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.

 

2 Objects from My Backyard

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by marsorbust
 


so why were there stars in one pic but not the original?

What do you think it is?




posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Glad to be of help.

I''ll go do that now.

Thanks



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Just so i get this straight, this is the story so far. Now i will do this with a pic of mine.





Hey guys look i took this pic outside








Oh you want the original here it is




So the first picture has the stars in it, the original does not. But the original will check out as being legit on the exif data however the original shows it is not a picture of the sky.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Ok Gel, you should have it now.

By the way. I'm not claiming that this a a deep space object,

I've spent 46 years being an amateur astronomer also.

I am quite capable to do dso astrophotgraphy and enjoy it very much when I get the chance. I use a Meade (modified mount diy) sct also 8" newt and apo.

The stars appear because they are not noise.

Mob



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


ZOMG we're being invaded by candle being from the planet x/nibiru/ aka Candleabra!!!!! Run for your lives!!!!


zaiger although I agree with you, you will probably be a bit in the "dog house" with a few here..



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I hate these types of posts where a person comes with some sort of "evidence" of some kind, but just puts one or two sentences about it, asks others to "tell him what it is" and then says he will come right back.
I think it is pretty obvious that this is not the original picture as someone in page1 found out that some photo editing software manipulated this picture and saved with a file name this program uses. End of it.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by marsorbust
 




The stars appear because they are not noise.


Then what are they? because im having a hard time getting stars out of your origial, but i can add a layer and darken the first picture to take the stars out to make it look like your original.

reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


Im just trying to clarify the situation here, i have not said hoax yet. The info is strange. First pic is not the original, then the original get uploaded but does not look like the first pic.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by zaiger]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
OP has emailed me the original picture. Give me a few to upload, etc.


FULL SIZE IMAGE HERE

Unedited.

[edit on April 9th 2010 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by marsorbust
Ok Gel, you should have it now.

By the way. I'm not claiming that this a a deep space object,

I've spent 46 years being an amateur astronomer also.

I am quite capable to do dso astrophotgraphy and enjoy it very much when I get the chance. I use a Meade (modified mount diy) sct also 8" newt and apo.

The stars appear because they are not noise.

Mob


Since you have exp. with astrophotography, then why would you even bother using a point-and-shoot in an astro shot with a 2 second exposure? Even at f2.8, then primary lens is not large enough to allow enough light to hit the ccd and produce even a faint outline of anything like what you are showing in the images here.

Sorry friend, either this is just colored flare from the multi-coating on the lens, or it is a fabricated image.

Unless GEL finds something in the true original image, this is a waste of time.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


Zaiger.....

I really enjoy your "lateral thinking" & subsequent "lateral approach" to the reports & material upon which you comment at ATS.

You make me "stop & think"!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by marsorbust
 


Marsorbust.....

Thank you for posting your interesting pictures.

At first pass, those "objects" strongly resemble many of the pictures of "lens flare" or "lens reflection" that have been posted on ATS & in external sources.

In order to "solve" such photos, we have needed to identify the light source causing the "flare" or "reflection".

Therefore I have 3 questions:

1. Are you familiar with the type of "flare" or "reflection" photos to which I have alluded?

2. Can you offer any additional photographic material that might help to identify a potential source for such "flares" or "reflections"?

3. Can you offer any anecdotal commentary regarding a potential source for such "flares" or "reflections"?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
All that greeneyed can do is see if the image was altered. And please note the OP never said anything about seeing this in the sky only on his computer.


which I was surprized to see when I got to my computer.


reply to post by marsorbust
 


Just currious without the lights in the sky taking a picture with a 2 second exposure with your camera what exactly were you photographing?

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

thnx



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by marsorbust
 


Marsorbust.....

I have just reviewed the full size photo as linked to by greeneyedleo (thanks GEL).

I am 100% certain your photo shows lens flare / reflection from a streetlight.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   




So where did all that noise in the first photo you posted come from? Because the first image you posted still looks nothing like this unedited one.
So what did you do to the first photo?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Just as a side note. I did not analyze this. Just received and uploaded it. I knew there were plenty of members who know how to properly do it



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Thanks for uploading it i ran the exif and it came up with


Class 2 - Image has high probability of being processed/edited


But the signatures look like the ones that come up when a photo gets uploaded on to ATS but im pretty sure that image is the original.
The problem i have is that the first photo he put up was significanly altered, it had the noise in it which looked like stars. then he uploaded his cropped original and mentioned that he used a program to take the noise out.
So why does the original have none of the stars/noise but the first picture he uploaded have it? If anything it looks like he added noise to his first photo.

edit to add :
just got the original and the exif data all checks out

[edit on 9-4-2010 by zaiger]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
The file was too large for MATS. I used photobucket. If someone else has a better suggestion for uploading let me know.

[edit on April 9th 2010 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Thank-you for your valued opinion.

I can see that possibilty. But I also see another, with the dark areas surrounding the anomalies.

Its nice to hear from someone who gives a considered opinion.

As you can see I was looking up with the camera and if its glare, why wouldn't I see it at that time. These things can be very perplexing.

Its much better than hearing it came from a 3d website somewhere.

Thanks all for your patience and I'm still open for opinions on this pic.

Mob



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Thank-you very much Gel.

You were very kind to do that for me. I appreciate it.

Mob



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join