It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by imitator
Lens glare.... CASED CLOSED
This one was easy.... as already demonstrated by Chadwickus.
You point a camera at the sun, and you can get all kinds of silly anomalies of the non-terrestrial type.
edit on 5-8-2011 by imitator because: (no reason given)
No Evidence of Pixel Distortion. It is a well known fact that digital photographs can be easily manipulated to add or delete details. The area around the present UAP was enlarged to the point where individual pixels were apparent in order to discover whether the UAP might have been created (in another file) and then “pasted into” the sky background scene of Figure 2. Details of this method are given elsewhere. (Tortorella, 2009) During the process of deliberate hoaxing of this kind so-called “block artifacts” are produced somewhere within the larger grid of pixels making up the background scene.12 No such distortions in luminosity or spatial displacement 12 Images compressed using the JPEG’s Discrete Cosine Transform algorithm produce high frequency AC coefficients that are (usually) zero or nearly so. However, images that have been cut and pasted (to produce a hoaxed or false image) produce non-zero coefficients that can be detected because their boundary possesses an inverse relation to the strength of the image, i.e., a difference in luminosity.
NARCAP IR-2, 2010 Page 17 R. F. Haines
International Air Safety Case Report
were discovered suggesting that the UAP was present when the photograph was taken.
Comparison of Photographs
Figures 12 through 15 are the other four photographs said to have been taken about 45 seconds apart following the image of primary interest (Fig. 2). The photographer also confirmed that this was the order in which she took them. Several things can be learned from a careful comparison of these photographs? First. The UAP is not found in any other photograph but the first one (Figure 2). A careful comparison of Figure 2 with 12 was made by centering both solar discs over each other and rotating one to match the other as nearly as possible using the reddish high altitude cloud pattern as a guide. The reddish clouds in Figure 13 either had dissipated significantly, moved across the sky, or the photo was taken many minutes later or wasn’t in the sequence claimed.
Second. Cloud Pattern Changes are apparent and show the effects of time and winds at different altitudes. While one expects clouds to constantly change shape these photographs suggest one of two things: either more than 45 seconds elapsed between exposures, the winds at the cumulus cloud altitude was very high and turbulent, or both. Since meteorology data showed winds to not exceed 30 knots the elapsed time between exposures must have been longer than 45 to 50 seconds. Figures 12, 13, and 14 include the top of a nearby mountain that can be used to align one image with the other. A slightly greater zoom setting was used in Figure 12 and enlarged the cloud detail somewhat. The cloud patterns are significantly different, however and (once again) suggest the passage of many minutes between exposures. The reddish clouds are visible in Figure 2 and 12 through 15. If the camera was oriented identically for Figures 2 and 12 then the reddish clouds are traveling generally NE and are rotating (as much as 30 degrees) as a unit and are not fragmenting. Of course the photographer could have rotated the camera between these shots. It seems unlikely that only 45 seconds
passed between these two photographs. Figures 14 and 15 were obviously taken sequentially as shown by the relatively unchanged cumulus cloud patterns yet sometime different from the earlier photographs. Figure 12 was
aimed slightly higher than Figure 14 and did not include the top of the foreground mountain. The automatic exposure (f stop and exposure duration) was probably the same for both. If JPEG metadata was available for each image this could be verified.
Third. The obvious aiming point the photographer used was the white, cumulus clouds and the solar disc. All of the sky images contained these same objects.
No, I've drawn a line between the middle of the lens flare and the centre of the sun.
You were right in your first post. The reflection crowd did not take long to arrive.
They indicated that nothing unusual was sensed during the time the photographs were taken nor were any unusual noises heard. It was not until viewing the photographs later on a computer monitor that the UAP was noticed by family members.
The UAP was not visible in any of the other photographs taken of the same location in the sky,
Figures 12 through 15 are the other four photographs said to have been taken about 45 seconds apart following the image of primary interest (Fig. 2). The photographer also confirmed that this was the order in which she took them. Several things can be learned from a careful comparison of these photographs? First. The UAP is not found in any other photograph but the first one (Figure 2).
Even the Chilean CEFFA have trouble identifying this image, but our "expert on call" draws a few lines, makes a silly animation and voila, case closed.
It also isn’t known whether the photographer reset the white balance, exposure compensation, or light metering controls on the camera for any of these photographs.
this caused details elsewhere in the image to become extraordinarily dark. As will be noted below, the details of the UAP image only became evident when the entire frame was lightened and its contrast increased.
Bring other opinions is all I want. But call reflection on this? No.
Mention also must be made (for the sake of completeness) of the occurrence of the huge 8.8 magnitude earthquake17 of February 27, 2010 (at 0334:14 hrs. local time) that was centered at 35 deg 54’ 32” South,; 72 deg 43’ 59” W. This was only thirteen days after this photo was taken. The estimated depth of the temblor’s epicenter was 22 miles. The horizontal distance between the photographer’s location at the El Yeso reservoir and the surface location of the earthquake’s epicenter18 is approximately 225 miles!
In summary, although this UAP could not be positively identified it presented a number of highly intriguing details that deserve further research.
You're just replicating the skeptical view of the case. Nothing wrong with that. But I think by being a credible body, we can give a credit of trust to NARCAP and think that they, as professionals, would know that the work should be done in the raw material. Dont you think? About the vehicle, the witness claims to be outside the vehicle, so I dont think it's a case of reflection.