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: 11
84
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


I'm not sure I agree. Did Nasa ever make different variants of this particular scramjet model???

The back of the craft in these images is tapered, whereas the Nasascramjet in the pic you showed was 'flat'/'squared' (straight).

Ergo if they didn't, though similar looking, these arent the same (type of) craft.




posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by serinx
 


I don't know if the craft is the same one pictured in March. The pictures in March show a tail fin structure that you can't see on the new ones. If it is not a hoax then it must be a new plane of some sort as I don't think ET would need vertical stabilizers.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
This is another fake... a really bad one...

The object in question isn't more than 7 feet away from the photographer, and the object itself is only about 12 inches long, in picture stormclouds014.

These hoaxers are really making me mad.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]

-After looking at the image closer, I believe it is CGI. At first I thought it was some type of object that was thrown into the air, and a picture was taken. But now, I believe it is CGI.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce
This is another fake... a really bad one...

The object in question isn't more than 7 feet away from the photographer, and the object itself is only about 12 inches long, in picture stormclouds014.

These hoaxers are really making me mad.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]



Is that so? care to explain a little better?
It's so useless to have your kind of posts floating around..
b



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bspiracy
Is that so? care to explain a little better?
It's so useless to have your kind of posts floating around..
b


You know what is funny? I read every single post in this thread, ok, and before I even posted, I had PREDICTED that YOU, yes YOU, Bspiracy, would be the first one to reply to my post, and defend this HOAX. I knew that YOU would be the person that would attack my opinion.

Either I am psychic, or you have some type of involvement with this hoax.

I'm leaning more towards you being involved in some way. Other than that I can't understand why you would defend fake images.

And FYI, my post here is not useless. In fact, there is a whole group of people who know my name, and wait for my opinion on subjects such as this because they know my background. I HAVE NEVER BEEN WRONG ABOUT A UFO SIGHTING, EVER.

- On that note, if I told you my secret to debunking CGI images, then I just might give the next hoaxer tips on how to make a better hoax. So I am not going to tell you how I came to my conclusion.

A picture is worth 1000 words, have you ever heard that before? Well there is a real reason for it.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
You know what is even more funny?

After looking at the EXIF data of these HOAX images, I found that the camera used to take the pictures was a "MINOLTA DiMAGE Z5".

My first thought was WOW, that is almost the same type of camera they used in the C2C California Drone HOAX, a "MINOLTA DiMAGE X". (rare cameras)

It turns out, back in 2007 YOU, Bspiracy, made a thread regarding the California Drone HOAX.... that is a very weird coincidence.

If my memory serves me right, you also spent a lot of time defending that HOAX too.....

Bspiracy's blind defence of a CGI hoax.


fishy fishy fishy

---edit---

LOL, turns out the person who started this thread also made a Drone thread....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



Page 11, at 6/11, by 11 11.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
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
).


[snipped photo]
Image

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]


Looking at the three pictures together, it seems that the perspective we get of the craft in each image -- especially the way our view of the underside of the craft changes -- would indicate the object is very close to the camera.

If it was far away from the camera, we would not see the front of it, then the side of it, then the back of it in such a short distance of flight. We would have only seen it from the side view and a little of the underside -- but that perspective should not have changed as much as it does in the three photos:



Another thing that seems strange (unrelated to "Xtraeme's" post) is why only three photos? These three photos were taken in 13 seconds of time (count thirteen seconds in your head while you trace the object's path in my photo-overlay above -- it's a very long time, thus the apparent speed of the object was very, very slow).

The photographer could have surely taken additional photos, even after that third photo -- I think at least three additional, if not more. I would have kept on taking pictures until the craft was definitely gone.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bspiracy

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]


Yes -- and I agreed with you in my post that the object is probably really there and the "noise" is meaningless. I just don't agree that it is big and far away (a fact unrelated to the "noise".

I was simply backing you up on your response to "Blaine915555" concerning the jpg compression artifacts (the noise) because I have seen too many posts claim "CGI!!!" whenever they see the compression artifacts. It bothers me when people claim this natural compression artifact to be evidence of cut-and-paste.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by 0nce 0nce
 


Hey Once Once, I think it's important to recognize that we can rarely say with 100% certainty that a photo is "real" or "fake." There's a probability curve and usually the truth lies somewhere between those two points. The trick is accumulating all the positive characteristics and weighting it against the negative to determine how the scales balance.

Points in favor :

  1. The EXIF data appears accurate in the sense that the if you head on over to the weather underground and check the conditions for the date / time, they match up with the photos.
  2. Other people are reporting seeing something similar in the SC area, in and around, this time period.
  3. The object correctly fits the lighting and appears to have physical dimensions that follow a reliable trajectory across all three pictures.


Neutral aspects worth considering:
  1. The object isn't as in focus as people are making it out to be. For instance compare the lamp-post to the object. There are no internal details on the craft. Which suggests several possibilities:
    1. it's a goodly distance away from the lamp-post or,
    2. no internal details (ie/ it's a solid material through-out) or,
    3. the object is computer generated

    Which you choose will entirely mimic your bias.

  2. The foreground planes (lamp post / tree) are so close to the camera we innately attempt to line up the object with these reference points. Unfortunately this makes it very easy to assume based on perceived angle, guessed height, etc., that the object is very close to the observer. However this is entirely a trick of the mind. Though I admit it makes it very easy to lean against the possibility that the object is further away and therefore quite large.


Cons :
  1. The physical dimensions are rough geometrical shapes. The only characteristics that are evident are barely visible "tiny vertical stabilizers" on the trailing edge of the "craft." However this could just as easily be pareidolia talking.

    Without fine details it's hard to calculate scale and determine what the object actually represents.
  2. The images could have been faked, no doubt about it. So the strength of these photos is directly tied to the trustworthiness of the photographer and, to a lesser extent, the persons skill-set (ie/ a grandmother homemaker is less suspect than a 20-something 3D modeler)


So what does that tell us? That someone needs to interview the photographer.


Cheers,
-X

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce


Either I am psychic, or you have some type of involvement with this hoax.

I'm leaning more towards you being involved in some way. Other than that I can't understand why you would defend fake images.


May I make a suggestion? You 'could' spend your time wisely and try contributing to this forum, rather than spending it igniting feuds. Take it from me, I've ignited enough silly feuds to know better. I have learned from my ways. I feel I speak for many when I say that accusing Bspiracy of somehow being involved in all of this is a bit much, No? It may also sub-communicate a lack of ability on your part to look closely and calmly at both sides of an issue. It's not worth it, friend.

While the object in the photo is not a UFO, IMO, (having worked w. Photoshop for the last 12years, 8 hours a day), it is def. there, i.e., a real object being photographed. The EXIF data does not prove that the object wasn't there, it simply proves that whoever took the photo may have made up/mistaken and or falsified info.

...patience, young jedi.



[edit on 11-6-2009 by NightVision]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TailoredVagabond
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


I'm not sure I agree. Did Nasa ever make different variants of this particular scramjet model???

The back of the craft in these images is tapered, whereas the Nasascramjet in the pic you showed was 'flat'/'squared' (straight).

Ergo if they didn't, though similar looking, these arent the same (type of) craft.


I wasn't stating definitively that it was an X-43. Rather my goal was to point out the similarities between the airframe. As for the the tail section, I think it's very easy to get fooled by the perspective of these shots. I'll play with the exposure a bit to try to get the dimensions from each frame and I'll post them. Based off that we should be able to somewhat reliably say if the X-43A is a possibility or not.


On a side note after digging around through some documentation I'm now much more inclined to believe that if it is real, and assuming it is ours, that it might be a TR-3A Black Mantra. (fas.org)



Unfortunately there's no way to do any sort of real analysis to see how true or false this line of thinking is without breaking many laws.


[edit on 11-6-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
LOL, amateurs....

If you want to believe this CGI HOAX, go for it.

Years from now when this HOAX gets out of hand, know that I will be the one that says I TOLD YOU SO.

If you want to prove this is CGI, do some serious research on depth of field and its effects on edges of dark objects with light backgrounds, and how it effects the light on the edges of the object.

Mainly, you should do a LOT of research on the silhouette effect, and how to successfully accomplish the effect with realistic light distortion on the edges in CGI.

The object in question in these images is lacking real life edge lighting effects, and depth of field effects.

You don't need photoshop experience, you need 3D rendering experience.

Good day.


Originally posted by NightVision
May I make a suggestion? You 'could' spend your time wisely and try contributing to this forum, rather than spending it igniting feuds.



On this account, I have 7 applause out of 88 posts. You have 5 applause out of 997 posts... I think I win.



[edit on 11-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
It's either Photoshoped, a toy/model, or Military(doubtful,seems too small,13 seconds too long to cover that distance, yea B-2 look slow when they fly straight at you, but this is across the cameras POV,right to left).

So in any event no alines here.

and only the slight chance of some back engineering.

Most likely someone's yanking our chains, and after you've had this happen 1 too many times on this sight, it tends to get bothersome.

I cant believe I look at the best UO evidence and witness testimony, and NASA pics and audio, and it just makes me (who once was a hardened believe), just more and more of a skeptic, odd ain't it?



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustAThought
Anyone who've worked with photography will tell you this is a tear in the negative straight away!

Sorry but that's my 2 cents.


This is exactly my first thought when I viewed the images. The black is to clean as if cut out.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce
You know what is even more funny?

After looking at the EXIF data of these HOAX images, I found that the camera used to take the pictures was a "MINOLTA DiMAGE Z5".

My first thought was WOW, that is almost the same type of camera they used in the C2C California Drone HOAX, a "MINOLTA DiMAGE X". (rare cameras)

It turns out, back in 2007 YOU, Bspiracy, made a thread regarding the California Drone HOAX.... that is a very weird coincidence.

If my memory serves me right, you also spent a lot of time defending that HOAX too.....

Bspiracy's blind defence of a CGI hoax.


fishy fishy fishy

---edit---

LOL, turns out the person who started this thread also made a Drone thread....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



Page 11, at 6/11, by 11 11.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]



What's hilarious about this is I still stand by the drone situation. I went so far as to do some real research and have contacted "some people" regarding that case. There's been new occurrences regarding the drone and I've sworn my silence to uncovered info until a later time out of respect for privacy. Attack as you will on that matter.

Regarding this "hoax" as you say. Please, don't let anyone know your ultra secret capabilities in determining what makes this a hoax. I'm VERY transparent. meaning if I think something is worth discussing or points in a discussion hold validity, I will continue to poke and prod people to find ways in explaining why something should be debunked. instead, you attack my character for holding onto a viewpoint I believe and then you hide behind snide remarks.

If I am wrong, by all means, PROVE IT.. don't just say it

Camera models, time frames etc.. all that is coincidental. You have no argument with those points whatsoever. With larger cases such as the "Drone Hoax" as you and others say.. it's amazing that there's still no PROOF that I know of. Though I did stop following it on here because of the nasty attitudes involved. That's another case I was attacked on a personal level outside of ATS because of ATS. It wouldn't surprise me if you were involved with those attacks given the way you attack me here.

b



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I downloaded the original images from,
www.ufocasebook.com...

I performed a recompression analysis on the images and could find no evidence of manipulation. The noise signature is consistent throughout the images, and the jpeg artifacts in areas of high contrast show up at the same level for the trees and the black triangle.

Using the trees as a guide, I made a panorama which corrects for lens rotation and panning.



See the hi-res version here:
www.zerotensor.org...



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bspiracy
 


The Drone HOAX has already been proven to be CGI, many times, you should check out Dronehoax.com. After they found the telephone pole location, it confirmed many shadow inconsistencies that were found.

Anyway, I was just pointing out the coincidences. If you were following the drone hoax, you would know that you have already been proven wrong. Actually if I were you I would be embarrassed to even show my face in the drone hoax mess again, because half of your posts make you look like you are involved.

--

About this HOAX, well, you people need to prove that images are real. We don't need to prove they are fake. All UFO digital images are FAKE until proven real. It's not the 90's anymore...

--

Also, I wasn't attacking you, I was milking you for information. It's good to know you still think the drones are real, and that you have some type of information that you promise not to share because of privacy.


My ways are mysterious... you'll think I'm doing exactly what I'm not.

--

Back on topic... THIS SIGHTING IS A HOAX. The object is CGI. The devil is in the details.

Not only does the object appear to "pop out" of the image because of false depth of field, but the edges lack any type of silhouette light distortion.

PROVE IT IS REAL. It is FAKE until then.

I don't see any proof that it is real.


[edit on 11-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce
reply to post by Bspiracy
 
because half of your posts make you look like you are involved.

--

About this HOAX, well, you people need to prove that images are real. We don't need to prove they are fake. All UFO digital images are FAKE until proven real. It's not the 90's anymore...

--

Also, I wasn't attacking you, I was milking you for information. It's good to know you still think the drones are real, and that you have some type of information that you promise not to share because of privacy.


My ways are mysterious... you'll think I'm doing exactly what I'm not.

--

Back on topic... THIS SIGHTING IS A HOAX. The object is CGI. The devil is in the details.

Not only does the object appear to "pop out" of the image because of false depth of field, but the edges lack any type of silhouette light distortion.

PROVE IT IS REAL. It is FAKE until then.

I don't see any proof that it is real.


[edit on 11-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]


1: my posts make me look involved.. laughable. It's the same things as always from your side of the spectrum.. because I voice thoughts, i must be involved..

2: a good deal has been said on "our side" it's real. Belief is where the lie is drawn in this matter.

3:yes, you were attacking.. in a subtle manner trying to bring old info up as reasoning for my incompetence.. subtle yes but still an attack on my character or worth in this discussion

4: milking for info.. all you have to do is ask. milking sounds like you have this secret detective thing going on in your head.

5: the object "pops out" because of the angle of horizon light, lack of vertical light due to clouds but there is still a silhoutte distortion once you pop it into a higher color range. it's just not immediately visible due to the low light conditions.

6: you are mysterious? You flatter yourself. You sound/act like a few people I know who are self involved and have a superiority complex. You stand under ideals and concepts that someone else created for you.

7: all iI wanted to do was have a discussion over why you believe left or right. Instead you had to bring up old posts and thought processes from different cases that have nothing to do with this. That is SEARCHING for anything to use as ammo to prove your thought process that hasn't been proven.

b



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce

On this account, I have 7 applause out of 88 posts. You have 5 applause out of 997 posts... I think I win.



Relatively easy if you are looking for applause around here. Just find a subject/thread a lot of people agree with and press go. There's plenty of topics to choose from. You're here to be 'popular' I assume?

The majority of my posts are spent educating new ATS people like yourself. The majority of my applause come from educating new ATS people like yourself. Try earning something by contributing. Maybe in your next post you can type all caps again when you 'really mean it'. I heard that helps.

Only 88 posts and already flaming. This should be fun to watch. Hmmm...what happened to your 'other' ATS account, I wonder?


...Back on topic....


Originally posted by 0nce 0nceNot only does the object appear to "pop out" of the image because of false depth of field, but the edges lack any type of silhouette light distortion.


"False depth of field?" The sky is completely overcast. "Light Distortion" can only happen when there is a direct light source. A stealth bomber's skin would look incredibly similiar if it were photographed, given its outer skin. It's designed to ABSORB LIGHT. This is why all signs point toward military or model craft.

Add to that EVERY single photoshop recreation on this thread has failed to duplicate the image naturally in a convincing manner to the trained eye. I've used p'shop everyday 4 the last 12 years. Does this mean its a UFO? No. Its just there, whatever it is. CGI expert? Try again.


The CGI theory is good, but doesnt prove definitive until the original photographer serves up negatives. I mentioned various specifics why in previous posts.




[edit on 11-6-2009 by NightVision]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
According to BJ, the operator of ufocasebook,


I did receive this information today from him [C. Salvo].

I would say the sighting lasted 30 seconds, the 3 photos taken about 14 seconds.
(according to the time stamp on each photo. How fast? I couldn't even take a guess.


From an earlier statement, I can conclude that the object was far enough away to not be over any ground objects, trees, etc.


Since the alleged craft wasn't overflying any of the foreground objects, at a minimum it has one side that's greater than ~4.4'.

Assuming it's real, this suggests that it might be a large RC.

I.E.


[edit on 11-6-2009 by Xtraeme]



new topics




 
84
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join