Lost photo of UFO found

reply to post by phantomjack


One more...highlighting the area where the artifact appears:





LINK

Originally posted by callacas
Dear OP, How much is the original picture You own worth ? - what's Your´s price ?

lol...beats me. I just put it up here for us all to share and discover together. Naturally, I am still hoping that it's the real McCoy.

reply to post by NebulaZero


The antenna would be disproportionate to its size, the more I am looking at this the more I am seeing the line from the top mid centre to the sky. However, if this is the case the trees are very high up, how is it done?

reply to post by phantomjack


Well I don't know, if the string that you point out is an actual string, then the one I thought I saw must be in my mind or an image artifact because it looks like it is going straight up and down. I was just looking at the raw image and image editing isn't my forte, so I'll just shut up about this from now on.

I'm still kind of on the fence about this, I want to see more of this string farther up along where it should run if it is, in fact, a string.

Is the UFO completely "perpendicular" to the direct the string is running? You know what I'm saying? Is it swinging flat with the string?

I got the same line in all of the versions of the image, I also, when blown up, see a bulge where the line touches the top of the saucer. Is it a cable or string? I don't know.

I am still doing more filters and such.

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by phantomjack

 

One more...highlighting the area where the artifact appears:

LINK

What do you mean by 'Artifact'?

reply to post by 1ifbyland2ifbydebitcard


Well, it could very well be a scratch. And, I want to believe this is a real photo just like the rest of you.

But if it is a scratch, it is in a very interesting position -- Directly in the center of the top of the craft. What are the odds of that?

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by phantomjack

 

One more...highlighting the area where the artifact appears:

LINK

meaning the pixels that are in a straight line in the scanned photo -- just odd to have that many pixels lined up like a line, and beginning at the very top center of the ship.


What do you mean by 'Artifact'?

reply to post by IAMTAT


Even classic/old fake photos are valuable - someone will pay you to use it in their their book or to add it to a collection. Go to eBay if it's not sentimental, and set the lowest bid you're comfortable with and you might just make a nice little chunk of change.

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by NebulaZero

 

The antenna would be disproportionate to its size, the more I am looking at this the more I am seeing the line from the top mid centre to the sky. However, if this is the case the trees are very high up, how is it done?

You do mention a good point. Probably isn't an antenna.

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

Even classic/old fake photos are valuable - someone will pay you to use it in their their book or to add it to a collection. Go to eBay if it's not sentimental, and find the lowest bid you're comfortable with and you might just make a nice little chunk of change.

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll just hang on to it. It's very cool.

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by NebulaZero

 

The antenna would be disproportionate to its size, the more I am looking at this the more I am seeing the line from the top mid centre to the sky. However, if this is the case the trees are very high up, how is it done?

Well, it would be all about perspective. A fishing pole with the thing dangling about 5 feet in front of the camera could seem that it is further up in the sky than what it really is....

And why would a space craft need an "antenna" to begin with? I mean, if they could travel at the speed of light, at unmeasurable distances, surely they have the technology to embed the antenna in a less than a 1950's type look, no?

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by NebulaZero

 

And why would a space craft need an "antenna" to begin with? I mean, if they could travel at the speed of light, at unmeasurable distances, surely they have the technology to embed the antenna in a less than a 1950's type look, no?

The same reason we used to I guess before they went digital.

In all seriousness I can accept the fishing rod and string theory.

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by NebulaZero

 

The antenna would be disproportionate to its size, the more I am looking at this the more I am seeing the line from the top mid centre to the sky. However, if this is the case the trees are very high up, how is it done?

Well, it would be all about perspective. A fishing pole with the thing dangling about 5 feet in front of the camera could seem that it is further up in the sky than what it really is....

And why would a space craft need an "antenna" to begin with? I mean, if they could travel at the speed of light, at unmeasurable distances, surely they have the technology to embed the antenna in a less than a 1950's type look, no?

Just keeping an open mind, I doubt it would be an antenna as well.

reply to post by phantomjack


Why are people making excuses for it to be a UFO. That is ridiculous and in direct contradiction to occam's razor. This is the type of desperate thinking that makes the UFO field an utter joke with all the "believers" who want to believe some random stupid picture that fraudsters billy meier produced dozens of even dozens of years ago. Even when presented with evidence of a string? Seriously people? It's very easy to do pictures like this with forced perspective. I can't believe anyone is saying they "believe" it's real just on seeing this random photo rofl.

Why are people even debating this? It's worthless as "evidence". You need multiple independent witnesses, the source, unaltered photo/video, expert analysis and so on before anything can even come close to evidence. This is just another silly random photo with a vague unverified story and an anonymous "friend" source which can EASILY be faked. Utterly useless.

forgetomori.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by IAMTAT


Kinko's actually has a photo copier/picture blow-up. I have used it for old pictures that I wanted to enlarge and have framed for family.

Quality is excellent, but it will cost between $4 and $9, but you'll have an 8 1/2" x 11" and the resolution will be almost exactly what is in your original picture.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by IAMTAT

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

Even classic/old fake photos are valuable - someone will pay you to use it in their their book or to add it to a collection. Go to eBay if it's not sentimental, and find the lowest bid you're comfortable with and you might just make a nice little chunk of change.

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll just hang on to it. It's very cool.

Sorry OP. I don't want to burst your bubble, and I am not even stating that my analysis of the photo is accurate. I want to believe this is real...and I live about 40 miles from Brownsville, PA, so I have a keen interest in this topic / post.

It could be a scratch...

It could be my imagination....

But there are several issues here that go against it being real.

1. There is no apparent blur of motion
2. The picture is just too perfect. The craft is in direct center of the photo, as if the shooter was in the right spot at the right time and WITH a camera. Not many people carried cameras back in 1970, so this guy would have to have been very lucky indeed.

I would welcome continued discussion and hear from others who might have better Photoshop skills than me....I could be 100% wrong on this.

reply to post by darkest4


Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. This is what ATS is about, disprove with facts and in the mean time have a great laugh doing it.

Come on lighten up and go and make yourself a cup of coffee.

Originally posted by darkest4
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Why are people making excuses for it to be a UFO. That is ridiculous and in direct contradiction to occam's razor. This is the type of desperate thinking that makes the UFO field an utter joke with all the "believers" who want to believe some random stupid picture that fraudsters billy meier produced dozens off dozens of years ago even. Even when presented with evidence of a string? Seriously people? It's very easy to do pictures like this with forced perspective. I can't believe anyone is saying they "believe" it's real just on seeing this random photo rofl.

Why are people even debating this? It's worthless as "evidence". You need multiple independent witnesses, the source, unaltered photo/video, expert analysis and so on before anything can even come close to evidence. This is just another silly random photo with a vague unverified story and an anonymous "friend" source which can EASILY be faked. Utterly useless.

forgetomori.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 28-11-2011 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)

I agree with your opinion, if not your tone. It's FUN to investigate these things. I remain a skeptic always, but never close minded. Life is joy and discovery...

Originally posted by darkest4
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Why are people making excuses for it to be a UFO. That is ridiculous and in direct contradiction to occam's razor. This is the type of desperate thinking that makes the UFO field an utter joke with all the "believers" who want to believe some random stupid picture that fraudsters billy meier produced dozens off dozens of years ago even. It's very easy to do pictures like this with forced perspective. I can't believe anyone is saying they "believe" it's real just on seeing this random photo rofl.

Why are people even debating this? It's worthless as "evidence". You need multiple independent witnesses, the source, unaltered photo/video, expert analysis and so on before anything can even come close to evidence. This is just another silly random photo with a vague unverified story and an anonymous "friend" source which can EASILY be faked. Utterly useless.

forgetomori.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

It's still a UFO. Hoaxed or not, if it's in the air, whether on a string or not, it's still an Object Flying in the air that is UNIDENTIFIED.

I think people like you need to remember the definition.


Also, you shouldn't be so upset.