It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Crystal clear ufo pics must see

page: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 06:44 AM
well it look's pretty real to me, but then again with all the technology we have to day, go buy a freaking video camera

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 07:44 AM
Can't help that much... Some random thoughts anyway...

1- The lens flare effect that can be seen on the n°"...933" is consistent with what one could expect from a classic lens flare reflection, through a central inversion point and from very bright lights that hit the ccd sensor:

Known example:

There's a little margin error due to the resizing.
So, yes, this can be added using Photoshop, but can also be the result of very bright lights coming from a 'solid' object.

2- The size (1181*787) is consistent with a JPEG 3:2 ratio (1.5), that gives not exactly 1.5, but 1.5006 which is very close, the margin error being due, here again, to the resizing process that was applied to the original photos.
Here are the images sizes available for this camera and 3:2 aspect:
• 5184 x 3456
• 3456 x 2304
• 2592 x 1728
• 1920 x 1280


3- In the "...935" picture, there's a bright halo surrounding the whole object, except in some areas above that are darker:

....Plus it seems to have a faint 'flame' just below the object, could be a flare effect anyway.

Food for thoughts...

Edit to add point n°4:

The object in each picture is perfectly centered... suspicious??

edit on 29-12-2011 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 08:03 AM
These are my observations.
The focus on the first and the third picture looks unreal to me. Because lets look at the third picture for example.

Notice the blur in the foreground this means that the camera is focused further on the trees at the background.
So the foreground is blured and the background is clear... but the ufo is also blurred. So it must be positioned between the 2 groups of trees. Thus making its size a lot smaller.
Also the branch on the tree around the ufo is in front of it.

I also checked out the lenses EF-S18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. They are around 1000$ im not sure they will produce lens flares so easily.

Then JPEGSnooo detected this:

In the image. And I checked out line 3 above: (x:xapmeta xmlns:x='adobe:ns:meta/' x:xaptk='XMP toolkit 2.8.2-33, framework 1.5'>).
Here is what adobe has to say about this.

Adobe CS4 applications can be modified to display custom metadata UI. The Custom File Info SDK provides documentation and samples on how to create a custom Flex based metadata UI. It also includes instructions on creating an XML file for displaying a simple set of custom properties.

My opinion is that these images are fake.
edit on 29/12/11 by defiler because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/12/11 by defiler because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/12/11 by defiler because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:48 PM
I actually believe those to be pretty valid because I, myself, saw that same exact type of UFO here in Philly right around 8:30 last month on a Friday and when I told people what it looked like (i was too late on taking a pic/video) that is exactly how i described it, the way it looks in the pic

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:16 PM
its fake.. with pictures like that you can tell that it is photo shopped. besides in the last picture if it was real the trees would have been lit up by the light xD oh well good find though

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:57 PM
reply to post by Ace20

Take it up to about 800% and make sure pixel grid is off if you are using photoshop. It is casting light on the tip of the tree to the observers right and showing back lighting from the observers left.

Back to the topic.

For the first time I can recall in a long time, I can't find any grounds to debunk this photo. I've taken it through every idea I can come up with to expose a fake and cannot find any evidence.

In my humble opinion, whatever is in that photo was in fact in the air when that was shot. Using the trees to judge size, it is far to large to be an RC model.

I'll leave this one as unknown. Thanks OP for posting this.

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:03 PM
One thing is bothering though. It's too perfect. The colors in the leaves are too even and the trees perhaps too perfect.

Does not help I'm working on a tree for a scene right now and thinking about how to add imperfections for more realism. I'm not so sure that one tree in that group is not one of the others rotated about 120 degrees.

I wonder, could a person take an image with EXIF, render a photo-realistic scene with lots of skill and then place it as a layer over the photo maintaining the EXIF data?

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:11 PM
A Chinese paper lantern

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:49 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:11 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:21 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by weavty1

piff. Just showing how easy it is to toss some crap into a photo. But I forgot. "I want to believe" At least I'm not trying to pass photoshoped pics off as true.

edit on 2-1-2012 by Chargeit because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:11 PM

Originally posted by TomServo

Originally posted by admiralmary
darkned it

wow look.

It looks like the 'creator' of this image intentionally added 4 spots below the object with the intent to replicate the lens flare effect. However, the spots dont align with their supposed respective sources. I.e. from left to right, there is no flare resulting from the first light. So you can see how the 4 flares should line up with the 4 right most lights. However, the first and second flares do not line up with the second and third light sources, when clearly that was the intention.

Uploaded with

Theres 5 spots. the one on the rights really hard to see. Theres a Render effect in photoshop that does 5 spot lighting up or down. Its photoshoped.

Not sure if any one has mentioned this but. The trailing effect in the back ground clearly has nothing to do with the UFO. It just helps add to the effect.
edit on 2-1-2012 by Chargeit because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2012 by Chargeit because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2012 by Chargeit because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:05 PM
It's very obviously that right there is just a hoax.

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:15 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
The third pic is a little different -- it looks to have a glare or lens flare from the lights...
I would think cgi but am wondering about that third pic.

When you magnify the 3rd photo, besides the glare there are "ghost" glares surrounding the object. It could be CGI but would a person doing CGI think of adding such detail that is visible only upon high magnification? It's possible but it is a puzzlement!

I'd like to hear from someone knowledgeable enough to process the photo with effects such as solarization, compare pixel levels, etc.

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:03 AM
These photos are of a high mast luminaire used for stadiums or squares. Widely used in Beijing, and manufactured in China. These photos has been manipulated to make it look like a ship.

An old trick that an artist began to show on the network 4 years ago.

Look at this:

Sorry, is in spanish.

Leopoldo Zambrano Enríquez.
Informe U. F. O.
Monterrey, Nuevo León. México.

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 01:56 AM
LOL guys it's from a TV series in my country. It is CGI.

wow just wow LMAO don't beleive everything you see in the Internet. too bad you guys can't read Chinese.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 07:21 AM
Solved! It's a fake.

You can analyze it for yourself using Error-Level Analysis tools at:

You can clearly find the areas which have been edited. JPEGSnoop further proof this via JPEG-quantization matrix forensic analysis. Several programs have been used to edit the original photos, at different areas/places in the photos.

edit on 30-11-2014 by Pathaka because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-11-2014 by Pathaka because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 6  7  8   >>

log in