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.

 

Awesome UFO photo taken in LA 25 years ago.

page: 11
15
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Very cool... again there will be those who say a Hoola Hoop duck taped to a lawn chair.




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
Now before I start, I want to immediately head of any criticism that any attempt to enlarge such a small image is self-defeating as the enlargement process would undoubtedly introduce unwanted artifacts and pixellation.
This would normally be a perfectly valid criticism...


And it remains so, I'm afraid...


Yes, some programs algorithms are better than others at enlarging, BUT ALL OF THEM ARE GUESSING! I appreciate your genuine attempts to enlarge the living heck out of this image, but you need to hold back the horses...

Once you start interpolating pixels, then by definition, those pixels that are added are NOT true detail. Any enlargement of this kind (which shows a smoothed, non-jagged image) contains detail that is merely a guess by the software in question.

There are many ways to guess that data, and certainly it appears your software is quite good at it. But not necessarily better than say Lanczos, or QImage Pyramid/Vector... And all of the versions that you do with various programs will show *different* results. None of them will be 'correct'.

Also, remember all those jpeg artefacts around the object? Do you think they are only affecting the outer regions? Those structures you are paradoleia-ing
are quite likely caused by artefacts. So add that to the false detail caused by interpolation...

Seriously, using enlarging algorithms is a minefield of false data, and it needs to be used EXTREMELY carefully, and in full knowledge of what you are seeing, or NOT seeing... and what you are *introducing* into the image.

I often point to this site to give a better idea:
www.general-cathexis.com...
- take a look at all the different versions of this enlarged image (takes a little while to load, then roll your mouse over the numbers along the edge, and watch..).... So which one is the real image? The answer is, of course, NONE of them.

Like I said, I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but don't believe everything you read on an enlarging program's advertisements...

In the same vein, those trying to read letters.. are in fact 'reading' jpeg compression patterns, imo.


Also... a few other points..

If the negative is found, then it deserves a DECENT film scan. Most flatbed scanners, or dinky USB film scanners that you can find in department stores are NOT good enough (crappy optics, low resolution). Even your local photo printing stores scanner is likely to be not up to it, although they may offer a higher resolution service. The best bet is to find someone with a serious film scanner - either a 4000 (Nikon, Canon, Polaroid) or 5400 (Minolta) ppi model. Maybe your local photography club could help? (I'd offer, but I only have a 2700ppi model, and it's boxed up at the moment anyway..)

The *print* could also be rescanned at higher resolution, but again, preferably on a decent *genuine* 1200 ppi or higher flatbed scanner. (You don't need quite so much resolution for scanning a print, as it has already been enlarged when printed...) To get your scanner to do its best optical resolution scan you may need to get it out of auto mode and into the advanced one..

Those weird numbers (_SS 32 12 NNN 272)? ...are just the color correction codes. I used to know the system, but it's faded from my memory just like that print.. (Agfa papers are not really renowned for lightfastness). Anyway, given the already faded and inaccurate color, I don't think there is any valid use in pursuing that aspect. Oh, and different colours fade at quite different rates...


Other than all that...

I'm going with the bird feeder at the moment.


[edit on 29-5-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
... it's little dehydrated "just add water" aliens flying around in a sprinkler!


OhMiGoodness.

MMN, you have just uncovered the real reason that the aliens are only seen as distant, tiny blobs. They *are* tiny blobs, and upon landing on earth in objects looking like bird feeders... Well you can guess the rest. Clearly we need to change our research to examining bird-/bat-droppings..


Loved that bat picture, btw. That was cool.

And Zaiger, I really enjoy your stuff.. er.. even tho' it might not quite be in the true spirit of the site...

Then again, in its own way, it is denying ignorance (or maybe just making a dang fool of it...)..



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
People i want to ask if there is a possibility of ufo which is very small? I mean like not even one centimeter in diameter? Is it possible?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by chaosinorder
People i want to ask if there is a possibility of ufo which is very small? I mean like not even one centimeter in diameter? Is it possible?


Given the PROPER definition of UFO, then of course it is. Anything flying that is unidentified, is by definition, a UFO.

But if you really mean 'alien spacecraft', then yes and no.

Given our current understanding of brains, and carbon-based biological intelligence, then one *might* expect intelligent creatures that have evolved similarly to us to be a bit bigger than a cockroach... However, who's to say that the evolved that way, or that our understanding is sufficiently broad? Or that such a craft would contain the 'thing/s' that sent it?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I have a photo i took just before a couple of hours. can you see it and say what it is? i dont want to post it here since i am not sure if its just a camera thing. i can send it to your mail but please do not post them here and also you can reply to my mail what it maybe. It'll be very appreciated if you can take a look at it.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by chaosinorder
I have a photo i took just before a couple of hours. can you see it and say what it is? i dont want to post it here since i am not sure if its just a camera thing. i can send it to your mail but please do not post them here and also you can reply to my mail what it maybe. It'll be very appreciated if you can take a look at it.


Email sent.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I see people scrutinizing the time frame and making sure its not photoshopped. I see very little in regaurds to trying to explain what this might be in the case that it is a genuine photo. It is quit possibly a streetlamp as seen in the daytime the sun is glaring in such a way that you can only see the bottom but not the top as it is at the top right corner of the photo the rest of the pole and arm maybe be totally out of photo.


[edit on 29-5-2010 by NephraTari]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I've sent the image to your mail id. Check it out and leave me a reply.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 


NephraTari.....



I see people scrutinizing the time frame and making sure its not photoshopped.


I think we agreed the pixilation is due to the manner in which the image has been scanned for posting.



I see very little in regaurds to trying to explain what this might be in the case that it is a genuine photo. It is quit possibly a streetlamp as seen in the daytime the sun is glaring in such a way that you can only see the bottom but not the top as it is at the top right corner of the photo the rest of the pole and arm maybe be totally out of photo.


I've also been thinking about the streetlight / post issue because that's what happened in the photos I took when I was on-site taking pictures for that Sydney UFO thread, earlier this year.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I think the sprinkler is a uncanny resemblance to the ufo.. however this has the height that a ufo might be it looks like its originally there. however also a negative still aint going to prove much.. it will rule out photo manipulation but it wouldnt rule out someone throwing a hubcap or someone doing something else to make it look real.. that might belong in the picture and it be on the negative but it could also be some trickery being photographed..

i believe this is a older pic look at the mans hat you dont see people really weaing a hat like that and the glasses i dont think its too old 80's? dunno maybe 96? probably more likely..

this one is a doozy because for one the ufo in question looks like it belongs the pen marks look like they are genuine but could be added before scanned to make it looked more authentic.. im on the fence but the sprinkler is damning when compared but the angle this thing is in the sky i dunno this one could go either way

i do have a question is all those white blotches just blotches because it kinda looks like the sky is changed from this tan color which i dont understand to a whitish bluish color noted in the trees

i think its fake or a reflection or someone throwing something straight up in the air..

possible someone could throwed this up the air and ran and someone snapped it.. but theres no blur of the object..

wow



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Sorry, alittle offtopic...

Originally posted by chaosinorder
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I've sent the image to your mail id. Check it out and leave me a reply.

Check your email. I think you've just caught an unusual internal lens reflection (yes, the dreaded 'lens flare') in that image you sent me, but feel free to seek out other opinions..



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by staple
 

Staple, if you'll look at every other object in the photo that has color variations you will see the same pixelation at the same resolution. That in and of itself is not proof positive of a hoax.

The only way to know if this is in the original is with the negative.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


I believe you might be incorrect about the Beer can design and logo, you are looking at apples and oranges... That is a Bud Light Can vs. a Budweiser Can, they both have different logos and designs, also in the early to mid-80's the can shape was changed. Here is an example of the Budweiser Logo from 1964

Beer in Ads

Unfortunately, I don't know how to post images or else I would post the image.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fakshon
reply to post by tauristercus
 

I believe you might be incorrect about the Beer can design and logo, you are looking at apples and oranges... That is a Bud Light Can vs. a Budweiser Can, they both have different logos and designs, also in the early to mid-80's the can shape was changed. Here is an example of the Budweiser Logo from 1964
Beer in Ads
Unfortunately, I don't know how to post images or else I would post the image.


Fakshon.....

Here you go!



Beer In Ads #30: Budwesier, That Bud … That’s Beer!


by Jay Brooks on January 26, 2010in Art & Beer, Beers

Tuesday’s ad is for the Budweiser flat-top can from 1964. They’re going for that manly fisherman demographic. I found it interesting given yesterday’s post, Evolution of a Beer Label, just how much importance A-B was placing on its label in 1964. Notice what the ad copy reads. “The story is on every Budweiser label.” But I think the previous question asked by the ad, “s there any real difference in the way beers are brewed,” will have the average beer geek laughing out loud.




Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I was following this thread for like the first 6 or 7 pages and remembered this was taken in San Jose. I dont know if it'll help but I can try and snap some pics of the surrounding areas since I live there too. I remember someone talking about a wall that may or may not be there..



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by RaymaNcouldbe
 


Thanks Ray. Could you be on the lookout for any kind of street lighting that the ufo in question might be mistaken for? I would check perhaps older parts of town, possibly alleyways, cul-de-sacs, etc. I tried googling street lights for San Jose without much success.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by yuefo
 


I'll keep me an eye out. I know there's been some serious upgrades in the city in the past 25 yrs or so and i think a lot of the streetlights were changed. I'll randomly roam the city and keep in mind to look for a flying sprinkler somewhere hehe.

Theres some run down parts that i can think of that google streetview aint helping with. Does anyone know of the general area in the city? I cant U2U the person who had the pic yet...



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by RaymaNcouldbe
 


Early on in the thread I tried to determine the location without success. Even a general area would be helpful though since you're willing to look around. Maybe dreamkidd or poisonivy can assist--I'll U2U them.

[edit on 6/3/2010 by yuefo]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Yes.it looks fake to me.The lighting on the object compared to the surroundings does not look right.Never seen another ufo look like that anyway.Someome may have tossed a car hubcap or lid into the air and took a photo of it.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join