Lost photo of UFO found

reply to post by IAMTAT


Well, that's the image that appears after "the two guys by the fence, pointing up, and then the guy with binoculars".

reply to post by ArMaP


YES!

Thank you!

I don't either, any more. It was only shown for 2 seconds, and before the video was posted I couldn't get a second look. To my eye, watching it on TV, it looked exactly like this one from the OP. Even the background looked to be in place. But that was, like I said, not enough time to get a good look.

I wanted to post a soon as possible, so someone would be able to get the video up here, but I wish I had waited to make any judgement on whether it was the same craft, or photo.

My apologies to everyone. I get excited, sometimes.

Originally posted by imawlinn
reply to post by sanchertx

 

History Channel UFO vvv

Op'sUFO vvv

edit on 1-12-2011 by imawlinn because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2011 by imawlinn because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2011 by imawlinn because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2011 by imawlinn because: (no reason given)

reply to post by IAMTAT


Yeah, they all look like minor variations on a theme. Like "the latest model".

You could liken it to '55, '56, '57, and '58 Chevy!

Have any of the other photos been "debunked"?


Edit: Do you think maybe that 'gap' in the center opens and closes?

reply to post by IAMTAT


IAMTAT,

Here I've used false coloring (actually called gradient mapping) to really highlight the "anomalous" area while maintaing the integrity of the original scan. Decide for yourself what this is, especially the blue image. I put a link to the full size blue image at the very bottom of this post.

Your original image shows not a darker area, but rather a lighter area than most of the image. The highlights are "blown" as we say. Because of that, it is usually impossible to retrieve any information (image detail) from those blown areas. This occurs in both digital and film and is why it is so important to expose an image properly at the time the shutter release is pressed.

Do you have any other pictures of this area taken approximately the same day or is this the only pic?


i41.tinypic.com...
i44.tinypic.com...

Could be, if this were a home-made hubcap ufo, it may have been forced up by compressed air or some other method. That may explain the gassy appearance around the object. Just a thought.

On a side note, my wife is from the south. While contemplating the above possibility, I can't help but remember one of her favorite southern phrases..."Hey y'all, watch this!"

reply to post by AnnunakiX

Thank you, AnnunakiX...I'm afraid this is the only photo we have. Unfortunately, dispite intense searching by myself and others, nobody has been able to find this or other identical UFOs as part of the historical record...of confirmed hoaxes or otherwise.
This fact has always piqued my curiousity in that, why, if this was indeed an elaborate hoax (in that some extensive set up, rigging, planning and execution would have been involved)...by a relatively talented hoaxer of the period...then WHY did he not exploit his work (of which he would undoubtably been proud) by subitting it somewhere and thus allowing it to become part of the extensive public record today?

On the other hand, perhaps he or she actually saw this thing in the early 1970's...(a time of much less liberal attitude towards paranormal experiences), snapped a photo...because he was able, but was afraid to circulate or show it out of fear of ridicule. Just my thoughts.

Originally posted by AnnunakiX

Hey y'all, watch this!

That's FUNNY!

Really love the photo analysis though. (where can you get a free program for that!?)

So, the lighter areas in the 'blue' photo is not atmospheric haze, as was previously discussed?

Any closer to a conclusion?

reply to post by Dogdish


It's Adobe Photoshop. Lots of powerful tools to help uncover hidden "secrets" in photos. I really don't know anything about free programs that can do this. Years ago I did use Paint Shop Pro 9 which went for free. It had a lot of functions very similar to Photoshop. It was only available for Windows. These days I only use Photoshop as it is literally the most professional tool with the most professional options that I need for my photographic work.

As far as the haze around the object, I don't know what it is. Perhaps someone well versed in meteorology can help answer that.

You can see it all better in the full size 3000px version of the image.
i44.tinypic.com...

Perhaps someone made an oil barrel cannon, dropped in a hubcap, shot it upwards and snapped a pic. Maybe there's a 1970 Cadillac Eldorado somewhere with one of its wheels not like the others.

Or, it could be that the Grays were taking a picnic in the hills.

lol. I don't know. I have enjoyed this image though.

reply to post by AnnunakiX

Thanks, AnnunakiX.

reply to post by AnnunakiX


It's possible to do that with GIMP, if we know how to do it, and now, thanks to you, I know it.

reply to post by ArMaP


Glad to be of help I haven't messed with GIMP since, gosh, years ago when I was running Red Hat Linux. Those were the dial-up days. Gradient map is pretty cool, eh? I totally recommend getting to know curves, levels and restrictive usage of unsharp mask.

reply to post by AnnunakiX


reply to post by ArMaP


Awesome! Thank you both very much for the new toy!

My first post here on ATS… this thread just convinced me to register.

I have an extensive photo background and would like to throw some theories your way.

First of all…
To correctly analyze a printed image you need the printed image itself to digitize it under several color filters, but above all to examine it via a loupe.

Only with the physical image and a loupe can you expect to see the grain of the negative and thus evaluate focus and grain patterns correctly.

What we are examining here is the scanner's binary interpretation of the film grain, it is total guesswork. Any mosaic patterns and staircase pixels to be found (like the ones 11165 is suggesting) are most likely from the scanner and from the digital camera used by the OP. No pixelation or mosaic pattern analysis can be done to a scan or a digital photo of a film print.

Then there is the problem that the best scanners in the world are not as good as the human eye, they see white were we still see detail and same with shadows, they black out before the eye does. It's called dynamic range and our eyes have a huge one compared to scanners and cameras. I bet there is a lot of detail in that print to be found by a loupe that the scanner is not seeing.

About the supposed lines holding the object in place:
If such an average quality scan (no, this is not a good quality scan) showed traces of cables supporting the object then they would be very visible in the original. So they are probably not physical lines but damage to the print.

Ok, so since this scan is all we have let's have some fun with it…

Sky seems with a white overcast and the light on the trees appear to confirm it, there must have been a thin cloud cover all over the sky that day. No specular highlights from the sun either, again supporting the overcast theory.

First thing I did was check the focus, edge analysis gave me 6 planes of focus in the photograph:



1. Trees on the right
2. Object
3. Tress on the front
4. Trees on the left
5. Slopping tree line coming down from the left
6. Far hill top

The first level are the trees on the right (#1) with the thickest most defined focus edge and the last level is the hill top on the back with a very thin focus edge (#5).



Edge tells me that: the camera was focused on or near the trees to the right and the object was most probably behind or in front those trees.

If the object was in front of trees #1 it would be very close to the camera and very small, smaller a hubcap I think.
If the object was behind trees #1 then it was not that small (at least a car in length) and it would appear to be closer to trees #3 than to trees #1.

Haze and discoloration…
I sampled a lot of areas in the picture and I'm not getting the same values of density that jritzmann appears to be finding.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Now when you sample the darkest area(s) of that tree, you see the value. Now sample the darkest part of the object. The object will show darker black levels than the tree. That means, it's closer than the closest object in the picture. Meaning, it's small and relatively close.

The object shows an average black density of 228, the trees below the object have an average black of 230 (very close) but the trees to the right show an average of 239.

So actually, black density is telling me that the object was farther away than the trees #1 and around the same distance as trees #3





Color…
This is not a black and white print as some have suggested, it's color but the years have washed most of it away.

The scanner is picking up 2 distinct color casts on the image, one for the sky area and another for the trees.



Here we find something interesting, the object is registering the same color characteristics as the surrounding area, the sky color in the top and the trees' color in the bottom area.

This supports the idea that the object was physical there, in that environment and also it would mean that it was probably a grey colored metal (like aluminum) without any color to it.

As for the uneven ridge…
This is the only thing that stood out to me, why a broken edge like that on the side of the ship?

The only theory I have is that the object is shiny metal and we are seeing the reflection of the trees in front and below of it.

It's as if you parked a silver car to the side of the road, you would see the trees and mountains reflected in the car's side darker than the reflection of the sky. The outline of the tree tops against the sky would be very evident on the side of the car.

Although this tree line reflection theory is quite a long shot it's still feasible and I'm just trying to cover all possibilities.




My theory so far…
It's a physical object of unknown size that's located farther than trees #1 and close to trees #3

Unfortunately without the original a thorough analysis is impossible.

reply to post by curious4ufos

Welcome to ATS Curious....and thank you for your amazingly well diagramed analysis. I was on the fence about this photo...but, thanks to you,...I'm leaning once again toward it being the real deal.
If the object is in actually between focal plane 2 and 3 (with 2 making it about the same size as a car)...can you make a guesstimate as to the object's true size (assuming it is closer to focal plane number 3 in your diagram?
Thanks again,...TAT

reply to post by curious4ufos

P. S. Your idea that the irregularities in the object's underside and rim may be simply a reflection of the landscape treeline upon a shiny metalic surface has real merit.

reply to post by curious4ufos


Wow! Nice first post!

Welcome to ATS, and thanks!

reply to post by curious4ufos


Again, excellent first post, welcome here! As someone else mentioned, I too was on the fence with this one, but you sure provide a good argument that the object was at least there and is not a fake... Further consideration is certainly needed, and I look forward to your future opinions on this one. Whether the object is intended as a hoax or not by the photo taker is another matter though...

It would be nice for you to stop by Arianna thread on his moon anomaly photos and help to determine if there is something there that warrants further analysis...

reply to post by curious4ufos


Wow. Excellent detail and first post, welcome to ATS.

I can't stay away from this thread, there have been so many compelling arguments for both real and fake.

Honestly and as a gut reaction it looks very likely fake, but there are just certain things that don't seem to agree with it being hoax. This picture has been analyzed and flip flopped around in GIMP and Photoshop a lot and nothing seems to add up 100% either way, just 90% one way or another. I am further entertained by this awesome thread.

I'm still kind of the opinion it was a hoax, but even if it is, a difficult one to precisely describe. I don't think the object has any apparent vertical or horizontal movement in the scan, so perhaps someone spun a hubcap in the air same way you would a piece of pizza dough, then another guy shot the hubcap at it's apex. Though your analysis would seem to disagree with this curious.