It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Oddly shaped UFO sighting

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:01 AM

Originally posted by masawa

To establish some credibility. Can you take two photos with your Canon still camera and post them in this thread.

Photo 1: A picture of your cell phone with the first picture of the object that you took visible in the screen.

Photo 2: A picture of your cell phone with the second picture of the object that you took visible in the screen.

This will add validity to your sighting and maybe some members have the same phone as you and can offer suggestions on how to get the image files directly from your phone in a .jpg or .img format for you to upload.


That wont add validity. The only thing that will is the original raw image - which he is not giving up.

Numerous people have asked for this over and over. Numerous people have asked for the phone model so we can help him get the pictures off. We are no closer to getting to the bottom of this, than we were on page 1.

I am hoping the OP will show up today and help us out here.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:56 AM
This is CLEARLY a HOAX. I can't believe the OP even tried to fool people with this horrible image.

If you all can't already tell, the object is NOT "in" the picture/environment, it is "on top of" the image. There is no depth.. I know some of you can see that...

Also, that "blur" that the OP claims was "eating" the UFO.....
.... those are "Smudge" marks! You can see they are common mouse strokes with the "Smudge" tool available in Photoshop. You can see he clicked on a section of sky then "smudged" it from the center out.

The second image he provides, that is more blurry, is actually another
"attempt" entirely. You can see the "smudge" marks have changed. The object changed too.. it's shape. But only around the edges...

It appears to me that he was having trouble blending the object into the picture. He also used a "blur" tool on top of the "smudge" tool.

It seems he wanted to use a blurry background picture to make it easier to blend the object in the picture with digital editing software.

Also, the difference between the first picture and second picture should be noted. The trees on the horizon move in relation to the closer trees on the right. This means the camera position changed drastically forward or backwards, or the zoom changed. However, the object stays in the same exact spot, almost the same exact size. This is sometimes known as "spatial inconsistency" when compositing images into a 3D environment. It is the number one error of amateurs.

To me it is an obvious CGI composite attempt.

It also seems like he blatantly posted the object he composited into the image...

Look at the image on the right. The OP claims he cut it out from one of his images..

Do you see the dark edge on the right* side of the object? Where did that come from?

As a graphic artist, I know its difficult to get rid of those edges in order to blend an object into another image. It appears he just cut them out, and used a "smudge" and "blur" tool to get rid of them.

The "blur" algorithms that take pixel matrices and blend their values together by pixel neighbor relationships are very obvious to spot on images. You can see these algorithms at work in the images.. he definitely used a "blur" tool around the edge of the object.

Now, ADDING those dark edges to the object on the right would be a little more difficult. Unless you darkened the background, but not the object, and then cut it out. Or...
.... it doesn't matter. It just means somewhere along the way he DID digitally edit these images. Those two objects he posted above are different.. they are not from the same images we are seeing.

This means he is editing them... and he is hiding things from us (other images, truth). I can see this just from the images! Then when I started reading his posts, and his backpedaling, and avoiding sending the raw images, and his phone type, it became obvious.

Combined with the fact the images have Photoshop tags in their EXIF data.

Horrible presentation, horrible photoshop job, horrible HOAX.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by ALLis0NE]

-fixed horrible typo-

[edit on 25-5-2010 by ALLis0NE]

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:40 AM
Also, this sharp edge looks very suspicious..

Looks like marks left behind from cutting the object out of another image. It looks like he used a rectangle selection to crop the object, and that created the sharp edge I highlighted in red.

This edge does NOT look natural. 100% photoshop IMO.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
This is CLEARLY a HOAX. I can't believe the OP even tried to fool people with this horrible image.

I don't think it's fair to attack the OP before it's proved he did anything wrong. Go ahead and post what you think is wrong with the photos but personal attacks and accusations are somewhat premature, don't you think?

If you want to attack someone go after that Kevin Martin guy on the Canadian UFO thread. He admitted to hoaxing. If there is somebody that needs a good thrashing it's him.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:25 PM
Thanks for the post and the try, but there are a few things that are wrong with this picture...first looking at the photograph if you were driving and you took the picture you had to have taken it from the drivers side window, yet looking at this picture even going at a low rate of speed there are no visible motion lines that you would get in a photo while on the move, since the quality of the picture is amatuer at best i assume its not a very expensive camera therefore does not have motion stabilization, second the picture is an obvious shop up!! these are two distinct objects the scenery and whatever the object that was pasted in the sky, the blur / spiral effect was used to cover the obvious pasting in of the picture, i still dont have any idea what the object is and it def looks wierd but in my opinion this is not a UFO this is a hoax but it is a good try, and a word of advice dont take pictures out of your window while driving its a good way to cause an accident, and this couldnt have been taken out of your windshield because theres now road in front of your vehicle!!!! to all the people that said it was a chip in the windshield, hes right its not its just a glorified hoax by an excited first timer.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by Unknown Origin

Sorry, my knowledge of computer graphics is at the stage where I KNOW when something is fake just by looking at it. The image itself is proof that it is FAKE. I am 100% sure of this...

The "blur" effect along the edges of the object were created by computer algorithms, they are not natural. You can see that by their RGBA color relationship and the pattern they make. You will find proof if you investigate that.

The image itself proved to ME that it is FAKE. This means this topic is a HOAX.

If you were waiting for an expert image analyst, or professional graphic artist to confirm these images real or fake.. well.. it just happened.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by ALLis0NE]

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:13 PM
And to think the OP has probably recieved 500 ATS points for such an active thread...grrr!

TBH, I think this OP may be something to do with the Canadian Spiral hoaxing team.


1) Both incidents apparently happened in Canada

2) Both threads appeared within a day or two of each other

3) Both are rubbish fakes

Also, continually sticking up for this OP when there are several graphic artists giving you decent info that it's a forgery is like telling your doctor you don't agree with his diagnosis. I mean, would you?

[edit on 25-5-2010 by markymint]

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:46 PM
As much as I might have wanted to believe, I also feel the closeups show photoshop editing. To be honest, the personal confusion of the OP was what had me clinging on for hope. Usually a too polished presentation adds to the suspicion of premeditated fakery.

I will just add my bit of speculation. This photo was never taken with a cell phone at all, but with the megga pixel camera mentioned somewhere in the thread. The rest is re-sizing and playing with photoshop. That is why we will never receive the originals.

Oh well, we wait for the next one. I am curious too what the OP's plans are for the continuation of this thread -- or not.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:03 PM
Can someone please explain to me why this OBVIOUS hoax has garnered so much attention and lasted 15 pages

Actually please don't explain , that will just carry the thread on

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:39 PM

Try blending it in a little better next time. You can see the box around it in yours. and pick a better UFO the lighting is so off it is easy to spot.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:50 PM

Originally posted by BlueFireWolf
It just stayed there for a couple seconds, and then the blurry part seemed to eat up the rest of it withing seconds.

The "blurry" part is a part of the story. Not a mistake..

It's something not-of-this-world, mysterious, unknown, etc., to add some flavor to the story.

...but some of us can see it's just a "smudge" and "blur" tool available in Photoshop, and other programs.

He does still need to blend it better next time though...

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:09 PM

Originally posted by BlueFireWolf
Wow, photoshop is amazing now.

I still have like, photoshop 6 or something, and barely know how to use it.

I would have to agree with you on that one.
Abovetopsecret- Prepare for the hoaxes

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:00 PM
Very interesting reading, anyway if this is fake, it will leave me very dissapointed and sad. I still want to believe it's genuine and that BlueFireWolf will continue to cooperate... pls...

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:04 PM
reply to post by zaiger


You're getting very good at that!

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:12 PM
ATS Team.....

Just for convenience in case people new to the thread missed it, I've re-posted this enlargement of the "object" via an advanced S/W application that interpolates enlarged images & approximates hidden detail.

I still can't make any sense out of this "object"......

Also just for convenience, I've also re-posted the EXIF data showing the Photoshop tagging.

As I stated previously.....

If the op doesn't get the unprocessed image to us (e.g. by simply e-mailing it from his phone as per our many requests), our conclusions will head in a very negative direction.

Photo 1 with EXIF data (scroll right):

Photo 2 with EXIF data (scroll right):

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:24 PM

Originally posted by 6205LH
Very interesting reading, anyway if this is fake, it will leave me very dissapointed and sad. I still want to believe it's genuine and that BlueFireWolf will continue to cooperate... pls...

The fact that we haven't heard back from the OP almost, speaks volumes.

I dunno. If this proves to be a hoax or if OP does not return to address his thread then.....there really ought to be some sort of repercussion so the next one will think twice before wasting bandwidth and thoroughly disappointing the UFOlogy field in general.

MODS? What do you think? Can you impose any punishment like taking back the points he gained or even temporarily banning their IP (even though I know there's ways around that too)

I just hate when my natural instinct just wants to believe people who claim to see/capture UFOs at face value just to have them set us back 5 years in the area of world-wide acceptance. Very disheartening!

[edit on 25-5-2010 by One Moment]

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by One Moment

One Moment.....

Intentional hoaxers are banned under the ATS T&C's.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:51 PM
Anyway, that battery type from OP cellphone is compatible with various Samsung phones

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:01 PM
Don't waste time with this obvious hoax. This thread should be moved to the hoax bin.

The OP stated that he has no idea how to get the original image from his phone to a computer but somehow it got to his computer at some point so he could edit it with Photoshop.

He also claimed that emailing the photo from his phone was too expensive.

Until the OP produces the original photo from his phone with the EXIF data I say he is a hoaxer and a liar. I will apologize if I am wrong...but I doubt I will ever have to.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

Is that a fact? Cool

Then, good riddance to bad rubbish. He will sorely be missed


new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in