Lost photo of UFO found

page: 40
171
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Not saying that this is not real, but I did a little work of my own.

I used threshold effect on the UFO found inside the image and zoomed in dramatically this is what i found:

i40.tinypic.com... (increased threshold)

i43.tinypic.com... (increased threshold and zoomed in)

Notice how the edge is very squared? Looks like the object was a cut out of another picture. This is just my opinion.
edit on 22-2-2012 by Auburn2012 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2012 by Auburn2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Auburn2012
 


If it's a multiple of 8 then it's most likely a result of JPEG compression, that works in 8 x 8 groups of pixels. When an object makes a relatively big contrast with the background those squares are more noticeable.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Auburn2012
 

Hi,
I didn't know this thread was still alive, so I've been away from it. Apologies.

Your point was made and discussed much earlier in this thread and (As ARMAP points out in response, above) it was deemed to be a result of compression.

After a great deal of discussion and clearly impressive analysis by others here, I still have not seen any convincing data that this photo is anything but genuine.

Thanks for your interest and your thoughts.
-TAT



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 

Hi, again, kdog...
In answer to your question regarding Mufon...I DID contact them and they appeared intersted in having me send them the original photo (see below):

My email to MUFON:

"Hello,
Please read my posting on Above Top Secret (Lost UFO Photo Found) to explain what I have found. I do not know what to do with this...but would like to find a place to send it for serious analysis."

MUFON's response:

"MUFON would appreciate seeing and analyzing, if needed, your photo. We get many requests to analyze photos, which we normally don’t do, due to the expense of doing so. If a person fills out “Report a Sighting” on our web site, we automatically analyze the attached photos.
Of course, we hold all witnesses name confidential unless we are given written permission to release the names.

Hope this helps and thanks again.

Clifford Cl---, ID MUFON"

I was all set to send them the actual photo...and said as much on this thread. I was, however, told by other posters that should I send it to MUFON, I might never see the photo returned (examples of this having happened were shared).

As a result, I still have not sent it in.
-TAT



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
That is a realkly interesting photo ans I you would think it would have made the magazines somewhere so it hasn't been published that's for sure or it would look familiar to me. Good story. Here is all that is left of the one I piced in my backyard. My wife lost the original in my puder, but it showed a reference point of our roof line. It was way more impressive than this bolown up version that is the only thing that was saved. I blew it up to get a closer look then the wife lost the original trying to email it. To much excitement I guess.
I was so p-oed




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Thanks for sharing that.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
Did you see that in the sky? Or is that something you noticed later when you were looking at your pictures?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


Still can't see the pictures - the website has been seized.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 






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.

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.



If the craft had been hovering there for a few minutes, that would have given plenty of time for someone to have taken a picture of it in the center of the frame. Also, no blur motion would mean it had been hovering.

The "string" you pointed out isn't a string. If so, it is broken and bent near the top of the craft, therefore, not a string, but a scratch.
edit on 23-2-2012 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by kdog1982



Here is the first posting:



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by curious4ufos
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.
edit on 4-12-2011 by curious4ufos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I'm a photographer and graphic design, Ill tell you right now, I cant say 100% because its a picture of a picture, but just from the look of it, it looks really authentic. This is a really really great picture. Wow. I'll have to share this on my Facebook.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 


get a duplicate and send that, bring it to Kinkos and they can make a copy of it



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sorry it took so long to reply. I was actually taking pictures of some odd colored clouds that were hang'in around at the time. This is Apple Valley Ca. I had no clue it was there at all till I loaded up the pics on the puder. Naturally the enlarged photo made this thing easy to spot right next to the roof line. I search my computer to this day by searching for the original source. All I can come up with is awindow that says the file is corrupted or damaged.

It was one of those, " Oh no big deal Babe, I love you more than some dumb UFO ". deals on the outside.
While on the inside it was Stupid M#$@(^ F^%_{#@!&+ !!! No I'm kidding .Seriously, I went to bed wondering.
Did she slip out of mom and right thru the doctors hands and on to the concrete tile floor of the hospital on her head, when she was born ?


Some good work from TAT and Auburn.
edit on 25-2-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-2-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMTAT
 




i55.photobucket.com...


Does anyone else think the first photo looks a bit like this?



Originally found in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 26-2-2012 by FooScience because: fixing a mistyped link



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

That's ok I wasn't in any rush for a reply. The reason I asked is I had an idea about what it is and if you saw something in the sky that would rule my idea out. But since you didn't, my idea isn't ruled out. I don't know if you ever heard of a guy called Martyn Stubbs, he used to post here. He made a video about NASA images that had colored image artifacts like that. I'm 99.9% certain that cosmic rays caused the artifacts in the images Stubbs referenced in his video. I'm less than 99% certain that's what caused the artifact in your image, but if you didn't see the object I'm at least 99% sure it's an artifact of some sort rather than an object, because it looks more like an image artifact, than a real object. Kind of a cool artifact though.


Originally posted by FooScience
Does anyone else think the first photo looks a bit like this?
Not even a tiny little bit, unless the viewer is legally blind without their glasses and not wearing their glasses. The main difference is, the first image is obviously circular and the second image obviously isn't, and that's a big difference. In terms of aerodynamics, circular objects tend to perform very poorly in Earth's atmosphere, from what I read about past efforts to test aircraft with that shape.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Caidema
 

I did take the original to Kinkos and did a high resolution scan of it. When posting it, I found it was too large a file to upload (at least for me...with my limited knowledge of all things technical). Fortunately, I was asked by another member to send him the file...and he uploaded it here via Megauploads. Apparently, at least according to the result of clicking those original links (earlier in this thread), there is an official-looking posting by the U.S. government stating that the online images had been confiscated..and that Megauploads had been shut down.

There are still other high-rez images from the original Kinkos scans on this post from other members who did not use Megauploads.
-TAT



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 

Thank you for that, tfw. I'm with you; I believe it is the real thing, as well. I have been welcoming any and all analysis.
I still have the High-resolution scans in my computer, but still am not able to upload them to this site myself.

Nevertheless, I would be willing to email them to anyone here who knows how and will post them here for me,should they wish to message me here and send me an email address.
-TAT



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceRaiders
I too had the opinion that I had seen this photo somewhere before as many other people have stated, after a few minutes it came to me.

www.google.com...

They look extremely similar.

Gotta agree, they do look extremely similar. And im not sure, but a similar story was doing the rounds on the net lately.
Im not trying to be rude (im a believer), just need more to convince me





new topics

top topics



 
171
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join