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.

 

Johnathan Reed photo comparison.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Hi all,
I don't post here much, but I look everyday. I was reading some of the Johnathan Reed topics about his alien encounter, and the space ship, or whatever it is, photos he took.

Granted, he does not seem to be the most trustworthy person. In fact he seems just like the type to try and pull off a hoax. He has multiple alias names and such. But for just a minute I want you to look at the photo comparision I have done between the picture that he took, and a screen shot from the video.

I have seen others say that the photo looks like a Photoshop job. This picture was supposedly taken in 1997. I started in the IT field right about that time, and from what I remember Photoshop sofware packages were pretty basic at the time, and I don't remmeber seeing too much realistic looking stuff coming out at that time. I could be wrong though.

What I want you to look at is the similarities between the photo and the video screen capture. At 4:36 into the video, just before it ends, he seems to be in a similar position to where the photo was taken. He may have been a few feet farther back, and maybe a couple of feet to the left of the photo shot. However the angle is very close, and there are some real similarities in the two.

The positions of the trees to the left are almost identical, including the branch that seems to be leaning out close to the object. There also is a bright leaf, and a small clearing area just in front of the object.






The point I am trying to make is that the two pictures are almost exact in location. If he had photoshopped the still pictures after the fact, it would have been tough to line it up in the exact position so it maches up with the video so well. This to me says that both the still photo and the video show the same physical object in the same exact location. So in my mind, whatever the object is, it was there.

Now keep in mind, this does not mean that he did not make a model of some sort and put it there. It also does not mean that any of his story is true. I just now believe that whatever was photographed, and videoed, was indeed at that location.

Let me know what you all think.




posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Anyone care to respond? Am I way off base on my allysis?

PS. This is not a one liner.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by KnowMore]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by KnowMore
 


I think this link from ufowatchdog.com will help you with this case:

www.ufowatchdog.com...

It is a well known hoax.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by KnowMore
 


I think this link from ufowatchdog.com will help you with this case:

www.ufowatchdog.com...

It is a well known hoax.


Thank you KidFlash. I did indeed read the ufowatchdog report. I realy do think that this case most probably is a hoax, especially with the things that they found out about this guy. I just wanted to put forth that the object photographed does appear to be in the same location in both the photos and the video, thus sumwhat dispelling the Photoshop theory of the photo.
To me it looks like whatever we see in the video and on the photo, was indeed there and not Photoshoped. Whatever it is, I have no idea, probably a model of some sort. I am not trying to lend him any credibility, I just thought it was interesting.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Being a very skeptical true believer I find I am not convinced either way about about the Jonathan Reed story, but its nice to see others willing to atleast look over the evidence in an effort to find their own truth.

As far as being able to reproduce an exact angle, It would not be that difficult, but I would say you are right in that there was something there.

If this guy was a blatant hoaxer he sure convinced some investigators to throw away their reputations for cash.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Sorry but UFOwatchdog got only FAKE pictures, So probably whole information is fake.

LINK

Bad photoshop

[edit on 10/31/2008 by B3...]



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by B3...
 


Your (bad) evidence is NO proof.

May I suggest reviewing your data and sources before trying to convince others.



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
reply to post by B3...
 


Your (bad) evidence is NO proof.

May I suggest reviewing your data and sources before trying to convince others.


Then believe in ufowatchdog information, or change your mind to whatever you want, then change it again until stop...




top topics



 
1

log in

join