UFO Pic on Coast

Haha DClark i also emailed them today about the image and i didnt get a reply at all.

Did you get any replies about the others you emailed them about?

It is abit stupid to post faked UFO pics on that site as it does have some good articles available and when they post faked UFO pics and host them on the main page of the site it just descredits themselves for anyone who is serious about UFOs.

I remember getting one reply a long time ago. The webmaster basically said, that just because I thought they were false and shouldn't be on the website doesn't give them enough reason to not post them. If that makes any sense.
I would think that with the changeover that occurred with George taking over, they might have more resources to filter out the garbage. But I guess they just don't care, whatever sells. Who knows though, you might get a different response.
In their defense, they have updated some stories that were later proved untrue.

I dont think i have received an email off them yet, il check soon.

They should at least check all the images they get sent in or send them to ATS im sure all the debunkers here would love that.

Originally posted by jra
The photo seems to nicely composed to be a shot of a U.F.O. unless it was just flying by

Wow, good call. Had't even considered that kind of way of thinking about it.

why do ppl feel they have to make fake ufo pictures....bleh, its annoying.

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by SMR
That is true,but upon zooming,
you can clearly see a square in which the pasting was done.

If that is the case, someone has gone through an awfull lot of trouble to copy and pasty tiny variations of blue squares all over the sky, plus the moon is the same, as is the limits between the sky and terrain.

Looks to me like JPG compression flaws... Which of course means one cant really check it out any closer.

But what is that HUGE artifact in the middle right?

I dont think you are seeing what I am talking about.
Im not saying the entire shy is pasted.If you look in the image above,you see the 'craft',but also notice the craft is in a little 'box'
Doesnt matter anyway,it's fake and I think we all know it,atleast most know it is.
This is not a product of JPEG error/compression.I have been working with Photoshop for about 6 years now and know when and where to look for such.
To be honest,but not conseeded,I believe I could have done a better job in M$ Paint

Originally posted by SMR

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by SMR
That is true,but upon zooming,
you can clearly see a square in which the pasting was done.

If that is the case, someone has gone through an awfull lot of trouble to copy and pasty tiny variations of blue squares all over the sky, plus the moon is the same, as is the limits between the sky and terrain.

Looks to me like JPG compression flaws... Which of course means one cant really check it out any closer.

But what is that HUGE artifact in the middle right?

I dont think you are seeing what I am talking about.
Im not saying the entire shy is pasted.If you look in the image above,you see the 'craft',but also notice the craft is in a little 'box'
Doesnt matter anyway,it's fake and I think we all know it,atleast most know it is.
This is not a product of JPEG error/compression.I have been working with Photoshop for about 6 years now and know when and where to look for such.
To be honest,but not conseeded,I believe I could have done a better job in M$ Paint

So do you agree then that the moon is equally fake (suffers the same box pixelation) and that the terrain is also cut and pasted on blue sky (also has box pixelation along the edge)?

But wiping out that box is easy... It still doesnt answer whether the original uncompressed shot is fake or not. If this is the original, its very weak indeed, someone forgot to zoom to check discrepancies.

Originally posted by merka

So do you agree then that the moon is equally fake (suffers the same box pixelation) and that the terrain is also cut and pasted on blue sky (also has box pixelation along the edge)?

Can you post the details on that?

And are these Vapour Trails? or excessive use of the smudge tool?



The mere fact of it's composure suggests something is not quite right.
The artefacts around the moon and UFO don't neccessarily point to Photo manipulation, going from a solid blue to the colour of the UFO or moon will generate these, it's dependant on the quality of the CCD within the DIgital Camera itself. The lighting on the craft doesn't seem quite right either but I don't believe thats conclusive enough.

[edit on 20-9-2004 by Koka]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by merka

So do you agree then that the moon is equally fake (suffers the same box pixelation) and that the terrain is also cut and pasted on blue sky (also has box pixelation along the edge)?

Can you post the details on that?

That's just copied and enlarged. You can clearly see exactly the same artifacts in all areas. So just saying the UFO has been pasted in there lacks foundation... But I'm no JPG expert, I admit that

You have put up a very good comparison of the objects.
If you notice,the UFO as well as the moon both have a 'box' around them.On the close up of the terrain,the pixelation goes along the edges showing there is compression.
Im not saying I am an expert either,I just stated that in all the years I have been doing graphics,I have never seen such imperfections around an object like that of the moon and ufo.Being a perfect square.
So I guess my answer would be yes,I believe the moon has been pasted as well.
One way to really find the answer is find out what direction the shot was taken.Perhaps the moon does not even belong there in the first place if we can look at shadows.For example,say the picture was taken pointed north,as far as I know,the moon should be on the on your right or not even in the image as it would be at the west.Im not fully aware of the moon rise and what direction it goes,so I cant be certain.We know the sun rises in the east and falls in the west,so maybe that could give a clue.Maybe the moon should not even be in the image at all.

Originally posted by SMR
Im not saying I am an expert either,I just stated that in all the years I have been doing graphics,I have never seen such imperfections around an object like that of the moon and ufo.Being a perfect square.

Every little compression flaw is a perfect square, which is why I originally said someone had gone through an awfull lot of trouble if the square pixelation is a sign of faking:




(note: I sharpened it very much, but they can clearly be seen with much less work, so its not really a product of modifying it)

Notice that its not ONE square, its actually FOUR smaller squares... The UFO just happen to be smack in the middle of it. The moon takes up SIX squares.

If that is not JPG compression flaws I dont know what is. But I am new here, and I may just be an idiot in determining fakes. If someone can give me a good explanation I'd take it as fake

Your zooming in and you are going to get single pixels as you go in further.JPEG is not vector and thus,you get pixelation.You have prooved that in your presentation there.
As I said in the post above,there is a difference in pixelation from the moon,ufo,and the mountains.
Take ANY JPEG and zoom in as far as you can and you will get single small squares-pixels eventually.

Originally posted by SMR
Your zooming in and you are going to get single pixels as you go in further.JPEG is not vector and thus,you get pixelation.You have prooved that in your presentation there.
As I said in the post above,there is a difference in pixelation from the moon,ufo,and the mountains.
Take ANY JPEG and zoom in as far as you can and you will get single small squares-pixels eventually.

Those arent single pixels you know... Try it yourself. You dont even need to enlarge the image to see the very distinct boxes.

I see clear compression: Divide the image into boxes of about 20x20 pixels, then cut out all irrelevant data. The UFO is *not* irrelevant data, since it seperates from the background (average blue). Thus you use original quality around it. The UFO is inside 4 boxes, showing no "compresion", but original pixel colors. Same with the moon, except that takes up 6 squares. The terrain also shows this clear design, you can draw a single boxy edge along it, where the terrain meet the sky and full pixel precision ends (since the terrain vary so much) where the box is fully blue (in various mathematical forms and shapes to create different average blue colors).

Sigh... But I guess we cant understand each other
Maybe I need to read on jpg compression, heh. All above is just logical reasoning.

Just saw the ufo pic on Coasttocoastam.com. How come you see so many UFO's in those picures flying at about a 30 to 45 degree angle? Are they popping wheelies or what?

Originally posted by jupiter869
Just saw the ufo pic on Coasttocoastam.com. How come you see so many UFO's in those picures flying at about a 30 to 45 degree angle? Are they popping wheelies or what?

Naw, they just like to be photographed from their good side

I wish I could show you what I mean.I dont think my words are coming out right.The way I am typing it isnt really as easy as doing it.I just dont have any place to upload samples to show what I mean.
In all fairness,we really cant say for sure that the UFO itself is bunk.I think it is safe to say the whole image is,but for all we know,the UFO is legit.An example would be,take a picture of your cat,paste into an image of space and say your cat went to the moon.The space and cat images are real,but combine them and it makes the whole thing a fake.Make sense

I do have to correct myself though.The moon does appear to be real as far as not being pasted in.When you zoom in to 1600% - take screencap - paste new and then zoom that,the pixels do seem to be uniformed.

As I said,wish I had webspace as image hosts tend to give a pretty red X after so many views

Originally posted by SMR
I do have to correct myself though.The moon does appear to be real as far as not being pasted in.When you zoom in to 1600% - take screencap - paste new and then zoom that,the pixels do seem to be uniformed.

Nope, its still boxes when enlarged 1600 percent. Although I may also have to correct myself, I cant tell whether it really is 6 or 8 boxes (two more below, with a hole in between).

Discussing is fun, no?

No,what I mean is,,,,,,,,,GRRRRRRRRRR
This hard to explain.isnt it LOL
Lets see.
If you zoom in on the UFO and the moon as well,you will notice that the pixelization is different in a big way.
The UFO is in a large block with single pixels within it.
The moon has pixels around it,but blend into the surrounding blue.
Man I wish I had webspace.I should buy a cheap one just so I can host things like this.Think Im gonna look right now.

You really do need to get a pic up so you can show what you mean

Here is another of my point of view on the moon: w1.855.telia.com...

I even marked the some of boxes (not very precise though). I can clearly see a pattern there. Maybe my eyes are bad
The center bottom of the moon really tips it off, perfect blue among two greatly pixelated boxes.

Edit: And here is the UFO in the same comparison style:
w1.855.telia.com...
I see the exact same blending pattern as the moon. What do you see?

[edit on 21-9-2004 by merka]