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.

 

UFO photo.

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by tetsuo
 


Thanks for going more in depth as I wasn't completely sure what blocking artifacts were or how they are caused.




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by EricLintScD
 

Hi, I'm new here first post. Very interesting photo OP .I have been through all post here, but for me it looks like lenticular cloud. many of them look like UFO.
Here links with lenticular cloud photos
www.crystalinks.com...

www.thelivingmoon.com...

www.squidoo.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
And second photo looks just as artifical as well.. Perfectly aligned with camera angle, so yet another one in a million shot. What are the odds of that??

I really dont understand why people still give these images the benefit of doubt. These pictures have been photoshopped and everyone can easily confirm that by looking at it in photoshop/gimp or similar.

Edit: Every single pixel of the top and bottom edge of object is exactly on same pixel row.
edit on 10-1-2011 by juleol because: added some missing info



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
OP, your photo link is dead. Please update so I can play along too.

Here's what I get:

edit on 10-1-2011 by Jason88 because: added pic



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jason88
OP, your photo link is dead. Please update so I can play along too.


the photos are posted thruout the thread



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by juleol
And second photo looks just as artifical as well.. Perfectly aligned with camera angle, so yet another one in a million shot. What are the odds of that??

I really dont understand why people still give these images the benefit of doubt. These pictures have been photoshopped and everyone can easily confirm that by looking at it in photoshop/gimp or similar.


As much as I want these three great looking pictures to be real I must agree with you. In all three the ufo is perfectly parallel to the top edge of the picture .

And this from the third picture :


edit on 10-1-2011 by bluemooone2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by almera
 


The only problem I have with your thoughts are, the objects in Eric's photo's are totally different compared to the pictures in the links you provided.(I can tell they are clouds, cos they are huge) unless they are cloaked motherships... I don't usually give my opinions around here, but in this case, I think they are some kind of energy/plasma, not solid, but I think it shows intelligence..At least we have a close up of the lights in the nights sky !! that is as far has I have got, for now.

Thanks for the links with the beautiful lenticular cloud pictures.

Lewtra


edit on 10/1/2011 by lewtra because: got sloppy



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
After reading all the posts and looking at the pictures, i wonder if it is some sort of random cloud in the sky. You can get some really different looking clouds.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
They are all the same size and all pretty damn vertical in each location.
I would expect a greater degree of variation. Thoughts?




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
The closeup view of the supposed UFO in the 1st pic put me in mind of something called a temperature inversion layer. From Wikipedia:

"In meteorology, an inversion is a deviation from the normal change of an atmospheric property with altitude. It almost always refers to a temperature inversion, i.e., an increase in temperature with height, or to the layer (inversion layer) within which such an increase occurs."

An inversion layer makes the setting Sun look strange as it passes through the layer. A fairly good explanation of that phenomenon is here.

And finally, a simulation of the visual effect of an inversion layer on the appearance of the setting Sun, the top part of which looking very much like the OP's UFO, found here

I'm not sure if you would only see the smaller top part of the Sun distortion, & see it that high in the sky, but as the source for images to paste into another photo of the sky, I wouldn't rule this out, especially given the "green flash" effect seen at the bottom of the closeup of the object in the first picture.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Error level analysis of the images suggest the anomaly was added.

Image A

Image B




Error level analysis can help you work out if a photo has been digitally altered. Photos in a jpeg file format actually lose quality each time they are resaved. We can take advantage of this to try and work out if an image has been digitally manipulated.


Image Error Level Image Analyser



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 

It is not proof that image was manipulated.


Next



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by lewtra
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 

It is not proof that image was manipulated.


Next



I wouldn't completely dismiss the photos as being hoaxed yet but they are suspect.

In case anyone is unfamiliar with the process, further quoted for truth...




If the results from the ELA tool show an image which is all bright, it does not indicate that a photo has been manipulated (quite the opposite actually). What does indicate manipulation, is different levels of brightness throughout the image. If certain sections of the image have noticeably different levels of brightness, it is a strong indicator for further investigation.







posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 

.

Image A does seem to have an anomolous box surrounding the image.
Image B does not have the same artifact.

I will note that the explantion on the website specifically asks to not be used as proof of anything if one does not know how to interprst the results. So before it can be used as proof, lets find someone who can show us all how to interpret these results.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
The photo that gives me pause is the second one:



The shadows seem too long to me. The OP says the first photo was taken around noon time (11:58 AM to be exact). By the exif data, we know the second photo was taken 7 minutes after the first (so 12:05 PM). It just seems to me that the shadows at noon-ish at 36 degrees north latitude around the autumnal equinox should not be so long.

Of course, I can't tell exactly how long the shadows are, but it does strike me as odd.


edit on 1/10/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The photo that gives me pause is the second one:



The shadows seem too long to me. The OP says the first photo was taken around noon time (11:58 AM to be exact). By the exif data, we know the second photo was taken 7 minutes after the first (so 12:05 PM). It just seems to me that the shadows at noon-ish at 36 degrees north latitude around the autumnal equinox should not be so long.

Of course, I can't tell exactly how long the shadows are, but it does strike me as odd.


edit on 1/10/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


my question is what is he taking a picture of ? the jeep roll bar or a UFO? it screams hoax when the ufo is in the upper corner of the photo and your taking a picture of nothing. why did the picture get snaped in the first place? what was he taking a picture of. if he was taking a picture of a UFO the UFO would be in the middle of the frame!
edit on 10-1-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I can't comment on the second image, because it is a bit blurry. I don't feel I can make any worthwhile comments with any confidence. The first and third images are, however, much higher quality and there are a few things to be said regarding them.

- At first glance, it does look like it could be a reflection off some glass. I'll even be super conservative and say that it could be a reflection off a piece of glass held in place, but not a part of the vehicle. If this is a hoax, then why couldn't hoaxers have used that technique? But of course it could be a hoax - we don't need to dwell on that. The only way this is a reflection of something, though, is if they put a large piece of glass in front of the camera for the shots, because the shots do not indicate there is any glass themselves.

- The alleged UFO is almost the brightest part of the image (both of them). Only some of the white trim on the house on the far left is brighter on the first image, some of the gravel on the road is a tad brighter on the third image. It would appear that the object is not a cloud, based on its brightness. Clouds are rarely the brightest part of an image. They can be if the photos are overexposed, but here the image has quite average exposure. The third image also shows clouds in the background and it is clear that the object in question is far brighter. Either it is emitting its own light, or is quite reflective.

- It does not appear to be an inversion layer - the angle of the sun isn't correct for that phenomenon.

- The first image shows a strange shape for the object, this is approximately what I personally would guess the object to look like IF we assume it to be a physical object:
i.imgur.com...


There is a weird circle shape to the left. The inside of the circle looks a little darker than the sky surrounding it, though when I compared the colors, it looks to me like the inside of the circle is just a bit more green than the sky, and that is causing an optical illusion where it looks darker. The luminosity is about the same.

- The second image is a bit more cigar or saucer-y:
i.imgur.com...


- The object looks like it has two sections in both photos, and it looks like the top section is translated just a tad horizontally off center from the bottom, such that it overlaps a bit. On both images, there seems to be something sticking out from each side. This is kinda like lenticular clouds, which often have a layered appearance and have "fins" or "wings" sticking out from the sides. Then again, it looks like it is emitting or reflecting much more light than a I can imagine a cloud reflecting in similar conditions.

- Having examined the photos in more detail, I'm having a hard time with the idea that this is a reflection-of-a-lightbulb-off-some-glass type fake. It doesn't look like any light source I can think of, sectioned and uneven/offset. It could easily be a hoax, as could any image, but it doesn't look like that type of hoax to me.

That's about it for now. Thanks for posting, OP, these are some neat photos
Very clear, good to work with.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Lebowski achiever
 




It really should be the opposite, blurry distant object and sharply defined close object.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 




Image A does seem to have an anomolous box surrounding the image. Image B does not have the same artifact.

The same box im seeing here , yup .

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 10-1-2011 by bluemooone2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Planet teleX
 


Not true. The camera was set to infinite or far zoom in this photo (which is why things very far away in the image are clear). There is a range of distances for each camera focus setting for which the photo will be in focus. Anything closer or further away than that range will be out of focus. The object is correctly focused relative to the jeep roll bar.

Here are links to each of the 3 images at original quality, but with EXIF data stripped cause IMGUR strips it (If I recall correctly anyways), as well as error level analysis:

First image
First image - Error Level Analysis

Second image
Second image - Error Level Analysis

Third image
Third image - Error Level Analysis

edit: since I'm already kinda summarizing, here's some of the fiddling I've done with these photos:
First image - Levels, Channels, Etc
First image - Perceived shape

Third image - Levels, Channels, Etc
Third image - Perceived shape
edit on 10-1-2011 by tetsuo because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join