Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

McMinnville UFO photographs real or fake ?

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Frankly that attempt is beyond laughable. You can add a line from anywhere a long the wire.


Typical rash statement as stated it lines up with the highlight on the wire and the top of the supposed ufo and the visible part of the line is at the correct angle between those points!

If you actually bother to LOOK!




posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 

Good find Blue Shift. I was about to work with these till I saw your post

The object is swinging pendulum style on a thread of some kind. It actually looks like my canning pot lid. (give me five minutes or so and I'll go hang my pot lid in a tree and shoot some photos)



Whoever took the photo stepped to the right and forward for the second shot - the right because the pole on the left is farther right than the first shot and forward because the pole on the right is not in the first shot, there is the corner of another building in the upper right, and the oil tank is bigger in the second shot.

Edited to add photo.
Edited the second time to say I still stink at uploading photos. Right click the image and view in a new window to see the whole thing.

Pleading with anyone to U2U me how to do a scrolling photo.

[edit on 9/7/2010 by SeenMyShare]


[edit on 9/7/2010 by SeenMyShare]
 
Mod edit: image tag changed to add the scroll bars.
Just use the [‍img] and [‍/img] tags instead of [‍atsimg] and [‍/atsimg]


[edit on 9/7/2010 by ArMaP]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SeenMyShare
 


I don't think that's the case, that this is an object swinging from side-to-side on a wire. I say that for one reason - look at the contrast of the wires compared to the object. From what we know, the object is dark in color like the power lines in the photo. If the object were the same distance as the wires, it stands to reason the black contrast would be the same. But look at the object - the contrast is much lower and it appears a gray-ish color, indicating it is some distance away from the wires.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by black cat
 

When my husband gets home to help so I don't electrocute myself I'll try to duplicate those images a little better. Part of the problem with duplication though is that my Canon doesn't capture photos like the original camera. The resolution is too high and the atmospheric conditions won't be the same.

I'll try though


By the way, the thread I used to suspend the lid was cotton sewing thread and it was definitely strong enough to hold the lid while it swung back and forth. And... even with the canon's higher resolution than the original photos it was very hard to pick out the thread without a lot of playing around with the photo.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Frankly that attempt is beyond laughable. You can add a line from anywhere a long the wire.


Typical rash statement as stated it lines up with the highlight on the wire and the top of the supposed ufo and the visible part of the line is at the correct angle between those points!

If you actually bother to LOOK!


No it isn't... The photo has been around over 50 years and you think 1 Even someone with real problems not being able to imagine that might be the case. 2 It has been checked once, checked twice, checked a hundred times for any sign of a wire, by people with serious facilities?

But hey ho, send it to ATS where everyone knows better. I mean they only had prints from the negative or the original picture. ATS has some crappy, gawd knows how many generations down the line, copy of the picture but, hell, that's not going to stop people making assumptions about what they might see in the fine detail.

Just how stupid do you have to be to start drawing conclusions from a rubbish jpeg that we know is riddled with artifacts after all the time it has been on-line.?

Conclusion... it is laughable some of the conclusions people are drawing from the photos on here. To present them as, something new, beggars belief.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by FireMoon]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
it is laughable some of the conclusions people are drawing from the photos on here.


And concluding that an optical mouse is a spaceship isn't laughable?

You see, even the expert analyst can come to a very wrong conclusion despite their academic qualifications and experience!



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


Yes!

These are genuine.

I would suggest maybe of the reptilian design! I am pretty sure the Greys have more spherical cigar shaped crafts.

These crafts are just probes which fly in form the mother ship orbiting the planet. Obviously the MS is invisible because of the gravity shield which surrounds them.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by UFOmaster
 




I would suggest maybe of the reptilian design!


As in satanist-pedophile-interdimensional-shapeshifting-reptilians?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Frankly that attempt is beyond laughable. You can add a line from anywhere a long the wire.


You could be right. Show me another one. I've looked pretty hard, but I can't see any. I couldn't even detect a second line that would be at the opposite angle. And I couldn't find anything in the other Trent photo because the contrast was increased during processing to bring out the saucer. The sky is too blown out to see anything.

It could be a stray scratch. I was working with the 400 dpi scan of a first-generation print, and it's possible for there to have been some stray noise added to the photo. The horizontal scan lines, for instance. I just think it's an interesting coincidence that this bit of a line just happens to align with an odd spot on the wire and the object.

I'm just looking at the photos and trying to preserve the integrity of the data in them as much as I can without a lot of fancy filtering that proves nothing. I encourage people to check it out for themselves. Find better generation photos. Use the available technology. Prove me wrong with hard facts.

Thanks!



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


No i don't believe there are human reptilians the videos on you tube are just artifacts left by the decompression.

However.

I believe the reptilians are here on earth and have been for millenniums. The race come from inner earth and have technologies far superior to our own



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I found a photograph of a canning pot from the correct time period. Notice that the shape is a perfect match for the object. The newer ones aren't quite so tall and a bit more rounded.



Guess you'd have to seen or done canning to recognize it.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SeenMyShare
 
Nice photo!

Last year I spent over an hour going through images of old household items looking for anything that resembled the object and that's a closer match than anything I found....

and as you guessed, I've never done any canning!



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by black cat
I say that for one reason - look at the contrast of the wires compared to the object. From what we know, the object is dark in color like the power lines in the photo. If the object were the same distance as the wires, it stands to reason the black contrast would be the same. But look at the object - the contrast is much lower and it appears a gray-ish color, indicating it is some distance away from the wires.


Unfortunately, we don't know exactly how dark the wires really were, or how close they were to the darkness of the object to make a good comparison. And on the side view of the object, the lighter shade certainly makes it look like the object is farther away, but it just might be that the top of the object is simply lighter than the bottom, giving it the appearance of an atmospheric haze at a distance.

Some enamelware kitchen items are like this, with mottled lighter tops. Could this be a simple coffee pot lid? That might also account for its asymmetry. Worth checking out.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Blue Shift]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
PseudoUFO photography








I wish I had my mother's canner. It had the same lid as the one in the photo a few posts back.

These have been edited down (resolution lowered, photo size lowered, a bit of film grain added, and one brightened).



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Real I determine by effects



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
PseudoUFO photography

And just how does this prove the Trent pictures are a fake? It seems you do not even realize the extent to which this case has been scrutinized.

One obvious flaw in your pics which the Trent photos do not suffer from (obviously) is that the UFO is of high contrast, thus it is close to the camera. The UFO in the Trent pictures is of low contrast due to absorption and scattering of light, as would be expected if it was a true UFO.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SeenMyShare
 


Those pictures actually make a case for the Trent picture being genuine. The UFO is no way, surrounded by any atmospheric haze that the Trent object is. See many assume the * haze* in the Trent photo is due to jpeg compression etc etc. it's not, it's actually how the original photograph looks.

So the challenge is, can you hang it from the line AND produce an effect around the object commensurate with the object being quite some distance away.


Now you are beginning to understand why some very talented people have addressed the Trent picture and come away scratching their heads.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Unfortunately, we don't know exactly how dark the wires really were, or how close they were to the darkness of the object to make a good comparison. And on the side view of the object, the lighter shade certainly makes it look like the object is farther away, but it just might be that the top of the object is simply lighter than the bottom, giving it the appearance of an atmospheric haze at a distance.

Some enamelware kitchen items are like this, with mottled lighter tops. Could this be a simple coffee pot lid? That might also account for its asymmetry. Worth checking out.
It's a pity that all of these suggestions are answered in Maccabee's papers on the case and none seem to bother to pick it up.

But hey, if you automatically presume the witnesses were lying even though there is no evidence they did or would do such a thing, then it has to be a coffee pot lid, right?



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Now you are beginning to understand why some very talented people have addressed the Trent picture and come away scratching their heads.
Far more talented than the supposed skeptics here who have already decided it must be a hubcap or coffee lid since the Trents could not ever have seen a real UFO.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by FireMoon
Now you are beginning to understand why some very talented people have addressed the Trent picture and come away scratching their heads.


Far more talented than the supposed skeptics here who have already decided it must be a hubcap or coffee lid since the Trents could not ever have seen a real UFO.


It's possible that the Trents saw and took a photo of a "real" UFO. But it never hurts to keep looking at the data and keep poking around. The surprising thing is just how much the photos have been damaged or fiddled with (with dodging, contrast enhancement, scratches, fingerprints, and various other stains and junk) to the point where they're losing a lot of the information in them that might someday shed more light on the subject.

No matter what, however, at the end of the day, whether the photos were staged or real, we still don't know what the thing was. I know "aliens" is the wishful thinking answer. Unfortunately, the photos offer no proof of that whatsoever.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Blue Shift]





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join