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.

 

Three Clear Photographs of Black Triangle over South Carolina

page: 10
84
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I'll say fake. Looks to good. But that's just my opinion. I really hope that they're real. I've been waiting to something like that my whole life. Oh well, just have to keep waiting.




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by Bspiracy
Originally posted by defcon2



The "noise" is also around the trees...and I'm pretty sure the trees are really there.

However, even though I think the craft was really there (not CGI), I also think it was just an RC toy or something. As I said before, I think it is too close to the camera -- and thus too small -- to be an "actual" craft.

[edit on 6/10/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]


you aren't making a point with this but actually enforcing mine. Yes, there is "noise" around the trees.. It's the compression of light vs dark. I'm positive the trees are there as I'm positive the craft is there..

If you want to "think" something about this, answer with your thoughts regarding the video I made while playing with the gamma,offset and exposure. Explain to me how the craft has light/dark balances consistent with something a good deal above the trees catching light from the horizon. If it were close or low, you wouldn't have such ambient illumination.



b

edited to add that what you've done by blowing it up and using another layer of compression has actually made it worse than the original.






[edit on 10-6-2009 by Bspiracy]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Since a lot of people are having a hard time negotiating the size differences of the foreground and background objects, I threw together a very rough guide. I expect my approximations are correct within an error margin of about ±1' - 2' for the height of the lamp post and ±6" for the bulb. Note however that this is compounded when you factor in scaling. So I could easily be as far off as ± 20' for the depth & height of the tree. As a rough guide, I didn't account for perspective scaling / distortion ( assuming anyone cares about this level of precision
).



My guess is the object is several hundred if not a thousand+ feet behind the tree. Making it fairly large. Though I admit I could be completely wrong.


Edit: Note the reason I think this, is because if it was an RC we would likely see more details on the craft. However we don't. All of the finer features are at the edge of visibility.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
It looks like a RC plane you can buy at radio shack.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
It seems to be flying pretty low. I am skeptical about this one...



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightVision

Originally posted by lucentenigma
I wanted to see how easy this would be to duplicate in photoshop.

Here is what I came up with, it took me no longer then 10 minutes.










[edit on 10-6-2009 by lucentenigma]


Again, having worked w. photshop for the last 10 yrs, I can tell the difference between the two objects, as the you one cut and pasted has much more defined edges. It does not take an expert to see this.

IMO the object is really there. What it is or isn't, I don't know.



I have also used photoshop professionally for over ten years. This is the first time I have attempted anything like this, my specialty is logos. In my version I intentionally made the edges sharper. I also hand (tablet) drew the object it's not pasted. I could have easily gave the object softer edges and rounded it out.

The point I am attempting to make is that it is VERY easy to recreate something similar to these photos in just a few minutes.

Whether the photos or the object is real



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon2
reply to post by lucentenigma
 


No offense but that only proves that the image can be faked.That won't disprove the original.


No offense taken


That's the exact point I am trying to make. In this day and age it's so easy to manipulate photos and video that you never can tell.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
Well, if I was going to fly something relatively stealthfully out of Wright-Patterson AFB to test it, and I wanted to avoid airspace around Washington, DC, or large cities to the north, I'd either go straight up Michigan to Canada (Michigan is a hotspot for UFO activity), or maybe I'd . east over this route:



And by golly, look where it ends up.


You may need to shift your flight plan a bit south. You're flying over Greenville NC, not SC.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by internos
reply to post by Horza
 


And NOT, jpeg compression by itself cannot explain two objects at very different distances being at the same focus: since here it's bein assumed that it's some aircraft flying at big distance, you can say for sure that its appearance is NOT consistent with the one of an aircraft being at some miles of distance, but of course, everyone os free to believe everything.


You are talking about assuming miles of distance but I don't think that the distance of the object from the camera is mentioned in the OP's source so we can't assume any distance, we can only look at the different options.

Just to be clear, I don't believe this is a UFO and I certainly haven't mentioned anything about the distance or size of the craft.

So looking at one of those options I was talking about ...

If this is a experimental military scramjet or something similar then we are talking about a craft that is only about 3.5 meters long.

Could .jpg compression explain the similar focus of the tree line and the object if this was only 10's of meters away?

Because you say that .jpg compression doesn't explain focus of object's at very different distances but can .jpg compression explain focus of objects at distances that are not so far apart?


[edit on 10/6/09 by Horza]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by lucentenigma

I have also used photoshop professionally for over ten years. This is the first time I have attempted anything like this, my specialty is logos. In my version I intentionally made the edges sharper. I also hand (tablet) drew the object it's not pasted. I could have easily gave the object softer edges and rounded it out.

The point I am attempting to make is that it is VERY easy to recreate something similar to these photos in just a few minutes.

Whether the photos or the object is real


A little earlier in the thread Bspiracy showed very good evidence to suggest that the object was actually there when the photo was taken:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, if it's a remote model type thingy or an actual craft is another story

edit - actually, the video has now been reposted at the top of this page ... nice!

[edit on 10/6/09 by Horza]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EverythingYouKnowIsWrong
 


nice find ... I don't know whether or not this can be used as a legitimate comparison with the OP's photo's but, on face value this vid shows how the OP's object could be bigger than it seems ...

[edit on 11/6/09 by Horza]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Why are we getting all of these very clear pics of supposed UFO's?

I have a digital camera that is about 8 years old that has a video function. Why don't these guys capture these things using the video option? It makes for better evidence and is harder to manipulate, no photoshop.

They can still use CGI, but people doing this usually get carried away and make it look ultra real, which is easy to spot.

As for these pictures, my opinion is that they are fake.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


I have no idea about this sort of stuff, but it looks like your on the right track ...

So you think that this object is at least up to and possible more than 1000 feet behind the tree which is about 300 meters ...

So how big would that make the object? Can you work that out?



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
alright, the OP failed to mention where the photos came from and it's from the link below.. I mentioned earlier about how you can't really tell certain things unless you have the originals..

You're in luck because the original post has been updated with the original photos as supplied. EXIF included. I checked the model of the camera and given the conditions of the scene & camera capabilities, things still check out on the surface. I'm disappointed the full resolution of the camera wasn't selected but I deal with that problem ALL THE TIME when clients send me photos.. it drives me crazy when I client has a 12mp camera and wind up sending me a 5mp image like this because they didn't change the resolution settings..

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST WITH UPDATED DOWNLOADABLE ZIP FILE

Let it be known from my words that I've had a couple of experiences and have done a little research into some other cases and the owner of this site is a good guy. He gets a lot of things sent to him and is conduit of info.. not a judge. He will offer opinions but never insists or absolutes.

The sharpness of all objects matches what camera mode was selected which is LANDSCAPE. ISO 50 wasn't expected with a shutter speed of 1/250 and F/8, but the anti-shake on the camera goes a long way towards an explanation of issues people have had.

Another item of note.. On the low horizon in all shots is another far off object in all three pics.. is it another craft matching speed? There's no detail other than it's a far off blob in all three shots. It's not a spec on lens because it moves from frame to frame but is in all shots.

Anyone have thoughts on the low horizon blob ?

b



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
Why are we getting all of these very clear pics of supposed UFO's?

I have a digital camera that is about 8 years old that has a video function. Why don't these guys capture these things using the video option? It makes for better evidence and is harder to manipulate, no photoshop.

They can still use CGI, but people doing this usually get carried away and make it look ultra real, which is easy to spot.

As for these pictures, my opinion is that they are fake.


When/if you ever see something like this, be sure to explain to us why you didn't choose the exact settings you wanted in the time frame it took to catch the object on film/photo. After 2 close range sightings with a handy camera beside me, I've missed both..

It's absolutely baffling that people get what they THINK they want and discount it because it's too good to be true or just not good enough..

With the sightings I've had, I've seen similar photos ripped to shreds and it makes me laugh because what I KNOW is real because it's a match to what I saw is discounted as fake because "people just think it's fake" and others give all sorts of reasons that seem legit on the surface.

Same for me.. I could be 100% wrong but I'll give it my darndest to provide you reasons WHY I think something is + or -.

b



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by daniel_g
sight..

A simple filter shows a black border around the 'craft'. Whoever did this picture drew the border first, then filled inside with black color. If this was a craft, texture would be uniform.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the "sight" filter you're using is a simple convolution filter coupled with something resembling the following kernel:

0, 1, 0
1, 4, 1
0, 1, 0

In other words the plugin is computing the laplacian of the image using positive peaks. Assuming I'm correct, yes, the filter will behave somewhat similar to a find edge tool - isotropically revealing regions of rapid intensity change. However what you're really seeing is an approximation of the second derivative which is very sensitive to noise. That's it! This does not imply a person used a stencil and forgot to remove it.

Here's a good way to test this for yourself. Find a picture of a very high temperature flame. Heck I'll even provide a good test photo:

Now run your filter against it. Does it have a similar border? If so then the filter is just being overly sensitive and you should apply a gaussian smooth before the laplacian transform.


lol no, seems I confused two people . I blame my lack on english skills (not native speaker).

By sight I meant sigh, the 't' got in there and i have no excuse for it.

Anyway you are right, the filter does make the edges easier to spot, however I don't have any pro tools so I just used my video editor which calls it "pencil"


Your image will probably get a black border around it. However, if you run the test, look at the texture inside the border and compare it with the texture outside the border. It will be hard to see(mainly because the picture is small) but the texture inside the border of your aircraft will be similar to the one outside the border

I won't run a test on your image, because like I said, its too small to see, but I will do it on something else:



This image is from some other black object 'hoovering' in the sky (actually someone proved it was a button). The object was phisically there so the texture inside the border will be the same. On the right side there are some black textures I drew.



Compare the border of the button - err i mean the craft with the borders of the shapes I drew. One has green noise, the other doesn't. OP pic has green noise so I can only conclude he drew it. Now I don't know of anyone who can paint with straight lines like that on a computer, so I can only assume he drew the borders first, then filled it.

Hope that clears it.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by daniel_g]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


one observation i have to make about your analysis is :

how did you determine the position of the focal plane , and thus the 10 degree bearing between the light fitting and the object ?

given that i can see no way to determine

1 - camera focal lenth

2 camera to light fitting distance

3 relative altitude of the camera and light fitting

4 relative heights of the light fitting and tree

the rest of your analysis is quite valid - just asking how you got the 10 degrees - cos if thats wrong - it throws everything else out



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Here's what's in the black triangle. Photoshop levels plus Shadow/Highlight only.








posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Hmm, the photoshop someone did earlier in the thread where they duplicated the UFO seems to have dissuaded me from thinking this is anything out of the ordinary. It does seem a bit close, picture is extremely clear... just seems "2 good to be true". Sorry but to me this is a dead thread. Luck to ya though, I hope you prove me wrong.

-Z-



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


one observation i have to make about your analysis is :

how did you determine the position of the focal plane , and thus the 10 degree bearing between the light fitting and the object ?


The measurements are very much W.A.G's.
To get a general sense of scale I used the time-honored physics technique of rough guesstimation.

I approached the problem using known objects in the scene as rulers for their respective planes. For the foreground plane the light fixture can be approximated to be 1' in diameter. Using that as a guide we can say within 6 inches of accuracy that it maps to 74 ± 1 pixels. Based off that and an average lamp-post size approaching 10' (± 2' of accuracy) we can then calculate upwards to the possible points of intersection with the craft.

For the tree I made the assumption that a leaf would be 3" ± 1" in diameter. After finding what appeared to be a stand-alone leaf I measured out 6 ± 1 pixels worth of data. Using that I was then able to use the formula for linear scaling to calculate the approximate distance between the lamp-post and the tree. With the leaf as a guide I was able to calculate the size from the base of the trunk (assuming a 25' ± 20' tree) to object. Tracing a line from the tree upwards then allows us to intersect the craft. Thereby giving a rough sense of scale for how large the craft might be if it were at a distance equal to the back plane.

If I wanted to tackle the problem more correctly I would have incorporated the EXIF data, but I'm lazy.


[edit on 11-6-2009 by Xtraeme]



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join