Originally posted by hhott
This thread just showed up this afternoon in "recent posts," and somehow I missed it back in Nov/Dec. After the first few (6 or 7 pages) I saw the photo differently than any of you. It has been a very interesting thread and a good read, with very few of the decorum breaches that tend to infect these UFO pic threads.
However, my other reason for persistently reading all 40 pages was to find the other person or people who would see the photo as I see it, and no one has. So, perhaps I'm just really weird (which we mostly knew anyway), or maybe I need new glasses again although my prescription is only about 4 months old and I AM wearing them.
Surely at one time or another most of you have seen an optical illusion like the 'vase or two faces' or 'pretty young lady or old crone'? Sometimes you can't see the "reverse image" when you first look, but then once you see it, sometimes it's hard to "unsee" it and see what you saw when you first looked at it...
Well, about my 2nd or 3rd time of viewing the OP's photo, I saw something different, and even in all of the edited, altered, colored, filtered, blown up, contrasted, etc. versions I can't UNSEE what I see.
And, without any further unintentional buildup of suspense, what I see is a mountaintop through a hole in the clouds/haze/fog. I see a treeline, a bare slope above the treeline, and then a mountaintop or portion of a mountain peak either partially obscured by haze/clouds or possibly snow-capped. As I said, it took me a few good looks at the photo to see it that way instead of seeing it as an object in the sky, but now that I have seen it as a hole I have a hard time seeing it as an object. The "irregular" bottom edge now makes sense as a treeline, and the "lopsidedness" of the top portion is no longer anomalous.
Here are a couple of examples of the phenomenon I am referring to:
Please don't tear me apart, I myself have seen a UFO more than once and I don't doubt they exist, nor do I claim to have the definitive answer for what the OP's photo is. I'm just presenting a different point of view to see if anyone else can see it as I do.
ill tear you apart paid idiot
Originally posted 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.
Model seem closer to camera than the trees.
Originally posted by SPECULUM
Originally posted by IAMTAT
reply to post by SPECULUM
I wish you were serious : )
Were you there, did you see it?