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

reply to post by October


I think that close up the object looks like it should be in better resolution if its between a cloud and the plane.

Like if its a perfect shiney surface then id expect more gradations of pixel colours, like a smaller image made larger and pasted on.

Very interesting photo. I decided to play with it, just to see what there is to see, and downloaded it from the OP's source.

Using GIMP 2.6, I increased the contrast by 75 percent, leaving the brightness at zero. This really brings out the window smudge that we can see across the wing. Interesting to note that the shadow area on the object is in sharper relief than the clouds (about the same as the wing of the aircraft):



Resetting the contrast back to 0, I did a color inversion of the picture (like having a color film negative). Colors of the object seem to come close to the wing also (not saying this is the wing, or anything, only that the object's color is not the same as the clouds):



Starting with the picture again, I then did a edge enhancement, setting on Sobel with the amount set to 3.0, and got this result:



You can see the window smudges again over the area of the wing. Edges of the object in the picture seem to be much sharper than the clouds.

Not trying to prove or debunk anything here, just giving readers different views of the photo (without over zooming it). I find the picture very curious, but can draw no conclusions. For all I know it's something on the camera lens, heh.

Oh, no shadow from the object on the cloud: could be because it's a lot closer to the aircraft, so that the shadow would fall below the bottom of the picture. Or it could be a very huge object and further than the rising clouds we see, placing the shadow behind those clouds.
Or again, it could be something on the window or the camera lens.....



It's a good photo of something IMO either a good "bonafide" UFO pic....or great example of a good mistake / hoax.

It's a fake.

If you look at the wing 45 degrees up to the left of the object, which has very similar tonalities, you'll notice large amounts of colour noise (seen as a mottled effect) which is what you'd expect. This is strangely absent from the object... meaning it's was definately added afterwards. There's also evidence of posterisation in the object - it's poorly rendered.

I still believe it was some kind of UFO app for a camera....more than likely iphone.....

I just opened this photo up in Opanda and changed the camera make and model. Easy peasy to do....thus the reason we can no longer trust EXIF data on a cam...

looks exactly like the iPhone UFO app....I believe this is a deliberate hoax based on how easy it is to manipulate the info and how the object matches the iphone app...or similar....

My changes to the EXIF data below....i only changed camera type

[Image]
Make = iPhone
Model = iPhone4
Orientation = top/left
Date Time = 2011-08-13 09:07:24

[Camera]
Exposure Time = 1/400"
F Number = F16
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 400
Exif Version = Version 2.21
Date Time Original = 2011-08-13 09:07:24
Date Time Digitized = 2011-08-13 09:07:24
Shutter Speed Value = 8.64 TV
Aperture Value = 8 AV
Exposure Bias Value = +0.33EV
Metering Mode = Pattern
Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length = 31mm
Maker Note = 4876 Byte
User Comment =
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = Uncalibrated
Exif Image Width = 3888
Exif Image Height = 2592
Custom Rendered = Normal process
Exposure Mode = Auto exposure
White Balance = Auto white balance
Scene Capture Type = Normal
Gamma = 2.2

Original EXIF data

[Image]
Make = Canon
Model = Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
Date Time = 2011-08-13 09:07:24
White Point = [313/1000, 329/1000]
Primary Chromaticities = [64/100, 33/100, 21/100, 71/100, 15/100, 6/100]
YCbCr Coefficients = 299/1000, 587/1000, 114/1000
YCbCr Positioning = co-sited
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 320

[Camera]
Exposure Time = 1/400"
F Number = F16
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 400
Exif Version = Version 2.21
Date Time Original = 2011-08-13 09:07:24
Date Time Digitized = 2011-08-13 09:07:24
Components Configuration = YCbcr
Shutter Speed Value = 8.64 TV
Aperture Value = 8 AV
Exposure Bias Value = +0.33EV
Metering Mode = Pattern
Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length = 31mm
Maker Note = 4876 Byte
User Comment =
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = Uncalibrated
Exif Image Width = 3888
Exif Image Height = 2592
Interoperability IFD Pointer = Offset: 5902
Focal Plane X Resolution = 4433.295
Focal Plane Y Resolution = 4453.608
Focal Plane Resolution Unit = inch
Custom Rendered = Normal process
Exposure Mode = Auto exposure
White Balance = Auto white balance
Scene Capture Type = Normal
Gamma = 2.2

reply to post by elevenaugust


A ship in hover.
I think it moved over from the cloud formations it was attracting upward.
See those cloud mountains. Now what caused that, shall we ask a weather man.
The Tesla ship mechanical suspension waves will naturally move up cloud matter.

This is another trick anti Tesla cartel agent question for the unnatural free energy
Tesla ship deniers of ignorance.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I'm in 100% agreement. It looks awfully like an off-the-shelf DIY ufo.

Admittedly it's quite a good one though.

I see no reason to doubt this, and even if I did, it looks like one I saw before when a kid. No, in those days we had cardboard box cameras and they were only owned by those with wealth, this being in 1956, so no picture.

I watched a disc very much like this go overhead, all shiny and silent, going from horizon to horizon in a very few minutes, reflecting the sun light from it's skin.

The unfocused 'smudges' on the window suggest that anything else on the window would also be out of focus. All that is left is a reworked picture or a real object.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Yeah...I ran a TinyEye search for the image but it returned nothing. I'm almost positive I have seen that photo before though.

Originally posted by smurfy
The unfocused 'smudges' on the window suggest that anything else on the window would also be out of focus. All that is left is a reworked picture or a real object.

Those smudges are from a dirty sensor. It's the curse of DSLR owners!

One has to be curious as to why there is only one photo taken, looks to me there was opportunity to take a couple, maybe more. I mean, I'm sitting in a flight looking out the window and see what apparently looks like a UFO, I grab my camera and take ONE PHOTO, and I'm all set to send it to MUFON. Then I can link my story to my Facebook page and tell all of my friends. Yeah right. I'm going to snap one photo and be satisfied.

It looks a lot like the UFO from this thread from 2009

I know I have seen this image before or we have discussed it before. I'm still trying to find it though.

It's not quite the same angle but they do look awfully familiar.

reply to post by Illustronic


Not only that but if you DID see somthing before the enlarged prints came back, wouldnt you ask around for more cameras on the plane etc.

i totally would if all i had was a phone camera, i wouldnt even make a big fuss and panic everyone, just ask very kindly if you could borrow a camera for its zoom funtion out of the window, for sight seeing etc

actually i probably wouldnt, id be like "HOLY CRAP UFO AT 3 O'CLOCK" take pics or shut up!

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by smurfy
The unfocused 'smudges' on the window suggest that anything else on the window would also be out of focus. All that is left is a reworked picture or a real object.

Those smudges are from a dirty sensor. It's the curse of DSLR owners!

I don't think there is enough light intruding for that. I think the smudges are actually out of focus water streams or droplets themselves on the window, the object itself is not related to the window.

reply to post by Illustronic


Perhaps reading the opening post and understanding it may help you?

As for the pic, it looks fairly genuine to me

reply to post by greeneyedleo
Yes, could be; but the problem then is to find a camera that allows this kind of app and who have a 3888x2592 resolution... (As this is not a native resolution on the Iphone)

What about a simple PS job onto a real Canon EOS 500D photo and the use of an hex editor to hide the PS traces?

reply to post by greeneyedleo


OK...I'm convinced GEL is correct. This is an app. Just like the stupid ghost app they have now there are UFO ones.
Check img 3/5 over the Roman Coliseum. It is almost identical to the single drop we see in the first pics from the OP and exactly like the one we see from Vespucci but with a couple more added.

Here is another link with shows the exact same formation grouping of the same identical dots from the ground.

It looks exact. But whoever did it, wanted to use only 1 of the smudges or whatever they are....why overdo it?

This is a fake. A complete hoax. I'm not claiming the OP hoaxed it. But he was duped as were the people who flagged this thread. It's fake.


Here is even an article from June of 2011 that says this particular app has been updated to include videos of UFO's now. Link

As if shifting through all of the other photos wasn't enough work, now there are indeed apps, like the ghost app to insert UFO's into photos. I doubt I'll believe any photo or video of a UFO ever again.

This is why if I ever am fortunate enough to capture a UFO in a picture, I would more than likely keep it to myself, if I was using a digital camera.
It's just way too easy in this day and age to manipulate digital data. If someone were to finally capture a crystal clear picture, the problem becomes very visible: how to prove that it's not been faked, if the data in the photo itself can be changed?

I'd hate to be lucky enough to see something and capture an image of it, only to be not believed by anyone simply because of this.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that the pictures would have to be taken with actual film, and the original negatives provided to.........

Uhm. Okay see there's ANOTHER problem! Who do you send it to? Read enough threads here on ATS, and pretty soon you become just like any other player in the online game of EVE, who's motto is:

"Trust No One"

ROFL!

Seriously though. If they landed, knocked on my door, and said "Hi! We're here to finally reveal ourselves!" I'd most likely tell them to please go pester my neighbor and make it HIS problem, and slam the door shut.

reply to post by webpirate


Hahaha just because there are UFO apps does not mean every picture that surfaces from here on out is fake.
That is very faulty logic.
And just because now that there are UFO apps, you say that you will probably never believe another UFO pic again?
Close your mind a little bit more.
The sole reason apps such at this exist is to do just that, close your mind.
And to also cloud credible pictures that look even remotely similar.
It is a ridiculous app, there are millions of better/more entertaining apps on the market FOR FREE.
Any picture made with the UFO app can immediately be spotted as fake, it's obvious.
But just because a picture somewhat resembles it does not mean it is made with the same app. Or fake by any means. I admit this pic could be a fake as I am not sure yet, but I have not come to some conclusion half-hazardly based on the existence of an iPhone or iPad application.
There's an app where you can raise and take care of a virtual pet, does that mean pets don't exist in reality?
Please give your head a shake.

Originally posted by elevenaugust
reply to post by greeneyedleo

 

Yes, could be; but the problem then is to find a camera that allows this kind of app and who have a 3888x2592 resolution... (As this is not a native resolution on the Iphone)

What about a simple PS job onto a real Canon EOS 500D photo and the use of an hex editor to hide the PS traces?

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

my droid phone takes 3264x 2448 pictures.....so YES it can be done....and yes EXIF data can be manipulated

so the facts are:
*phone cams CAN take these huge pictures
*EXIF data can be manipulated to read anything
*there are smartphone apps that look just like that object....
*this photo is NOT in original form. the file name has been changed. that means: photo is tampered with.

....so the probability of that image being a hoax isnow much higher than not....


is it a hoax? the person who claims ownership of the photo knows....everything else is a process of analysis and elimination......