Lost photo of UFO found

page: 38
171
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


is this the photo you are looking for? it looks very similar almost identical?

www.theuforeportcenter.com...
edit on 6-12-2011 by dashdespatch because: typo




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dashdespatch
 

That was the closest example anyone has come up with to date. Unfortunately, it is still not identical.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


its pretty similar even down to the landscape



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Fran, you know Billy Meier presented photos that turned out to be 100% proven fake as evidence of his stories. I still don't understand how to this day so many people still give him any consideration. How do you believe anything someone says when they are proven to have lied about part of the story?

Now as for the op.. I really like this photo, however.. I have a couple of reservations about it.
1. Being a child of the 70's I have many many old photos of this age around the house. ALL of which have paper stamping of date of processing and paper type. Not only that... but I am not entirely certain glossy paper was available at that date. I know every photo I have ever seen from that time frame was a matte finish.

Not saying the OP is a hoax, but I do have some doubts about these particulars.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


You can pick and choose to your taste, but I don't agree at all. It's a small object. If it were that large it would be far beyond the trees and be fuzzy and out of focus. You can only conclude that by ignoring which elements in the photo are at what level of focus. I doubt any experienced person would conclude it's large. That is a very amateurish conclusion at best.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 


i was born early sixties and all our family photos were high gloss from the 1950s matt being an option on portrait pics etc but maybe were we were more advanced in the uk



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 


I can confirm what dashdespatch said, as I was born in 1963 and have many colour photos from the 60s and 70s, all glossy.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by curious4ufos
 


There's a few more things missing to give a proper analysis.

  • Focal length of lens used
  • Object of known size (and distance from camera)
  • The negative

An object can appear closer or farther in an image in relationship to its surroundings depending on the focal length of the optics used. In all likelihood, this image was taken with 35mm judging by the size and aspect ratio of the print (not to mention that this was the most popular format in the US during that period). As a matter of fact the Yashica Electro 35 was one of the most popular cameras in the 60's & 70's (I've got one
).

Next, determination of the object's position, to be "in front", or "behind" the trees is determined by the relative sharpness of the object in relation to the trees. We cannot judge distance of the trees in this photo as we do NOT have a reference point that helps determine relative size & distance. Add in the fact that we DO NOT KNOW the focal length, it would be near impossible to even ascertain a size/distance anyway.

As of now there is NO WAY to conclude that the object is larger, smaller, or the same size as a hubcap. Period.

The density, or black value on the object does NOT provide conclusive evidence that it is in front of, or behind the trees. That is just presumptuous.

A properly exposed print with a loupe would be helpful to glean more information. However, a print also has its own drawbacks. A print has its own grain. It not only images the grain from the negative, but also introduces its own. Not that big of a deal if processed properly. Also, the original print has lost much of its color, details and due to the ravages of time. Add the mishandling of it and you have the introduced scratches, dirt and external debris.

So...the best way to analyze is not with the print, but rather with the negative. Using a negative and a loupe (or better yet, a microscope), one can get a much better reading on the data. The negative can provide a much more detailed larger print for extra data extrapolation.

Now, what we DO know is:

  • The image is badly out of focus. This further complicates analysis as this results in loss of data
  • The image is over-exposed. This results in the lack of details in the sky and top of object.
  • There is no negative available. This would be the one item that could really make all the difference in analysis regardless of the above facts.
  • The image was shot in daylight
  • Time of day might be possible to determine due to shadows and angle of the sunlight vs. location
  • The object is dead center...kind of fortuitous for the photographer, no?
  • Based on the grain that we can see, it appears to have been shot with ISO 100-400 ASA film.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the image may have been taken at ISO 200, 45mm @ f/1.7 at 1/500 sec.

Thus, this object could, in fact, be:

  • a flying saucer from planet Zenar
  • a 1970 Cadillac Eldorado hubcap somehow suspended in the air for a little photo fun in the hills.
  • a chicken pot pie in the process of being discarded

Regardless, this is still a photo of a yet unidentified (flying/floating/suspended/etc) object.

I'd love to try my hand at recreating the scene with my Yashica. However, I've got to get a battery adapter and, as it turns out, the area of Tokyo where I live has a distinct lack of US hubcaps to spare
Maybe when I get back to Georgia...



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


thanks armap! well that clears up one question

It is a curious photo. I would love for it to be the real deal.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by Druid42
 

Druid,
I believe that the result of 'curious4ufos' learned and impressive photographic analysis on the image's focal planes ultimately indicated that this object was roughly three car lengths in size (40-60 ft.?).



Originally posted by curious4ufos
That doesn't mean it can't be a very similar hubcap, there must be thousands of different hubcap designs out there.


Are there 40-60 ft, hubcaps out there? I don't think so. In fact he said it could be even smaller than a hubcap from his analysis.


Originally posted by curious4ufos
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.
So I'm puzzled why you think this analysis rules out a hubcap; it doesn't.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by curious4ufos

Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by curious4ufos
 

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?


It's very difficult to tell even the distance and size of the trees in this pictures, even less the object but I would say even 3 or 4 car lengths if it were that far away.

What I did to guess the minimum size was look at lots of pictures of the ALLEGHENY Mountains in the web. People take a lot of pictures now when they travel and post them all over the web, from Pbase to travel blogs. I cropped sections of those pictures with trees similar to this ones and then overlaid a rectangle the size of the object and guessed the size.




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


Yes, you asked him how big would the object be at the high end of his size estimate, but not how small it would be at the low end of his size estimate. Why is that? You don't want to know how much smaller than a hubcap it can be?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Do you have access to a hubcap?

I'd like to see your rendition of this photo, just to see how close it can come to the original.

I know it won't be "proof" either way, but I'd like to get an idea if anyone Could be fooled by it. Thanks!



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Hello,
I assume that at this point in the discussion, based upon all of the excellent analysis done by many here (yourself included, Arbitrageur), that the size of this object could be anywhere from hubcap size to the size of a bus. As I, and many here have pointed out, the evidence is 'inconclusive' as to whether or not this object is a hoax or the 'real deal'. Still, I remain impressed that it has stood up to over 38 pages of intense and intelligent analysis from so many and continues to remain an enigma...at least to me.
Thanks again, Arbitrageur,...for all of your valued input and passionate opinion.
-TAT



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


Threads like this make me very glad and proud to be an owner of ATS. Excellent discussion, analysis, and best of all an interesting picture in the OP that isn't obvious CGI.


Springer...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 

Thank you, Mark. What a nice surprise to hear from you.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Hi UFO fans.

To the OP : don't bother about any biased opinions here.
Too many closed minds !

38 pages is too long to read; so, if NOT said to you before:

! ! GO TO "MUFON" ! !
THEY are the experts about UFOs ! ! !

Blue skies.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by C-JEAN
 


Yeah, the heck with us "whack-jobs". Oh, and just forget about ATS. It serves NO purpose at all. I mean, why are we here anyway?

Sorry for the snarky retort, but the comment made by C-JEAN is simply retarded. Especially after:

1. Many members have offered quality analyitical and mostly objective observations that have been very useful, and heck, even quite fun
2. A site owner has just commented on the positive merits of this thread just two posts up.
3. He openly admitted having not read through the thread anyway.

Friggin' trolls.

Post something useful C-JEAN, or please, just leave. No need to go around arbitrarily slapping members in the face here.
edit on 7-12-2011 by AnnunakiX because: Spelling



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AnnunakiX

Ha ha ha ! Our little mister is mad and upset ??
Do you want me to hold your hand and bring you back
to your mommy ??

And now, to **serious** reasoning :
____When a message ends up with
" Click here for more information."
www.abovetopsecret.com...
don't you think it's a very good clue it was "close minded" ????

If you READ CAREFULLY my message, IT SAYD :
"biased" and "Too many"
It DID NOT SAY :
"All are closed minds" ! ! !

Soooooooooooo CALM DOWN and read CAREFULLY the messages, next time.

I am a big fan of all UFO related stuff ! !
It is OBVIOUS that there are MANY OPEN MINDED answers here.
IT IS NOT ABOUT THEM I was talking about ! !

____And because english is NOT MY PRIMARY language, maybe
I am less good then others in the way to express my ideas !

Sooooooooo I'm done here:
I told the OP what I wanted to suggest: MUFON,
and answered an answer on a similar tone.
OVER and OUT !

Blue skies, even if. . .



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Next...

Okay, so back to business.

IAMTAT, when you look at the original image, can you see any more detail on the top of the object? Especially where it kind of fades into the sky on the left side. The reason I ask is I'd like to see if it's possible to get a more detailed image of the object than what we have.





top topics
 
171
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join