Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

[!HOAX!] Pic of UFO very close range. [!HOAX!]

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnnie_walker
lol its so annoying to try and post pics. i am about to leave school i just got out of class so i will have these pics posted tonight. why is this site so complicated
hahah


ummmmm?




I have been in the business of Photographical Analysis for years my friend. I have been Photographically Re-creating images for years as i am also Law enforcement officer and with the knowledge and understanding and years of experience i have i will recreate this image and i will shove my money down your throat I look forward to seeing your next post when the Re-created image is posted.


I thought you were in Photo graphical Analysis and Law Enforcement? Hmmmmm, yet you struggle with the ATS photo uploader? It takes like 15 seconds my friend. Its quite straight forward. Yet you recreated my pic with all pertaining data? Including EXIF data? We need the original Photo recreation please if poss.

And you are in school? You have a lot on your plate.




posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I took some hi definition photographs of Jupiter last night. I zoomed as close as my viewer would allow me, and interestingly enough, there were no perfectly rectangular pixels around the orb that is Jupiter. In fact, there were zilch "artifacts" anywhere near this stark contrast in the background (?????).



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I'll ask again - she seems to be ignoring the question:

L1U2C3I4F5E6R - Do I have your permission to REPOST the 'very pleasant' U2U you sent me? If not, WHY NOT?

Just as a reminder, you said things like this:

You missed everything on that photo as I knew you would.


And yet STRANGELY, you haven't pointed out any of those things... Surely others would benefit from your obvious experience in these matters, so why not enlighten the forum? I, of course, won't understand, if what you said in the U2U is true. Is it? If so, why would you not let me repost it?




To quote you - 'Have a nice day', L1U2C3I4F5E6R.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
I took some hi definition photographs of Jupiter last night. I zoomed as close as my viewer would allow me, and interestingly enough, there were no perfectly rectangular pixels around the orb that is Jupiter. In fact, there were zilch "artifacts" anywhere near this stark contrast in the background (?????).


Sigh.. Was Jupiter a dark spot on a grey background and did you resize it and then resave it at high compression levels (=low quality)??

If not, then it was hardly a valid comparison, was it..

edit on 5-10-2010 by CHRLZ because: must be colorblind..



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I'll ask again - she seems to be ignoring the question:

L1U2C3I4F5E6R - Do I have your permission to REPOST the 'very pleasant' U2U you sent me? If not, WHY NOT?

Just as a reminder, you said things like this:

You missed everything on that photo as I knew you would.


And yet STRANGELY, you haven't pointed out any of those things... Surely others would benefit from your obvious experience in these matters, so why not enlighten the forum? I, of course, won't understand, if what you said in the U2U is true. Is it? If so, why would you not let me repost it?




To quote you - 'Have a nice day', L1U2C3I4F5E6R.



VERY interesting. What's he talking about L1U2C3I4F5E6R? I'm sure everyone spending ANY time racking thier brain with the photo would like to know, I'd even goas far as say , has the right to know, if there's anything else your leaving out of the story, or something ELSE only you are seeing in this photo?

a patiently waiting Nola

(-btw I agree with you that the uplaoding interface here on ATS should be easily navigated by a self proclaimed "Image" analysis expert, hehe. But that's another story)



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Charlz, you should speak to your friend first, when he gets back from his trip. Please do not get in over your head dear boy.

Check, double check and the re-check. Always make sure you cover your bases.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
Charlz, you should speak to your friend first, when he gets back from his trip. Please do not get in over your head dear boy.

Check, double check and the re-check. Always make sure you cover your bases.


Why didn't you just answer the question? Are you ashamed of what you wrote in the U2U?

I'll ask again. It's a really simple question.

Can I repost the U2U you sent me? If not, WHY NOT?



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   
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 oblige.

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 them up.

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



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Before I reply, in some detail, I have one further challenge for you, Loosewiththetruth...

Please post the original two images from which the images come.


Whenever you are ready.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
 





The PICTURE i posted on THIS thread of the UFO is true as the thread title says. NO deception there..


You manipulated the image by adding false details, thereby falsify the data and this thread.


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.


So you deliberately hacked the image then posted it here, in complete disregard for posting knowingly false or inaccurate material to mislead the forum and ATS itself.


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.


Again you admit lied and mislead the forum by baiting this thread with FAKE and tampered imagery.


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.


Again you admitted that you have created an image BY ADDING IN DETAIL!! Thereby you have devoid your credibility to zero!!


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.


YOU NEED TO BE BANNED!



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   
And do you now agree to me reposting the U2U?

After all, truth is the thing we are striving for, right?




posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Before I reply, in some detail, I have one further challenge for you, Loosewiththetruth...

Please post the original two images from which the images come.


Whenever you are ready.


You need to read what I just added a sec. I forgot some info.

This photo was done almost 3 weeks ago now. It came from 7 photos actually. and One video recording set of stills. whats done is done. Your services are no longer needed my friend. I admitted this all to Maybe..Maybe not yesterday before he went away for a day or two.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
So is this UFO legit or not?
I'm confused.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
I believe the thread will be labeled a HOAX very very very soon.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


Yes i did do what you said. No excuses.

However, my work is of the highest quality. There are few better, maybe just a handful.

Banning me? Well so be it, but you are only annoyed as I have proved that the perfect lie can be produced to fool anyone.

My work is exceptional and I can add much to this forum. Yes I went about it in the wrong way but its too late for me now. May the cards fall where they may.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


The UFO itself is a UFo. No question its an object that cant be explained. I gave the picture comparison and perspective instead of a blob in the air. It is placed at the correct height so that people can see it where it would have been.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
 




This photo was done almost 3 weeks ago now. It came from 7 photos actually. and One video recording set of stills. whats done is done. Your services are no longer needed my friend. I admitted this all to Maybe..Maybe not yesterday before he went away for a day or two.



So now the image is a composite??? So again your lying about lying?

So there hasn't been a shred of truth in your thread at all, nothing but lies to ruse responses??

Your are absolutely right what is done is done. I'm sure to see banned next to your name by the early morning hours!



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


No, the image was taken in 2006 of the UFO the picture there I created 3 weeks ago but the UFO is from 2006.
It is of the original UFO
edit on 5/10/10 by L1U2C3I4F5E6R because: spelling



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
You need to read what I just added a sec. I forgot some info.


Yes, that's another problem I have, I can't read people's minds, nor respond to words they haven't yet posted. Shame on me.

So, just to summarise, you claim you falsified this image to prove some point, but you can't/won't produce the images from which you made this 'montage'? Gosh, there's a surprise.

And you keep avoiding the question:

Can I post the U2U you sent me? IF NOT WHY NOT?

Thanks, Loose, for this is now turning into a very enjoyable thread for me!!

I hope you enjoy what follows, just as much....



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
YOU NEED TO BE BANNED!


I would plead the opposite for at least a short while, as if any of her posts are removed, then some.. er .. evidence that will be VERY important as this unfolds, may be lost. And there is a very important lesson to come out of this - it's not the one Lucifer thinks, however...

While we wait for Loose to do some further explaining, and to show the two (or more) images she claims she used, I would cordially invite readers to go and examine her other posts... See what you think, dear readers.





new topics




 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join