Daylight Disc UFO photograph from UK, page 2

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:04 AM

link

The only thing about this that makes me go "mmmmmm" is when that bald bloke on the beach is explaining what happened and mentioned that the bloke that took the photo only managed to get one shot because the UFO shot off as he was quote "winding on." Now unless "winding on" means something different in Liverpool, I can only imagine he meant the bloke that took the picture was using a camera with FILM!!

So either there is a real live film negative of this or someone is talking cobblers.

Who has a camera with film these days?

SplitInfinity

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:09 AM

link

People in Liverpool? Split Infinity

bluemooone2

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:19 AM

link

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by deprogrammer

Still image video grab

reply to post by amongus

Gotcha covered. I'm goofing around with Photoshop now to what else can learned from the pic.

My first thought is that there's no way to reference anything from this photo... no background, no foreground, nothing to compare the UFO to.

edit on 25-9-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)

Looks very familiar. remember this one?[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/71763507b9da.jpg[/atsimg]

loves a conspiricy

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 06:02 AM

link

reply to post by deprogrammer

Light blasting???
Never heard of it

There is a technique whereby you take 3 images at different exposures then merge the 3 for high detail in pics, but its not called light blasting, its called HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography.

I dont think it can be done in video

TeslaandLyne

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:34 AM

link

Originally posted by deprogrammer
An amazing photo of a disc shaped craft was the subject of a regional BBC programme.

The object was photographed over New Brighton, Merseyside around 2004

below is a video that contains the photograph and additional information about the UFO.

www.disclose.tv...

But why can't photos be as good as these:
www.google.com...

The photos of clearly a flat disk ship by Rex Heflin.
Only other shapes are Oval and Wing and Triangle witnessed when the ships
were going very slow or inactive. Rex's ship took off and left a ring behind.

However here we must go by the witness and assume some sort of ship.
The only other ship is the Wok or clam shell that is an apparent view
seen by Lyne and found in photos in Mexico and Billy Meier in Switzerland.

Unless the witness tells us a shape there does not seem to be a known fit.
I think the Foo likes like a VW Bug, the People's Tesla ship.
ED: Pay attention anti Tesla agents. You can get points for this.
Check the ring has beads where the Tesla bulb locations were.
Have all photos rounded up and make substitute with no beads to
distribute asap. And to think my dad showed me a Tesla bulb and I thought
only Edison made them until a few years ago, we live and learn.
ED: The Foo
files.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 9/26/2011 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)

Jason88

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:52 PM

link

reply to post by bluemooone2

I don't actually remember that one. Do tell? Looks like F-14s on the tail of something saucer-like.

bluemooone2

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 05:06 PM

link

reply to post by Jason88

See here : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also here : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Blue Shift

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 05:07 PM

link

To me, it looks an awful lot like the 1947 Roswell UFO that was photographed and published in the newspaper a couple of days before the "crash." Although that one was probably a Flying Flapjack.

Pinke

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:57 PM

link

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by deprogrammer

Light blasting???
Never heard of it

There is a technique whereby you take 3 images at different exposures then merge the 3 for high detail in pics, but its not called light blasting, its called HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography.

I dont think it can be done in video

You can make HDR video, but it requires more data than fits into a single 8 bit image.

As far as enhancing something like this, it's like armap said ... a youtube video doesn't have any more data than a standard monitor can show, therefore there is nothing to enhance particularly. Most 'enhancing' is actually distinguishing features/highlighting existing data (or at least it should be). Since our eyes are pretty reliant on the contrast between two things, image processing is nice way to reveal already existing details to our eyes.

The main disclosetv link doesn't work for, and haven't really looked at it, but from glancing it's pretty unlikely there is much to enhance there.

Would want the original negative/image or at least a decent print I imagine, though it does look very common to a lot of the stuff from perhaps 10 - 30 years ago.

Jason88

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:15 AM

link

The only anomaly I see is this white slice and what appears to be a bump on the roof of UFO. I'm going with fake as it appears some of its design is falling apart in flight.

deprogrammer

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:56 AM

link

Originally posted by Jason88

The only anomaly I see is this white slice and what appears to be a bump on the roof of UFO.
I'm going with fake as it appears some of its design is falling apart in flight.

That is an interesting theory, yet it looks like a reflection from the edge of the object /craft

Jason88

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link

reply to post by deprogrammer

Black reflects white? The spectrum doesn't work that way?

deprogrammer

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link

reply to post by Jason88

Thanks for your input. So is light-blasting a ufological myth? in the pursuit of UFO Evidence?

Can we extract more definition from this photograph...and is it a DOME SHAPED flying disc?

Pinke

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link

Originally posted by deprogrammer
reply to post by Jason88

Thanks for your input. So is light-blasting a ufological myth? in the pursuit of UFO Evidence?

Can we extract more definition from this photograph...and is it a DOME SHAPED flying disc?

Light blasting is an analog/physical colloquialism for pretty much doing a brightness adjustment on a photograph or negative by putting physical light on the exposure to show darker details, similar to X-rays. Since our eyes work by contrast we can't see very dark details of an image. IE the difference between complete black and mostly black to our eyes is not significant enough for us to notice. We require contrast to distinguish details.

In a digital sense this is pretty much opened up the tonal range to allow us to see data we couldn't otherwise more clearly. Mathematically it pretty much does the same things.

However, you have to be careful making those adjustments so you don't 'reveal' something that clearly isn't there. There wouldn't be great results by doing this to a print that has been recorded by a camera and put on youtube. Any attempt to stretch the tonal range would also bring up any compression artifacts and noise. So you're not just dealing with the noise/grain from the print, you're dealing with the compression and whatever camera was used for the production.

Unless you go to the effort of at least getting a decent print, if not a negative it wouldn't reveal very much at all.

Side note: started a thread on things like this ages ago (see sig) but just sort of died out I suppose.
edit on 28-9-2011 by Pinke because: Side note

Jason88

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link

reply to post by deprogrammer

I'm no expert by any means, but someone earlier on this thread mentioned the guy had to "wind his camera" to get this shot, so he likely has a 35mm camera which means the photog has the negative of this pic... which can be better analyzed for details. There's only so much detail we can extrapolate from a video still image.

Advice, find the guy who took the pic, ask for the negative. If you get it, then blow up the pic as big as allowed and study it from there.

BIGPoJo

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link

reply to post by bluemooone2

Yeah, the pic you posted was a verified CGI HOAX. Guess I will have to file the OP in the HOAX bin too.

Even if it is not a HOAX, the picture is such garbage with no reference that we cannot even begin to presume what it is. Where is the original pic? A screen grab of a video is worthless.

Morg234

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link

reply to post by 4evso

One thing people like you seem to forget is that Area 51 is not located in the United Kingdom.

What I'm saying is, an american black project wouldn't be casually flying over British airspace without interception. They tried it with the U-2.

It would be flown over designated areas in the United States.

Did Messerschmidt test fly the Me-262 over London on a sunny afternoon in 1942?

dadgad

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link

I'm sick of conspiracies, I'm sick of ufo's. Im sick of none of it all really happening, relying on speculation and hope mostly. We Hope. We hope for a god to exist, we hope for better times, we hope for truth, we hope for aliens, we hope, we hope and hope. I'm sick of it. I think I'm going to unsubscribe.