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

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


I was just about to go fix my post - I admit I should have added more of an opinion since what I included was obscure.

In my opinion it's a fake - either the OP took a picture of an object thrown in the air and is using this for entertainment purposes and/or it's a photo-shopped pictured...

...either that or the OP happened to take a picture of something they cannot ID but from the picture the supposed 'UFO' looks very out of place and not proportional to the distance/angel it is from the baseline of the house.

My first assumption is some sort of balloon because it seems to be sticking upwards and the point is facing upwards which would be correct assuming it is a balloon because of the airflow.

So it may be unidentified at the moment but I call hoax or non-deliberate fake.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


They look similar. I have no idea what the object is. Daytime photo, by my house. I know it illuminated. When I was looking over the footage, there was a bright flash and I stopped to get a still shot of whatever the flash was. While I was doing that, I noticed a few frames later, a dark almond shaped image appeared.
I have the movie of it. I wish someone could zoom in and show some more detail.
The camera was sitting on top of a ladder. I let it run for 2 hours and then reviewed the film.
Like I said, I got bugs and birds and none of them were remotely similar to this image.

Stranger still ..I keep getting PAIRS of objects traveling together.
They flash brightly for a split second and when I stop the frame there are two round balls, always the same distance apart, no trails or hazy edges indicating motion. This has happened about 7 times. Though I can see it in the still, my camera (a FLIP video camera) will not capture the photo of these pairs unless they are large enough. I have one picture in my UFO thread.

reply to post by highlyoriginal


Highlyoriginal.....

So it may be unidentified at the moment but I call hoax or non-deliberate fake.

OK.....thanks for clarifying your thoughts.

It will be interesting to watch the discussion develop.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by azzllin


Azzlin.....

There was a report a month or so ago seen by a lot of people, that turned out to be a drone used by Merseyside Police to monitor crowds going to watch a football match.

It hovered for nearly 30 minutes, had people convinced it was 500 foot in diameter, in reality it was a little over 12 inches, as Phage said its hard to determine size especially in a grey sky and nothing to judge it by.

Here is a picture & an operational "schematic" of a UAV's used by the British police:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fedf7c253812.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/485e7f1ba2e6.jpg[/atsimg]

www.futurecrimes.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

I don't know how legit this video is but, it also looks quite a bit like our dot. You have to stop the video to see it. Turn your volume off or down - the sound is annoying. Stop at 0:04 and 0:27 Appears twice. Looks almost like another remote controlled device. Some spikes appear to be coming out the sides. I cannot determine size.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Rusethorcain.....

It's always nice to see you adding some class to these threads!

I know what that is.....

That's a sensor effect caused by the camera being pointed at the sun.



Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
reply to post by GeisterFahrer

 

A garbage can lid? Save the pic and zoom in. It is not a garbage can lid. I don't know what it is.

Not saying what it is or isn't, but what on earth makes your judgment any more accurate than his? It looks a lot more like a garbage can lid than a spacecraft from another planet if you ask me. Zoomed in or not. I'm not saying that's what it is, but until you can prove that it isn't, that's the most reasonable explanation. You're the one presenting it as something else, so prove it. Don't talk down on reasonable theories unless you're able to show us that they aren't reasonable.

You specifically stated that you don't know what it is. How, then, could you state what it isn't?


Cheers,
Strype

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Yup quite common and quite commonly mistaken for a UFO.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f0dd01de454.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4173a1c03ba7.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/62ac4c784f92.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9df7409a8e9.jpg[/atsimg]

Late to the party again!

I took a long hard look at the original, full-size image with EXIF, claimed as being straight off the camera. I found nothing to suggest that it had been edited. (Only by getting access to the original media can one be reasonably sure of that, but suffice to say it would take a fairly high level of knowledge to be able to get one past me.. )

Anyway, according to the EXIF data, it is a no-brand camera (ie a cheapie, sorry!), and the image was taken at 1/270 second. This is where things get a little tricky. Being a no-brand camera, we have no idea about the electronics, type of shutter, etc, so the exif may not be very accurate. It also means that the lens may be quite substandard.. Now the buildings etc are quite blurred, and it *looks* like motion blur with a strong vertical component. But if that 1/270 shutter speed is correct, then that camera was being moved quite violently to achieve that amount of blur so I'm wondering if it is more of a defective lens, than true motion blur..?

The relevance of this is that the object has significant blurring at the top, but much less at the bottom. Puzzling, but again, could this be a lens problem?

Now, onto the object...
As I mentioned, it has the odd blurring effect. I'd like to see other images from this camera showing contrasty detail in the same are of the frame, if possible.

I see NO evidence of a cutnpaste. I find it rather alarming that some responses here have made that judgement from a very obviously REDUCED (and therefore re-saved) initial image. Such an image will, unless very carefully created, have jpeg block boundaries added, and these are often confused (by amateur investigators) as copy-pastes, when they are no such thing. I see NO evidence on the original of any cut and paste, and if it was 'photoshopped' in, it was done quite professionally (begging the question of why you wouldn't use a better image and better 'ufo', if you were that good...).

BTW, I won't be elaborating on how you can quite easily tell the difference between a cut-paste and jpeg boundaries, as it may play into the hands of future hoaxers, but if you know the topic, you can easily see which is which. U2U me (with your credentials ) if you wish to know how, but really, if you knew the topic you wouldn't be asking me...

There are minor artefacts around the object in the original, but they are quite consistent with the level of JPG compression in use.

The RGB colour readings (comparing object versus other similarly lit areas) don't really reveal much of use, but I may revisit that aspect later.

There is a slight halo around the object, which can be emphasised by careful level adjustment, but this may simply be crude oversharpening artefacts created as the camera captures the image. Cheaper cameras are notorious for overdoing the sharpening and contrast enhancement.

However, the halo effect plus the fact that the object seems a little clearer (at the bottom) than most of the remainder of the image, introduces a new possibility - this could be something that was in fact on the sensor... ie a small piece of dust or debris. Diffraction effects and the microlens design of digital sensors may cause this halo on such objects. that would explain why the object seems to be suffering different clarity issues to the rest of the image (which came via the lens)..

To eliminate (almost) that possibility, I'd like to see the images immediately before and after this image, and as above, to determine the true resolution of that camera in the region where the ufo appears, I'd also like to see some images taken by it, that show contrasty detail in that area.

No, I don't want much... Oh, and how's about full details of what camera it was..?

As to what it is, I wouldn't hazard a guess at this stage. There is not enough meaningful information to be gleaned from the image, so far..

reply to post by CHRLZ


CHRLZ.....

Thank you as always for your extremely interesting commentary.

I agree regarding the blurring.....it is "odd".

So now we need:

- The exact make & model of the camera

- Whatever other photos were taken before & after the "UFO" photo

I hope L1U2C3I4F5E6R can help with those.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Strype

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
reply to post by GeisterFahrer

 

A garbage can lid? Save the pic and zoom in. It is not a garbage can lid. I don't know what it is.

Not saying what it is or isn't, but what on earth makes your judgment any more accurate than his? It looks a lot more like a garbage can lid than a spacecraft from another planet if you ask me. Zoomed in or not. I'm not saying that's what it is, but until you can prove that it isn't, that's the most reasonable explanation. You're the one presenting it as something else, so prove it. Don't talk down on reasonable theories unless you're able to show us that they aren't reasonable.

You specifically stated that you don't know what it is. How, then, could you state what it isn't?

edit on 3-10-2010 by Strype because: (no reason given)

This is a typical comment from someone who needs some manners. I questioned the fact of a garbage lid. I then stated its not, then stated I don't know what it is. I did not attack his judgment did I? Well???? I gave my opinion. that is what a debate and discussion entails.

I did not attack this person. So your comments are childish and irrelevant. Always someone without a clue on every thread. These types of people are all the same.

reply to post by CHRLZ


Thank you Mr Charlz,

You comments are very well received as you are clearly stating something you have some experience in. Which I like.

The camera was this one:

MP5 camera

Its an old one mind you not made anymore. Remembering it was back in 2006 and the camera was from 2005.

I hope you do come up with some more interesting stuff to do with this Pic.

Many thanks to you and to Maybe.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


No problem - thanks for the kind words. But I'm a little puzzled by that camera you linked to - the image we have is 3264x2448 pixels - that's 8Mp, and is definitely not what is shown at that link. Maybe a later model? (*see PS)

Also, any chance of the images I requested, namely:
- the image immediately before and immediately after the one posted
- any image from the same camera showing a lot of detail in the centre of frame

If you/your friend could supply those, it would help..

* Added PS - some cameras can be set to 'interpolate' to larger sizes than the sensor actually records (why they do this is not only inexplicable, it is also immoral!), so that could explain the large size of the image...

reply to post by mblahnikluver


Believe me, it's "shopped"

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Oh......


But thanks
to you for closing the lid
and Chadwicks
who nailed the coffin shut.

This will help me put to rest many other apparent sightings as well.
Still there are others....as yet unexplained-
You have to admit that Maybe Maybe Not!

Lovely to you!

Originally posted by DaRAGE
clearly photoshopped.

look at the distorsions around the object.

Cut and pasted and blended.

If it was a real photo it wouldn't have that nonsensical lines around that are from a clear cut and paste.

I agree. Its 100% fake. By zooming in close enough (at least by 600%) you can see the work that was done to blend the colour in with the background. Why do people try this on?

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Myendica

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
reply to post by DaRAGE

 

Well the EXIF data is there too see. I thought that could tell if it was photo-shopped.

it doesnt need to be photo shopped.. someone wouldn't spend time photo shopping such a horrible rendition of a UFO.. it would have some clear characteristics. its nothing flying on its own, or under intelligent influence except whomever thrown it.. or possible wind blowing it off of a high place.

And you concluded all of this how..exactly?

please, dont for a second think this is a real UFO picture. this has become sad.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


HI I live in Brighton, Sussex. (Well Shoreham-by-sea actually) Just wondering where abouts on The Downs this was taken?

reply to post by Chadwickus


In your first pic of your last post there is a sunspot.

I viewed it at 900x, it shows a pixel rectangle bordering the object.
The OP pic at 900x, has the same pixel rectangle around it.

If I knew how to do a side by side, I could show both images at 900x are a 95% match. Each object is rounded with a semi point.

The OP pic is not in bright sunlight, but it is in the brightest part of the shot.

I can't help but notice similarities between this photo and the one in your other thread that you suggest may reveal an "alien" and you say was taken in 2005.

The shapes of the objects are very much alike and, looking at the designs, the houses could very well be from the same road.







Did your sister take both photos and are they taken from the same place but one in 2005 and the other in 2006?