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: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by tetsuo
 


thanks for going above and beyond on that very informative post Tetsuo. this entire thread is very educational on the subject of images/compression, i feel as though i have so much to learn still. a star for your great effort. i'll be sure to check out the link you posted as well. i'd like to get to the bottom of this and feel as though i may have jumped the gun on my conclusion, and if this proves to be the case i apologize to the OP.




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
NEW UPLOAD:
EXIF data of the three photos...side by side....

Does anyone notice anything...............strange?



EXIF side by side HERE



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Ya, wonder how that happened.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Reading left to right
the times seem to be going backward

If the 1st pict is the 1st posted the pictures are going back in time

that?

edit nevermind was way off disregard
edit on 1/10/2011 by EvilBat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Different font used on the copyright info .
edit on 10-1-2011 by bluemooone2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Nope.....the font is by me...I quickly made it in Word and converted to a .pdf

Hint....found on the first page


Yall are smart....yall will see it

edit on January 10th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Sep 29 2010 is the exif
the op stated picts took sep 23rd



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by kmarx
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


i'd make the conclusion that the first link is a bad or rushed photo editing attempt. while the second link someone took more time to make a more convincing "product".


Or maybe one pic was of an unusual cloud formation and they decided to hoax the other two..



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
NEW UPLOAD:
EXIF data of the three photos...side by side....

Does anyone notice anything...............strange?



EXIF side by side HERE


All same brightness readings??
Odd



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


The only discrepency I see is the 2 different dates the 23rd and the 29th.
It is possible that the dates got mixed up, I guess we will have to wait for the OP to answer that uestion as well.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Ok...so yall dont strangle me for making yall sit around and wonder


Look at the Date/Time Original for each photo.....

1:
2010:09:29 00:00:00 3 months, 11 days, 10 hours, 46 minutes, 8 seconds ago

2.
2010:09:29 00:00:00 3 months, 11 days, 10 hours, 39 minutes, 29 seconds ago

3.
2010:09:29 00:00:00 3 months, 11 days, 20 hours, 29 minutes, 58 seconds ago

You see it now?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Ok...so yall dont strangle me for making yall sit around and wonder


Look at the Date/Time Original for each photo.....

1:
2010:09:29 00:00:00 3 months, 11 days, 10 hours, 46 minutes, 8 seconds ago

2.
2010:09:29 00:00:00 3 months, 11 days, 10 hours, 39 minutes, 29 seconds ago

3.
2010:09:29 00:00:00 3 months, 11 days, 20 hours, 29 minutes, 58 seconds ago

You see it now?


A New Years joke ??



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
There's a ten hour gap between the photos if im reading that right .



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Wow I totally missed that

I wasn't even close lol
:::feels like floyed now on dumb and dumber samsinite swanson :::



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Seems to work back to 29th Sep

Darn, missed that 10 hour gap......
edit on 10-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
There's a ten hour gap between the photos if im reading that right .


DING DING DING DING!




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by bluemooone2
There's a ten hour gap between the photos if im reading that right .


DING DING DING DING!




OP said:


Q: How long did the UFO stay for?
A: About 40 minutes/ 1 hour until it floated behind the mountains out of view.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
1:
2010:09:29 00:00:00 3 months, 11 days, 10 hours, 46 minutes, 8 seconds ago

2.
2010:09:29 00:00:00 3 months, 11 days, 10 hours, 39 minutes, 29 seconds ago

3.
2010:09:29 00:00:00 3 months, 11 days, 20 hours, 29 minutes, 58 seconds ago


Now i see it once I bolded your quote for you



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Hmm, but usually 10 hours would put the shot into night time..

They altered the data then ???



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


6 day discrepency in the data from the claim
10 hour discrepency from 1 of the images

You could chalk up the first to somethin as simple as a typo or the wrong date encoded on the camera,
but the second, I dont see how 1 image can be created 10 hours later than the other two, when the event was supposed to be 40mins to an hour.




top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join