Lost photo of UFO found, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 159 times

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 06:45 PM by ArMaP

reply to post by IAMTAT

Could you please tell your son to make a higher resolution scan? That would be great.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 06:47 PM by IAMTAT

Originally posted by IronDogg
When I first seen the photo I right away thought it looked familiar... I read through the first page and noted that others thought it looked familiar too. I was going to post that it looks like old Billy Meier photos, but I wanted to read through the rest of the messages. Then I read that another also finds the photos familiar and reminiscent of old Billy Meier photos. Maybe this photo was taken by Billy as well? It certainly fits in with the "ambience" of a typical Billy Meier photo anyway...

I just googled Billy Meier ufo and think it must've been one of his that I saw in a book before...they are similar to this one in some ways. Are his pictures supposed to be fakes?

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 06:48 PM by WingedBull

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 06:49 PM by IAMTAT

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by IAMTAT

Could you please tell your son to make a higher resolution scan? That would be great.

I'm sorry, I just asked him...and he says our machine can't do that. I can try kinkos tomorrow and see if they will for me.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 06:49 PM by 2Faced

reply to post by IAMTAT

Interesting picture.
Is it perhaps possible to have your son scan the picture in a higher dpi? 300 dpi or perhaps more will often greatly enhance the detail. Scanners are usually set for 150 dpi default.

Sorry for repetition, i see someone else also asked

edit on 27-11-2011 by 2Faced because: Looks better this way

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 06:56 PM by ArMaP

reply to post by IAMTAT

That will be fine, I guess we all can wait one day.

You don't happen to have any other stuff from your father that could be related to this?

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 06:56 PM by Blaine91555

You should scan on a scanner with good optical capabilities and not use any interpolation. Scan at the scanners highest optical .dpi.

The resulting file will be far to large to post here. It will need to be uploaded to one of the free FTP sites.

I'd like to see it scanned on an Epson if you can find one at 3200 or 4800 .dpi. Since the print is continuous color there is detail there you cannot see by casually looking at it. Nothing like digital.

Predates Meier I think if the date is real.

A scan of the back (300 dpi should do) to try and identify the paper and its possible real age would be great also.

From what you posted the Object is in sharper focus and closer to the camera than the tree's making it quite small if I'm seeing it right. An often made mistake in the older hoaxed photo's. Joe Average had no idea to look for simple flags like that.

edit on 11/27/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:03 PM by Blaine91555

reply to post by IAMTAT

Even the cheap scanners now have very high optical .dpi. I use a fifty dollar one at work for documents that has 4800 dpi optical from Epson. Of course nothing like the professional Epson I use here at home for photo reconstruction but it would be way better.

Exactly what does the paper label say? Just Konica 100 and nothing else? I'm looking for a list of papers to share and I'll post a link if I find a good one. I have a list for after 1976 I think but not pre 1970.

Most any workplace that has a scanner made in the last few years could do a good scan.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:03 PM by davespanners

This one is quite similar, superficially anyway

Looks like that was the 70's style for ufo's

edit on 27-11-2011 by davespanners because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:04 PM by IAMTAT

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by IAMTAT

That will be fine, I guess we all can wait one day.

You don't happen to have any other stuff from your father that could be related to this?

No, I really don't have anything else. Dad wasn't really into ufo's or anything like that so I just assume it was a photo someone he knew from his childhood (dad grew up in the Uniontown area of Pennsylvania) who took it and sent it to him because he thought it was cool.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:06 PM by smurfy

reply to post by Blaine91555

Same as I was thinking, except that the trees on the right are a little sharper. I suppose there could be localised fog to the left though. There is not much view of the sky, with just a hint of cloud and not much contrast from the trees, it's more like a very old picture.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:10 PM by IAMTAT

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by IAMTAT

Even the cheap scanners now have very high optical .dpi. I use a fifty dollar one at work for documents that has 4800 dpi optical from Epson. Of course nothing like the professional Epson I use here at home for photo reconstruction but it would be way better.

Exactly what does the paper label say? Just Konica 100 and nothing else? I'm looking for a list of papers to share and I'll post a link if I find a good one. I have a list for after 1976 I think but not pre 1970.

Most any workplace that has a scanner made in the last few years could do a good scan.

It is stamped diagonally KONICA and 100 but the two words a in a very faded grey tone, non-contiguous and are randomly placed at the same angles upside down.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:12 PM by OvniHill

reply to post by IAMTAT

See if there are any negatives for it.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:16 PM by Blaine91555

reply to post by IAMTAT

That helps and I'll see what I can find as far as samples and lists. The color degradation looks right to me. Prior to about 1976 or so the photo's discolored and faded badly if not kept away from light. You should keep it in a envelope to keep light out.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:16 PM by IAMTAT

Originally posted by OvniHill
reply to post by IAMTAT

See if there are any negatives for it.

I'm sorry...I just have the one photo.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:17 PM by jerryznv

Really...hmmm...well if that is a real photo and a true story...then I need to start some UFO threads.

Jeez people are you really buying this?

Let me see if I can find some proof that it is not real...that is the common request here lately.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:19 PM by Blaine91555

Originally posted by OvniHill
reply to post by IAMTAT

See if there are any negatives for it.

That would be wonderful in fact.

However at that age and how curled and fragile it would be, it would have to be done on the right scanner and placed in a liquid bath to flatten it. Only a good photo lab would have that or a nut like me who spends to much on that stuff.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:20 PM by IAMTAT

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by IAMTAT

That helps and I'll see what I can find as far as samples and lists. The color degradation looks right to me. Prior to about 1976 or so the photo's discolored and faded badly if not kept away from light. You should keep it in a envelope to keep light out.

I will. Thank you. Dad was a pack rat..I think it must've been in a box for many years at Dad's house...He really didn't seem to place much importance to it.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:21 PM by Blaine91555

reply to post by jerryznv

I think you are misunderstanding the role of Skeptic. We look for proof while giving every new thing the benefit of the doubt until it can be ruled out as a hoax or mistaken identity. Skeptics actually want to find the real thing. You have to start with no opinion and proceed from there.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 07:25 PM by jerryznv

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by jerryznv

I think you are misunderstanding the role of Skeptic. We look for proof while giving every new thing the benefit of the doubt until it can be ruled out as a hoax or mistaken identity. Skeptics actually want to find the real thing. You have to start with no opinion and proceed from there.

I think you are right...and in this case I have decided that until the photo can be scanned and uploaded then there is nothing to talk about.

It needs examined...the fact that it can't be is proof enough that I can't assume it's real...if I were in such a hurry to post this thread and provided this photo...well I would have made it available for speculation...not the case here...just a story and a picture...how am I to swallow that?

Edit: Here's a star for your attempt at correcting me...thanks!

edit on 27-11-2011 by jerryznv because: ...