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: 15
13
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


No sorry he has no more and there is also no video.

Has anyone came to the conclusion if these photos are fake yet or what the object acctually is?? It would be nice to know if this guy has been lying to me, if so then 3 or so years of friendship means nothing, oh what a wonderful world we live in, full of back stabbers and liars, I hope aliens do exist and come to take me from this god forbidden world.

Kind regards

Eric.




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by EricLintScD
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


No sorry he has no more and there is also no video.

Has anyone came to the conclusion if these photos are fake yet or what the object acctually is?? It would be nice to know if this guy has been lying to me, if so then 3 or so years of friendship means nothing, oh what a wonderful world we live in, full of back stabbers and liars, I hope aliens do exist and come to take me from this god forbidden world.

Kind regards

Eric.


Well if he has lied you could always say some government people came to your house, turned it upside down searching the place, told you not to say a word to anyone about it, then took the photos. Then tell him that just before they left you gave them his name and address.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by EricLintScD
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


No sorry he has no more and there is also no video.

Has anyone came to the conclusion if these photos are fake yet or what the object acctually is?? It would be nice to know if this guy has been lying to me, if so then 3 or so years of friendship means nothing, oh what a wonderful world we live in, full of back stabbers and liars, I hope aliens do exist and come to take me from this god forbidden world.

Kind regards

Eric.


So are we to understand this happened for 40 minutes to an hour and only 3 pictures were taken on a camera that can also take video?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by cluckerspud
 


i tend to agree also why no zoom shots? the composiition of all 3 photos...none centre on the "ufo"



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by EricLintScD
 


Yeah, like others have said: There's only three uncentered, unfocused pictures from an event that lasted nearly an hour. Those pictures do not look like they were taken because there was a UFO in the sky, they look like the type of pictures anyone would take while they're driving and admiring scenery (In fact, you can see a guy ignoring the object in one of those pictures).

I'm surprised the exif data hasn't shown something more obvious, but again, it's not infallible, and others in the thread have pointed to certain problems in the picture itself (the object is parallel to the edge of the photo, for instance) that wouldn't be a likely thing to see happen.

Even if we push all of the above aside, what do we have? Three pictures of a white blob. There's nothing conclusive about anything in these photos, so unfortunately they aren't really that worthwhile in the quest for identifying UFOs.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by EricLintScD
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


No sorry he has no more and there is also no video.

Has anyone came to the conclusion if these photos are fake yet or what the object acctually is?? It would be nice to know if this guy has been lying to me, if so then 3 or so years of friendship means nothing, oh what a wonderful world we live in, full of back stabbers and liars, I hope aliens do exist and come to take me from this god forbidden world.

Kind regards

Eric.

So he says he only took three pictures of a fantastic and perhaps once-in-a-lifetime event that lasted 40 minutes?

What did he tell you when you asked him why only 3 photos?


edit on 1/12/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
According to This Post by ArMaP, the EXIF data for two of the photos (ArMaP said he could only do this with two photos) shows the file names:

dscf0976a.jpg
dscf0979r.jpg

I don't know what the "a" and "r" suffixes represent, but don't cameras usually number the file names in numerical order, incrementally by "one"? If so, doesn't that mean that between "dscf0976a" and "dscf0979r.jpg" (inclusive ) there should be 4 photos -- dscf0976a, dscf0977[x], dscf0978[x], and dscf0979r.

The OP says his friend only took three images, but it seems at least a four images were taken in the time between the two images that ArMaP analyzed. Where is the fourth image? Even if it doesn't show the alleged UFO, it could be a very important piece of this puzzle.

Can ArMaP or someone else tell me the actual camera file name of the third photo that the OP offered to us (NOT the Imageshack file name). I'd be interested to see if it indicates that more than four photos were taken in that 40 minute stretch of time.


edit on 1/12/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Im very sorry...I thought I had posted the link to the THIRD photo the OP sent me.

Here is the link....yall can download and check things out from there...

www.zshare.net...


Page 15.....I do not believe this is a UFO based on the totality of circumstances. However, I have no clue what the truth is. The chance of the exif data being manipulated is 100% possible. Could be a cloud. Could be photoshopped.

Im shocked that there were alledgedly 3 jeeps full of people.....the alledged object was up there for up to an hour...and we only have three crappy photos that CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY were not taken in order to capture the object.

*shrug* who the heck knows...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Im very sorry...I thought I had posted the link to the THIRD photo the OP sent me.

Here is the link....yall can download and check things out from there...
www.zshare.net...

[Thanks! You did post it before, but for some reason, I didn't see the camera's original file name]
 


Wow -- so it seems the three images posted by the OP have the following file names:

DSCF0976r.jpg
DSCF0979a.jpg
DSCF1035.jpg

So according to the file names, 60 pictures were taken during that supposed 40-minute time period that the alleged UFO was visible (image file numbers DSCF0976 through DSCF1035). However only 3 of those 60 pictures have been presented to us.

OP -- ask your friend for the other 57 pictures. I'm sure they bothered taking at least some other pictures of the UFO. If not, I'd like to see what else they thought was more interesting than a UFO.


edit on 1/12/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I am gonna try and sum this up. OP was not at the sighting indicated. So ALL accounts of the sighting are "here/say".


Originally posted by EricLintScD
This isn't my photo and it could well be a light fixture, cloud or swamp gas, that's why I'm here to
find a *logical* explanation


OP is placing trust in someone he has only known for 4 years and has never met. OP knows nothing about his "friend" accept that they are close in age.


Originally posted by EricLintScD
These photos were obtained by a friend I know only online, not in real life, I don't know what his job title is and i've never had a reason to ask what it is, I've known him for about 4 years and he is a similar age as me (56).


So to reiterate. All the information in this thread about the "U.F.O. Account" was given to the OP by a friend whom he hardly knows. So how can the following questions be answered with absolute certainty?! They Can't, and that is a fact.


Originally posted by EricLintScD
Q: Was the object moving?
A: Yes, very slowly.

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

Q: Did anyone else see it?
A: Yes, there were 3 jeeps full of people, about 24 people in total.


Now onto the images

A few suspicious things which have been brought up are the amazing manner in which all 3 photos the object is completely horizontal with no variation in angle. Also the sizes are just about all the same. I would think that chasing a "U.F.O." for an hour would result in some size differences and angles as well.



And if 24 people had seen this for 40 minutes why would only 3 pictures be taken. And no video? The model does support video format.

According the EXIF data the pictures were taken on September 29th, while the OP claims that the date was on September 23rd.


And what about this:


Copyright : © Crown Copyright/MOD 2010


And as pointed out by greeneyedleo,

The third image shows that it was taken over 10 hours later


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

You see it now?


I saw this just as I was about to post. Thanks to Soylent Green Is People


Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Wow -- so it seems the three images posted by the OP have the following file names:

DSCF0976r.jpg
DSCF0979a.jpg
DSCF1035.jpg

So according to the file names, 60 pictures were taken during that supposed 40-minute time period that the alleged UFO was visible. However only 3 of those 60 pictures have been presented to us.


I have 2 conclusions to this:
1) OP's friend has not been truthful. He perpetrated a HOAX and it seems the OP inadvertently passed it along based on trust.

2) You are the "friend" and your purpose was to (as you said earlier) test the waters.

To the OP:
If you feel these pics are genuine, then you should convince your friend to come forward and answer the questions. Based on hear/say, I don't feel you are eligible or qualified to answer any questions about the event in question. I hope you don't take that as a jab or a personal attack, but you were not there and are in no position to discuss the actual sighting.
edit on 12-1-2011 by cluckerspud because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Wow -- so it seems the three images posted by the OP have the following file names:

DSCF0976r.jpg
DSCF0979a.jpg
DSCF1035.jpg

So according to the file names, 60 pictures were taken during that supposed 40-minute time period that the alleged UFO was visible. However only 3 of those 60 pictures have been presented to us.


I have 2 conclusions to this:
1) OP's friend has not been truthful. He perpetrated a HOAX and it seems the OP inadvertently passed it along based on trust.

2) You are the "friend" and your purpose was to (as you said earlier) test the waters...


I was giving the benefit of the doubt on this to the OP, at least publicly.


edit on 1/12/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
After 15 pages and countless responses on this series of photos, I feel that there is no way to get closer to the truth unless the photogrpaher of the images is able to furnish some answers to the questions that have been raised. This thread is a perfect example of what ATS is all about though. This has been a (fairly) civil discussion of the facts as they have been presented, and each piece of evidence has been thouroughly examined to the best of our ability. Lessons were learned about exif data, possible copyright info on the exif data, and each other. Greeneyedleo showed us what a fair and honest moderator is capable of in a thread that garnered so much attention, and let us give thanks for that.

At the end of the day all we really have here is a few images purported to contain something that we dont understand, and after a few days of analysis, we still just have 3 images and perhaps are closer to the truth, but still far enough away for complete satisfaction

I hope that there a re more images ( as indicated by the filename numbers) and that we can continue the analysis.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by cluckerspud
 





Now onto the images A few suspicious things which have been brought up are the amazing manner in which all 3 photos the object is completely horizontal with no variation in angle. Also the sizes are just about all the same. I would think that chasing a "U.F.O." for an hour would result in some size differences and angles as well.



Of course they would , yes. They are aligned with the top edge so perfectly that the number of pixels above are the same.Regardless of the EXIF data these are clearly photoshoped.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
This has been an awesome thread, very enlightening for everybody I am sure with many knowledgeable folks contributing civilly - props, ATS.

We can keep on criticizing the names of the photos, EXIF data discrepancy, and what we *think* UFOs should look like (because you can't say "that doesn't look like a UFO to me" if you don't know what a UFO looks like).

When we look at the actual photos, we see an object which genuinely appears to exist in the real world, it does not seem to be edited. And looking at the original, Hi-Rez images that greeneyedleo posted convinces me even further that this is a real object.

If it is edited, then it is a perfect edit. There are no signs of manipulation besides the fact we might not think it really looks like a UFO, or think it looks like a fluorescent light bulb, or we think it looks like a weather balloon. Anybody who is questioning the circumstances is, in my opinion, make a bigger deal out of the case than it deserves. Yeah, there are photos missing between those 3. The OP didn't take them, he got these photos, and that's what we have to work with. The story is not from the primary source, thus even if the OP is recalling the info from memory accurately, there's a chance it was not told to him accurately.

What we do have and know for sure is that we have a couple high resolution photos showing an object in the sky which really appears to be there. Here are some more fiddlings via photoshop on the high res image 3:



Guys that is about as clear as it gets. I don't know of any other photos showing an object in the sky which is clearer than this. It has extremely well-defined edges, supporting the idea that it is a physical object. It is extremely bright and seems to be emitting its own light. If you know of an object which flies, and has this shape, please post! We can say weather balloon all we like, but like this famous image...

Anything can be a weather balloon if we say it is! When I search for pictures of weather balloons, I find nothing even close to this shape. They are all teardrop or spherical.

greeneyedleo, can you post images 1 and 2 to zshare as well? the hi-res version, cause there is a LOT more detail in that image 3 hi res, as you can see from the image in this post.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by cluckerspud
 

Of course they would , yes. They are aligned with the top edge so perfectly that the number of pixels above are the same.Regardless of the EXIF data these are clearly photoshoped.


They are aligned horizontally, indicating they are level. But the number of pixels is NOT the same. In the second image, the object is NOT aligned with the top edge. It is a few degrees off. The third image is also a little off level, but the resolution of the image is not high enough to clearly show this. However you can see the bottom row of pixels fade in/out which is how an angle/tilt is represented in a single-pixel row.

edit: a little bit of logical reasoning regarding the dates from the EXIF data:
- First, we will assume that the sighting did occur on September 23rd.
- Second, we consider that the EXIF data does not indicate the date September 23rd anywhere.
- Therefore, the EXIF date data is incorrect and tells us nothing about the incident. The 10 hour difference clearly does not represent a 10 hour time gap between the photos, and therefore the date data is irrelevant to judging the authenticity of the images. It cannot help us to say if it is fake or real. It can only tell us that the images were opened/uploaded via some software that edited the times. It's impossible for there to be a 10 hour difference between two daytime photos. The dates are contradictory, therefore any conclusions reached based on those dates is invalid. There's no point in talking about the EXIF times/dates on this one.
edit on 12-1-2011 by tetsuo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by tetsuo
 


Hmmmmmm...........




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


I would write a response for you, but I have already made several very detailed posts in this thread explaining why anything you see in that image is just normal compression which you will see in any other digital image. It doesn't tell us it is fake. It tells us that it's either a beautifully/perfectly done fake, or real. Even in the image you posted, you can see the same compression artifacts around the tree as you can on the object. Your own image disproves what you are trying to prove - it shows that the compression is NOT from editing.

Here are links to the other posts I have made which can help you to understand why I have come to this conclusion, including many pictures so you can see what I mean:

Image analysis with the first posted, lower quality originals:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Explanation of compression and artifacts, including a totally unedited image:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Image analysis with the high res version of image 3:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tetsuo
 


Above in the thread I gave credit to the members of ATS, the OP for being forthcoming and Greeneyedleo for moderating this thread so well.

I would be remiss if I didnt point out your well thought out, helpful and in depth contributions as well.
I usually just send a u2u to the member who i want to laud some praise upon, but in this case I wanted everyone to see that your contributions were above and beyond in this thread.

Kudos

Remember
YouDidntSeeMe



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tetsuo
 


I appreciate all the work that you have put into this thread and im not really focused on the box around the `ufo` in this picture but the perfect alignment in all three pictures . If you look at them you can see everything else in the pictures is at an angle. The roll bar , the entire jeep , even the road and the camera that is taking the pictures is at an angle . but not the three `ufos` . Its what would happen if they were pasted in and not rotated.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by cluckerspud
 
That's a reasonable summary of the main points so far.

From my point of view, there are also other factors to be considered. The OP caught my attention a few days before this thread with the claim of having inside knowledge of biologically engineered life-forms in England (!). It was in response to the OP of that thread describing an encounter with a 5' tall spindly critter with big eyes.

It set alarm bells ringing and the next post was similarly interesting.

If you've followed this thread from the start, it's been apparent that the OP has been evasive. He's edited posts and vanished on cue. He's claimed to have been banned from image shack when the second image was 404d. His other images were still accessible and undermined the 'banned' explanation. A rider on the image shack site adds that content may have been removed by user.

So far, the OP has followed the modus operandi, or well trodden path, of the hoaxer. Maybe I'm wrong? It's possible. Nevertheless, the indications that the OP is pulling a fast one outweighs the possibility that he isn't.

He knows about biologically engineered secret projects, but wouldn't risk the safety of his family by posting on an internet forum? He posts anyway. He knows someone who's taken photos of a UFO, but not well enough to provide more evidence?

We've seen all this before. Fair play to his gamesmanship; he's done well.




top topics



 
13
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join