It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Disc shaped metallic flying object above the clouds - Study case....

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
 

MOD NOTE:
Please see THIS POST for the answer!
 


Just found this one, from MUFON CMS last sightings:


Last year in August I flew from Budapest to London when I made this photo. More airplane flew near us, so I did not look at the object. I just focused on the clouds and the wing. A few days later I noticed what is on the photo




Taken with a Canon EOS 400D.

I have the strong (subjective) impression that something is wrong with this picture, but haven't work on it yet.
Who wants to help me trying to figure out if it's a fake, and if so, how it could have been done?

SOURCE: MUFON CMS
edit on 8-2-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)

edit on February 8th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Edit to add the full EXIFs datas taken off the picture with EXIFTool:








Seems legit at first glance, but....



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Something on the window? Bubble? Rain/Moisture?

Something similar on this picture.....

atmospherical.blogspot.com...



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 

Well, could be; but seems like the shape is too "perfect".
Really like your photo anyway:




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it seems like a legitimate sighting in my humble opinion.

Thanks for posting, this one seems to have some substance in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 
Is it just me, or an optical illusion? When I zoom in on the disc, I see an oval area in the cloud background that doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the clouds in that area.

ETA: The lighting/shadows on the clouds and the object do seem to match up as far as the angle of the sun goes.


edit on 8-2-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Shouldn't the object be more blurry? Its sharpness give the false impression that it's close.

Shutter speed value: 1/400



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 
It does seem sharper than the wing, which would make it closer....

and the size of a softball, maybe, if it is a real object.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


It could have been focused on. That would mean the camera person saw the object and focused on it.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
It's been photoshopped, Jeffreys Exif viewer flags up Adobe Colour !
It was taken with the camera suggested but additional work has been done on it !

regex.info...

Peace



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
It's been photoshopped, Jeffreys Exif viewer flags up Adobe Colour !
It was taken with the camera suggested but additional work has been done on it !

regex.info...

Peace

Adobe RGB Color space is the standard for color camera use....

RGB is a convenient color model for computer graphics because the human visual system works in a way that is similar — though not quite identical — to an RGB color space. The most commonly used RGB color spaces are sRGB and Adobe RGB.

I tried with a untouched original photo from both personal files and original Flickr photos and got the exact same "flag" for a sRGB profile:

-sRGB profile:


Anyway, you might be on something as I wasn't able to find an original photo with the AdobeRGB color space natively in it. Does that mean that we can be 100% sure that it was faked anyway?

As Dpreview explained it in its full presentation of the camera specifications, sRGB as well as AdobeRGB are both supported:


Digital Photo Professional supports sRGB, Adobe RGB, ColorMatch RGB, Apple RGB and Wide Gamut RGB colour spaces. ICC (International Colour Consortium) profiles can be attached to TIFF or JPEG images when converted from RAW


SOURCE

So, it could be possible that the photographer works only in the AdobeRGB space for the colors rendering and not in the sRGB default color space for this camera.

Edit to add: the use of Photoshop don't necessary modify the color space, as we can see it in the EXIFs datas of this Photoshopped example.



edit on 8-2-2012 by elevenaugust because: add datas and examples



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
IDK i thought i looked fake at first. Slight angle of shadow and esp the intensity of the shadow. But as I looked closer, I ran some filters and image adjustments, then I noticed something very peculiar...



Holy crap, they are multiplying!

Are we the study in this case? Our reactions being documented for science? Whats the "Study Case" part of the headline?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vespucci
IDK i thought i looked fake at first. Slight angle of shadow and esp the intensity of the shadow. But as I looked closer, I ran some filters and image adjustments, then I noticed something very peculiar...



Holy crap, they are multiplying!

Are we the study in this case? Our reactions being documented for science? Whats the "Study Case" part of the headline?

Adobe Photoshop CS5.1.

As for the "study case", well I just ask for help trying to solve the case, that's all!



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
just want to point out that while the shadows are in the right places compared ot the clouds theres no casting shadow from the object onto the cloud below, which from the angles, look like there should be.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Looks like an iPhone App.....as seen below...not saying it is (because exif says a canon was used)....just look like the same thing...

Clearly this is NOT the original photo...the file name has been changed....so it would be nice to see the ORIGINAL untouched photo....


edit on February 8th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


This is an original photo. I do not know what to say ... interesting.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 

Yes! I thought of this too, but not from an Iphone.
Could it be possible to insert one of the app object onto a photo from another camera? Not sure if it's possible, unless using PS and hiding the manipulations in the EXIFs.


Originally posted by Biigs
just want to point out that while the shadows are in the right places compared ot the clouds theres no casting shadow from the object onto the cloud below, which from the angles, look like there should be.

Well, you're absolutely right, but what if the object is smaller and closer than one expected it to be?


edit on 8-2-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

edit on 8/2/2012 by Grifter81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevenaugust
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 

Yes! I thought of this too, but not from an Iphone.
Could it be possible to insert one of the app object onto a photo from another camera? Not sure if it's possible, unless using PS and hiding the manipulations in the EXIFs.


Originally posted by Biigs
just want to point out that while the shadows are in the right places compared ot the clouds theres no casting shadow from the object onto the cloud below, which from the angles, look like there should be.

Well, you're absolutely right, but what if the object is smaller and closer than one expected it to be?


edit on 8-2-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)


yes i edited my post to say that....however, in this day and age, we cant even rely on EXIF data anymore.....
it is good to use in some instances...but nowdays I compare it to a polygraph.....not really admissable because people can "fake" them.....in this instance, people can alter EXIF data now...

*shrug*



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Yep Exif doesn't tell us anything anymore. Something really smells bad about this one and I can't put my finger on it. It doesn't look genuine when you zoom into it, it just looks too perfect and the object looks lifted out too much on the photo if that makes any sense.

October



new topics




 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join