Unknown Object Photographed over Wurzburg, Germany

Anyone seen this photo yet? This was on UFOcasebook.com.

www.ufocasebook.com...



Part of this guy's story tells how he couldn't use his cellphone camera until the object moved farther away.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by SlinkyDFW]

reply to post by SlinkyDFW


I'm not really what you would call a specialist in CGI or picture manipulation,
but I can't find anything in the picture that point to a obvious hoax. The story seems legit. However it look like this was in a urban area .... don't know much about Germany but as anyone else came with that story ?

This tread should be looked into by someone who know CGI and by someone from Germany.

Anyway gave you a flag for the effort, will be checking on this tomorrow



Salute

...That ufo is from another photo. Geez if I could only find the picture..but I have seen it before. No it is not a craft similiar to it...it is the ufo from that picture...same angle and everything. It must have been added on...if I find the pic you will see. It is a hoax. Plus think about it...the UFO is blurry while everything else in focus...no photo expert needed to see it is a lame hoax.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by riggs2099]

Hoax. Sorry.

It is a copy/paste of a previously existing photo, which I believe was also a hoax.

The object is rotated about 300 degrees.

The gaps from the tree branch can be easily repaired using photoshop. It would also be easy to place it behind the pole.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fef566a83766.png[/atsimg]
Original image from UFO Evidence dot org

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8b38976b9d0c.png[/atsimg]
New object.


Note the edge of the red light sticking out behind the pole in the 2nd image.

Same craft.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by fooffstarr]

That is not the same picture! Circle shape is different, and the red dot is in another spot. The OPs link looks legit to me.

reply to post by wiredamerican


Then how do you explain the stark similarities?

With photoshop, you can stretch an image, invert the image (flip it over) and do heaps of other things.

In my opinion, someone has taken the first photo, used the clone tool to remove the branches, stretched it so it looks to be flying at a different angle, then mirrored it.

But that's all it is, my opinion. It can't be proven one way or another.

I did a recompression analysis on the jpeg file, which can sometimes show evidence of compositing.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e6d6deeee9e5.jpg[/atsimg]

*The added title/date in the upper left shows a distinctly different noise signature than the rest of the image, which is good evidence that it was added later.

*The rest of the image seems to have a fairly consistent noise signature, including the area where the saucer appears.

*Blurring on the edges of the frame is consistent with the small lenses found in mobile phones.

The size of the image, 740x511 pixels -- does not correspond to a standard video frame size. Almost all phones' cameras have a 4:3 aspect ratio. Some capture at 740x555.

Originally posted by fooffstarr
reply to post by wiredamerican

 

Then how do you explain the stark similarities?

With photoshop, you can stretch an image, invert the image (flip it over) and do heaps of other things.

In my opinion, someone has taken the first photo, used the clone tool to remove the branches, stretched it so it looks to be flying at a different angle, then mirrored it.

But that's all it is, my opinion. It can't be proven one way or another.

Come on, that would be like seeing two photographs of spitfires and insisting one of them must be a hoax. It is perhaps exactly the same craft caught at a different time or simply the same type of craft. It being similar to another UFO photo is in no way evidence of a hoax, especially as the two craft are clearly not exactly alike.

I'm not saying it's real. I'm saying that what you highlighted is no grounds whatsoever for discounting it as real.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Malcram]

It's not copy paste... The original picture doesn't have the amount of detail presented on the second one.

I think it's someone trying to copy the style of the original.

reply to post by Tifozi


But what makes you think it's faked?

The first thing that I noticed about the photo is that the object is not even close to the middle of the frame...if you saw something that strange and were trying to take a photo wouldn't you look directly at it and take the picture? Why would you leave it on the edge of the frame? I deal a lot with 3D modeling and rendering and my first reaction to this photo was that it was a fake. The only reason I can think of why the object would be so far to the right of the frame is that the person taking the picture was moving the camera to try to get it into the middle of the shot but hit the shutter button too early, but if that was the case then there would be motion blur on all the other objects in the frame...which is not the case.

reply to post by sykosis3

if you saw something that strange and were trying to take a photo wouldn't you look directly at it and take the picture? Why would you leave it on the edge of the frame?

Good question. I'd try, yes, but I might not succeed.

Personally, when I have tried to take photo's of fast moving objects I have tended to center on the object (which obviously takes motion, your hand and arm following the object) and then I'd take a fraction of a second to try to steady my hand. In that time, the object has moved from center, however the shot is steady. Similarly, he could have been attempting to anticipate the movement of the craft along it's path, steadied his hand for a clearer shot, and fired off the shot a little too early. There are many possible reasons for the craft not being center frame without it indicating a hoax. It's hard to take great photos of moving objects at the best of times. But when your bowels are threatening to fall out of the back of your pants, your heart is going full tilt and you are so shocked you've forgotten what your name is - which, believe me, can happen when you see a UFO - then getting moving objects in the center of the picture can be rarher too much of a challenge.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Malcram]

You make a good point, there is another thread going on about this as well....this reply just came from another member and it seems to make sense.....

"There is no EXIF in the JPEG file. But the APP12 "Ducky" segment (not part of EXIF) was not removed. Photoshop uses the it to store some information in "Save for Web" images. The APP12 segment identifies the company "Adobe". The compression signature matches Adobe Photoshop save for web quality. So it's been through Photoshop and the EXIF was intentionally removed. The hoaxer thought removing the EXIF would be enough to hide any Photoshop marks. It's not. Too bad. Try again."

I think the posters name was Namblator....or something like that. But it seems like he knows what he's talking about.

reply to post by sykosis3


LOL I'm glad he knows what he's talking about, cos I have no clue

However, I gather he has found evidence of a photoshop hoax. Fair enough. Like you, I'll have to take his word for it. Thanks for letting me know. Now let's find the guy who faked it and horsewhip him!

Looks as fake as a $3 and I would bet is the product of CGI.

Yes it has obviously been through photshop for adding the title at the top that says the location and date. Why does this surprise anyone?

Looks like a bunch of BS to me.

Second line

"I wanted to take a picture but the display wasn't working right. The images had stripes and pressing the trigger didn't do anything.

Only when the object was already pretty far it worked, I shot the attached picture and then, seconds later, the disk was covered in clouds once more and I never saw it again"


Suggesting that, the guy was constantly pressing the button but nothing happened and it was only when the craft had reached a certain point the camera actually managed to capture an image... That actually lends some credence to the guys story, not detracts from it, so quite what the point about it not being central in the frame is, I am not sure..


If it is a hoax, the guy has done his background work well. The description of the hum and other details, such as interference with electrical equipment, sound like a classic , *old school* UFO report.

That part of the report is interesting culturally. Those sort of details are not that common with modern sightings. It suggests that, either the guy is genuine. Or, he has based the hoax on rather old material.

Hoaxes tend to play on the current zeitgeist for their authenticity. That is, they conform to the latest mode of thinking and evidence, but expand on it in a way that, is mean to offer you a glimpse of that which you really want to see.. With this picture you really don't get that. As pointed out, it isn't centre frame, and it isn't that detailed.


There again, that could also be the mark of a true Trickster, not just a hoaxer. Someone who seeks to tantalise rather than offer a solution. Ergo, if it is a hoax, it is a considered one, not just a, spur of the moment, scam.


There is also, within German culture, a specific sort of respect given to those who manage to perpetrate *convincing scams*. Maybe one of the German contributors would remember the name for this, as it slips my memory right now. Again, given that cultural background it could, indeed , suggest a hoax.

For now, I shall keep an open mind towards the image. To my mind it reads like a classic case from a 60s/70s UFO book, the only difference being the invention of the mobile phone camera, has granted the witness, something tangible to show as evidence.


Another mark against i being a hoax is that. Anonymous hoaxers don;t tend to offer so little. The Surgeons Photo of The Loch Ness Monster is a classic example as were the MJ12 documents. The anonymous hoaxer usually provides something that challenges the fundamental precepts of thinking on a given subject with something that is truly, startling.

In this case, that simply isn't so. It is intersting yes, but it certainly doesn't scream.

"Here is the evidence you all seek"; as did the aforementioned Surgeons Photo and the MJ12 documents.


Again, that would point to the person who reported this, if it is a hoax, having a very deep and subtle understanding of what goes to make a decent hoax.

As for the remarks about it being photo shopped. Look if we are to question the veracity of every image that has been edited, be it film or photo, we are moving into an area where you can, legitimately, challenge virtually every image in the media. I suspect many of those who cry photo shop every time they are presented with a purported image of a UFO. Are of the opinion that you are a member of the "Tin foil hat brigade" should you question the validity of the images you see in the news on TV.

That's called, having your cake and eating it...

So yes, could be a fake, but an interesting *old school style* sighting ,brought up to date, by the mobile phone cam...

[edit on 11-3-2009 by FireMoon]