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: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


No probs, maybe ....

I followed your line of reasoning and have no issues with your logic.

Guess there's not really much more we can hope to do by way of analysis until that original negative comes into play.

If nothing else, at least we're honing and improving our 'forensic skills'




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Maybe ... maybe not ....

Hey, hold on there a sec .... '99 was a girl ... which I wasn't the last time I checked !!!!



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Tauristercus.....

No worries


I just sent you a U2U.

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
Maybe ... maybe not ....

Hey, hold on there a sec .... '99 was a girl ... which I wasn't the last time I checked !!!!




Oh.....yeah.....sorry.....



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by NotAgain
 


NotAgain.....

Thanks for your very interesting angle on this.

I will have a good look at that tomorrow (it's very late here now in Sydney).

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Just did a CSI on this pic. That photo was taken between 1980 and 1990
Can design matches that era.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Just a quick note on the box and cable.

As an electrician, if I'm asked to install something like that I would first run a tensioned catenary wire across the span needed, then secure the box and cable to it. The picture is a perfect example as to how such an installation would look.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NotAgain
 


NotAgain, this really is an ingenious explanation. Nice job. If you're right, then if the negative is available, the "ufo" will simply not be there.

If the negative isn't available, I'm still ready to run over to the location if I can get an address or even a street. So far the OP hasn't responded to that.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by evolve
Just a quick note on the box and cable.

As an electrician, if I'm asked to install something like that I would first run a tensioned catenary wire across the span needed, then secure the box and cable to it. The picture is a perfect example as to how such an installation would look.


Evolve.....

Thanks for that info.....that would support my earlier post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by gambon
sry , I read that just after I had posted , It really amazes me that this comes up every time someone posts a jpeg or any compressed image.Starred your explanation.
imo posting compressed images is just pointless titillation. Virtually Nothing can be analysed in them other than general look and feel.
May I ask what photo paper the photo is printed on and any image of the printers paper marks on the rear of the picture?


Gambon.....

No worries


I don't know about the paper.

If you've read further, you might also notice we're going to try to get the negative analysed.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



Please , I would like to see the rear of the photograph whilst we are waiting for the neg, Who made the photo etc , any makers marks ?



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 


Gambon.....



Please , I would like to see the rear of the photograph whilst we are waiting for the neg, Who made the photo etc , any makers marks ?


Now I understand what you mean.....sorry! doh!

I'll ask DreamKidd to scan the back of the photo & post & e-mail the photo.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Dreamkidd
 


DreamKidd.....

As per Gambom (above):

Could you please scan the back of the photo, post the picture & also e-mail the full-size file to me?

Would that be possible?

Many thanks & kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Thank you , remember the evidence does not end with the image side alone...

may be clues ........"WATSON, FETCH MT CANE AND HAIL A CAB......."

Also, WHY would you pin the picture up , right near the obvious interest area of the photograph , seems a little strange , personally would have pinned it from the left or centre ?

[edit on 23-5-2010 by gambon]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
In the ongoing quest to identify this unusual object, I've attempted to do a spot of image analysis/enhancement to extract as much meaningful info as possible.

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 when using the majority of popular image editing programs such as Photoshop, etc. However, for the last year or so, I've been using a very specialized image enhancement software known as SizeFixer XL which has as it's main claim to fame the capability of making massive enlargements with virtually no image degradation.
Here's their website for those interested in investigating this incredible program:
SizeFixer Labs

So what have I done ?

I've cropped the ufo image out of the original pic, then processed it with SizeFixer and enlarged it x14. I then rotated it 180 degrees (flipped it upside down) as quite often a different viewing orientation can make additional details stand out more easily. Finally, I stretched the intensity over the entire image to assist in bringing out details which otherwise might have tended to be too faded to make out.

Here is the result after SizeFixer finished with it:


As a comparison to show the incredible effectiveness of SizeFixer in preserving details under sever enlargement, here is the same amount of enlargement (after flipping and intensity stretching) using the very popular Photoshop ... and it goes without saying that the entire image has been degraded to the point of complete unusability:



Ok, hopefully having established that "what we're seeing is what we're getting" ... that is, virtually no pixellation, no jaggedness and no random artifact creation ... here is another image in which I've reduced the colour saturation levels. The area of interest has been highlighted. Notice that there seems to be some kind of raised structure at this point.



In the following images, I've attempted to increase the visibility of this structure and have supplied an outlined version to assist those of you that may be having trouble visualizing it




Note: if you happen to be viewing it on a large screen, I've found it helps considerably to stand up and move away from the screen a couple of meters or so ... just seems to make it stand out more clearly.


So, what can we possibly deduce from the above ?

Well, in my opinion, 2 things.

Firstly, I sincerely doubt that what we're looking at is something as prosaic an explanation as a "hubcap" that may have transferred across from another car photo that had stuck to the original photo, and then been peeled off. In my experience, hubcaps are invariably uniform and symmetrical in their shape and design and don't normally have big raised artifacts stuck on one side as seems to be evident in the above images ... and clearly the above images are nowhere regular or symmetrical in construction.

Secondly, there is still the possibility that this is nothing more than an unusual shaped outdoor street light but again, one that is far removed from the type of street lighting that I'm familiar with on a daily basis.

Anyway, hopefully the above has shed a little bit more "illumination" (pun intended) on the ufo artifact.


Maybe...maybe not
Let me know if you'd like a copy of the above images in their larger version to peruse and I'll send them to you.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
That "raised structure" seems distinctly unaerodynamic...



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
That "raised structure" seems distinctly unaerodynamic...


I wasn't (intentionally) trying to suggest that the object was a definitive airborne craft ... rather just highlighting some additional features we hadn't been aware off before in the hope that it may help us progress a little bit more in understanding what the object may or may not be.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
That "raised structure" seems distinctly unaerodynamic...


I wasn't (intentionally) trying to suggest that the object was a definitive airborne craft ... rather just highlighting some additional features we hadn't been aware off before in the hope that it may help us progress a little bit more in understanding what the object may or may not be.

Yes, but the question is whether or not it's an Unidentified Flying Object. A raised structure like that would be unusual in a craft otherwise very aerodynamic.

Also, do aliens not care about aesthetics?! That would be an ugly UFO. I've got to believe they would have a bit more pride in their designs...



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
That "raised structure" seems distinctly unaerodynamic...


I wasn't (intentionally) trying to suggest that the object was a definitive airborne craft ... rather just highlighting some additional features we hadn't been aware off before in the hope that it may help us progress a little bit more in understanding what the object may or may not be.

Yes, but the question is whether or not it's an Unidentified Flying Object. A raised structure like that would be unusual in a craft otherwise very aerodynamic.

Also, do aliens not care about aesthetics?! That would be an ugly UFO. I've got to believe they would have a bit more pride in their designs...


Ok, point taken.
Yes, you'd think any self-respecting alien would definitely want to be seen in a super-duper state of the art streamlined flying saucer .. and not some old 'clunker'



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   
maybe the raised area is where the hose screws into the sprinkler, as seen is this pic....more or less....




not really buying this explanation though, just throwing it out there...



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loken68
Just did a CSI on this pic. That photo was taken between 1980 and 1990
Can design matches that era.



Besides the can, there is the Orchard "painters" cap. Those that were around in the mid 80's remember these well, some had flaps some didn't, and they were quite popular from the early to mid 80's.

Here is an example

from 1984. Also, Orchard Hardware is still around in L.A. at least it was until I moved away in 2007. So, the location sounds right.

As far as what the object is, to me it looks like a trick of perspective of a real object hanging from the eve of the house or possibly a tree. Maybe the bottom of a hummingbird feeder. It most likely could not be something very large and far away in the sky, since everything starts to wash out in the sun (tops of the trees, house etc)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join