content on it which you could not explain. that's why you brought it here after all right?

wait... you expected praise and glory for having this 'evidence' for the existence of UFO's?

sorry bro, that's just not what happens here at ATS. we're serious people here and we mean business. the amount of stuff we've gone through here is ridiculous. if the majority of the posters of your thread are telling you it's not alien then it most likely means it's not. don't get offended.

in my humble opinion, i think it's just a bug.

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:23 AM
Incredibly badly faked. Unless you can show us proof otherwise, i don't think many people will think that the OP picture is authentic. Nice try.

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:42 AM
Seems to be a good photo to me. The blurriness could be accounted for due to motion, could it not? If the thing were travelling at high speed, plus the fact that it is incidental, not focal, it justifies the blurriness even further.

Do we know if the object was seen at the time? Cloaking could account for blurriness too.

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:54 AM
Im sorry but I believe it to be faked.
If you zoom alot change contrast and follow the pixels they change very much on the object.
Not the same as they change on other objects.
Which would mean its been taken from something else.
Just my opinion.

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 10:48 AM
I'd be willing to bet that most pics will give you funky results if you go messing with them back and forth - and most definitely if you specifically want/don't want to find something.

And no one is forcing you to give your opinion. Make sure it's worth it. If a poll were called for, someone would supply it.

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 12:17 PM

I tried adding another "saucer" in the image using Photoshop. I'm not saying my version looks exactly like the OP's alleged UFO, but I'm just sharing the result of my curiosity anyway and hopefully this will help bring things closer to the truth.

Here's how I did it:

1. I created an ellipse then painted it with light gray
2. Used blending options>inner shadow opacity: 45%
3. Applied "motion blur" angle: 4
4. Combined the "blur" and "smudge" tools until it looked kinda like a fast-moving UFO

Again, I'm just saying that's how I created my UFO. I'm no expert. I have no way of proving technically that the image is a fake, but personally, I think there's a big possibility the image might have been tampered with.

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 12:33 PM
Its possible but the original is well done. If you zoom into pixel level and look and the blending of the pixels you will see your version is very uniform compared to the other.

That sort of uniformity doesnt account for relfection, light, blur motion. In a genuine image you generally see a very subtle natural blend.

Again im not am image expert just from what ive read and looked at myself, but since you have the two in the image its a useful point if you zoom to see the pixels you will see what im talking about.

If the first one is photoshopped then its done well and needs a person who specialises in studying doctored images to identify id say.

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 01:06 PM
I'm a little surprised that there is this much discussion on this photo after all of the bird/ufo analysis threads in the past. This looks like a classic bird in mid-flight picture. Could someone distinguish this picture from the other bird pictures for me?

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 01:20 PM

Originally posted by silver6ix

... at least a UFO has a chance of looking like that, helicopters and birds definately do not so why try debunk based on something completely wild and fantastic?

I don't get why you say it definitely can't be a bird.

Here's another picture that doesn't look like a bird at first, but it is definitely a bird. The "Sun" newspaper printed this picture of what they said was a metallic "UFO":

(just to be clear to all, this is NOT the object in the OP's image)

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 01:57 PM
Ya its a bird. I have no doubts.
But its not photoshopped or anything.

People, while snapping a pic, never notice usual things around them, especially birds and bugs or planes etc.

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 02:30 PM
Here is what I see:

First, this is not the original. No camera EXIF Data.

Second the object is fairly close and small based on the haze. The size of a bird.

Third, no evidence of any alteration and the pixels are consistent. It has not been photoshopped.

Having said all that it is a bird flying across the shot. The highlight is the top of the wing. Can't prove it, but that is what it is.

To the overly anxious crowd; people like Internos and myself are not here trying to debunk this stuff. We are always hoping for the smoking gun, but we have to be honest, based on our experience. Looking for proof is the real reason I'm on this board. I've even been fooled a time or three.

Don't get discouraged, keep posting away. I'm convinced UFO's are real and I eagerly await the first definitive shot of one. I'm not going to say that what I'm sure is a bird, flying across a shot is anything else just to be popular.

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Good example. Shots of birds are probably the most commonly mistaken for UFO's of any. It's really simple to understand since the sky is full of birds.

Everyone having point an shoots does not help. I have to set up and plan to stop a bird in flight. Even then I get mostly blurred images. When they fly across a shot it is nearly impossible to get anything other than a blur.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in