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.

 

UFO outside airplane window

page: 5
72
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I'm starting lean towards a hoax. For the reason that I've asked for the original image straight from the camera twice now. As the original poster said the file size is maximum of 3.4mb so it shouldn't be a problem but still we haven't gotten anything. We've got the 2 other images taken then but not original file.




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 



Notice the glow around it?


What does the glow signify??

I notice some of the clouds' edges have a glow, as well.

Can you explain?


That glow is nothing...

When he ran the high pass edge effect, it added the glow in there. It wasn't there to begin with. The filter he added on there is not some type of enhancement, it's just an effect.

To show I am correct I ran that same edge effect "high pass" on a picture of Megan Fox;



Even though she is an angel, that's not a halo, just a high pass edge effect.

The effect is not really useful for photo analysis.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   


some stuff i saw in it. i tried to differentiate the areas i found interesting



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Here is the image run through a few more filters..



I would say the object is definitely in the image and not added.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 



Notice the glow around it?


What does the glow signify??

I notice some of the clouds' edges have a glow, as well.

Can you explain?


That glow is nothing...

When he ran the high pass edge effect, it added the glow in there. It wasn't there to begin with. The filter he added on there is not some type of enhancement, it's just an effect.

To show I am correct I ran that same edge effect "high pass" on a picture of Megan Fox;



Even though she is an angel, that's not a halo, just a high pass edge effect.

The effect is not really useful for photo analysis.


I see where you are going...

Mmmmmmmmmmmm........ Megan Fox..... Yummy....

Anyway. The obvious problem is if this is a real picture of a real event it could still be explained away by explanations like these. You know what I mean?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Did you take these pictures with Panasonic DMC-FZ8 and edit them in Adobe Photoshop CS3?

[edit on 7/7/2009 by DGFenrir]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DGFenrir
 


Hi,

Yes, all the info is in the EXIF data which is next to my images on flickr, i think it shows everything that has been done to the images, dates etc.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly
 


www.flickr.com...

so you're admitting you faked it?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly
 


But when downloaded to computer the photo with the object has no EXIF data in it. The other two photos on the other hand have that info.
The DPI is different 72x72 vs 300x300 in the other two pictures + the image with the object has compression signatures of a known image editing program.

Edit:
Please upload the original. Without any photoshop involved.

Even flickr says that it has been modified..

[edit on 7/7/2009 by DGFenrir]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I looked at the exif data in the photos and i must say, Im not sure what is more believable. That this image has not been severely tampered with or that an alien took it.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
He may have used photoshop to shrink the image, or to change the file type. We really need the original raw image directly from the camera (or put through your camera software only) in order to do a proper analysis. However the exif data does point to hoax, until proven otherwise by the raw photo.

to the OP: I'm pretty sure purposefully perpetrating a hoax on ats will get your account banned!


MMMMMMMMMMM..... Megan Fox..... num numm....

[edit on 7-7-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DGFenrir
 


I was under the impression that all the images had EXIF data. When the image comes out of the camera it is 72dpi, i shrink the images down in photoshop, delete the original and post on flickr or a photography forum that i use (who also have size limits). Most of the time i change the dpi to 300 to retain clarity.

I'm afraid you will have to excuse my photography methods, thats the way i do things on just about all my pictures. i've had a camera for just over 6 months and have no reason to keep multiple copies, it's just a hobby which i dont take too seriously......Until i get a nice big dslr....but in the mean time it's just a learning curve.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


Sorry man, but none of those "filters" can be used to determine anything.

All you start with is an array of pixels with RGB values. When you add a filter, all you are doing is changing the RGB values. You aren't enhancing anything.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly
 


So are you saying you deleted the originals?

You should use www.imageshack.us... to host your images, and do not re size anything.

It is pretty common practice for UFO images that you provide the original untouched, non-resized, image, or nobody will be able to believe your image is real.


After looking at your other images, I can see the window was extremely dirty, and that you had to reach over another chair, and forward, in order to get a picture of the jet engine. Do you have ANY other images from that moment? Did you take more than one image of the UFO?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly
 


So are you saying you deleted the originals?

You should use www.imageshack.us... to host your images, and do not re size anything.

It is pretty common practice for UFO images that you provide the original untouched, non-resized, image, or nobody will be able to believe your image is real.


After looking at your other images, I can see the window was extremely dirty, and that you had to reach over another chair, and forward, in order to get a picture of the jet engine. Do you have ANY other images from that moment? Did you take more than one image of the UFO?


Yes, i delete the originals. I appreciate it might be common practice to keep originals of UFOs, but this was just another interesting image to me and was treated the same way. The image has been on flickr for a while and it didnt generate any real interest from my contacts on there either. I guess it depends on peoples own personal interests as to how important keeping originals and investigating images is.

Yes, i have more images from inside the plane but they have a picture of my son on them and the whole view out of the window is totally out of focus.

Thanks for the tip about image shack, i may check it out but i'm quite into the flickr community now.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Wobbly Anomaly]

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Wobbly Anomaly]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly
 


Always always keep the original image when you photograph a UFO..

How else are we supposed to tell if it is a hoax or not, especially when photoshop appears on the exif data. That right there will lead people to beleive it was tampered with.

You know, one of these days I will get to document a UFO myself, and by god I will make sure all my bases are covered! You should too.

Being a photographer, even as a hobby, you should know about image data. You should have known that the second we saw photoshop that we would be calling out hoax.. I mean wouldn't you?

[edit on 7-7-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly
 


Being a photographer, even as a hobby, you should know about image data. You should have known that the second we saw photoshop that we would be calling out hoax.. I mean wouldn't you?

[edit on 7-7-2009 by DaMod]


I guess so, but then again if i was thinking along those lines i would have disabled the exif data to hide the information.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly
 


Being a photographer, even as a hobby, you should know about image data. You should have known that the second we saw photoshop that we would be calling out hoax.. I mean wouldn't you?

[edit on 7-7-2009 by DaMod]


I guess so, but then again if i was thinking along those lines i would have disabled the exif data to hide the information.


That would have been even more of a give away.

That would show that you are intentionally trying to hide your altercations. We would then ask for a photo with exif data pretty much like we are here.

We take this stuff pretty serious and are very meticulous. If you want a proper analysis you have to provide proper images.

Other images of the location would help, since you just so happened to delete the image that would have given this credibility.

I mean, you saw a UFO and you only took one shot of it?

Figuring that this is your hobby, I'm sure you have a pretty nice camera. I know on my pretty nice digital camera i could take 10 shots in a matter of 3 seconds. What gives?

[edit on 7-7-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo


some stuff i saw in it. i tried to differentiate the areas i found interesting


The cylinder/pipe is probably the vent hole in the window.. Maybe..



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Great photo!
I think i find something have shadow on the cloud just right below the UFO.
Check it out!








new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join