To Charlz and Nola,
I am now going to explain the argument or bickering that has gone on between myself and charlz as he seems to BE DEMANDING IT, and therefore I must
Charlz has often piped in with his two cent on various threads on this Forum with his so called extensive knowledge of photo analyzing. People claim
all manner of things and quite often its too much hassle to argue a point with someone when they have a mountain of allies on here all blindly backing
The PICTURE i posted on THIS thread of the UFO is true as the thread title says. NO deception there. It is a close up of an Object that I have no idea
as too what it is. A lot of people often have pic like this of a blurred object that is hard to figure out. Most get written off. I however can not
write it off as it is personal too me. I have looked at the damn pic of the UFO for a few years now and when deciding "which pile" to place it in, I
am torn as my head says one thing and my heart says another.
The actual PIC is only of the object and nothing else. The description my sister gave is noted on this thread. However I had no way to show people the
height of the object in the sky without accurate reference in which to go by. I did however change the sky to reflect a more appealing backdrop
instead of the near dusk orinigal photo. Sorry for missing that out.
So I simply added in all the buildings (which are actually only 100 feet further back) the tree and the phone wire in order to give a comparison. Now
this seems a bit deceptive however, the UFO is exactly where it is. The buildings i capture on film and photo and I "added them in over the space of a
week or so". I factored in the correct angles and the blur to the buildings to match the UFO object because my sister said the camera had to move up
quickly to capture the Object. Hence why the PIC has that effect.
Now, I had to pretend to not know anything about EXIF data and photo analysis so peole would concentrate on the pic. I knew that Mabey...Maybe not
would call on Charlz (as I do not agree with much of his analysis of photos on previous threads I read through last month) and low and behold in
popped Charlz for his 2 cents. He missed everything on the photo and even went on to say that it is not shopped in any way in his opinion and that he
knows all about how to perform photo manipulation. I knew that his text book learning would not carry any weight when faced with (yes bragging)
something that is quite frankly better than professional.
So I told Maybe this fact yesterday as me and Charlz were butting heads. I have just been so fed up with 2 bit nonsense from people who claim to be
"experts" or "knowledgeable" on subjects they are quite seemingly just amateur at best.
I needed to know what that object in the pic was, and if the buildings were not in it then it would just be a blob in the sky and no one would care.
that my fiends is the story. The UFO titled thread is not a LIE. I misled no one really because no one asked about the buildings. People just said the
object is shopped - proving they are far dumber than most because only someone with extensive knowledge would pick up on the fact that everything
except the UFO has been placed there.
If this draws negativity I am sorry but people need to be sure of what they say before saying it. Or just admit they do not know.
This has been an experience for me, seeing the blind in some cases leading the blind. Thank you for those who tried to help without stating things
they have limited knowledge on. To the other one or two, learning a skill takes time and patience, it takes many moons so to speak and learning is all
about the student.
edit on 5/10/10 by L1U2C3I4F5E6R because: added let out details sorry