light objects fly off ground into sky.(picture)

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by mahon

 

...hard to accept with an image obviously edited in Adobe Photoshop 7. Perhaps we would believe you if you actually provided the original unedited image. Plus, a dozen other people and you were the only one with a phone? How convenient.

Maybe they are part of the reptile entities you claimed attacked you in THIS THREAD.

edit on 23-9-2012 by gavron because: (no reason given)

Perhaps they were a dozen invisible witnesses like Steven Greer's invisible aliens?

reply to post by mahon


You mention something akin to an Earthquake? Does the phrase" The ground sounded almost as if it was being struck like a huge bell" hold any resonance (sic)?

Did the lights appear as if almost just "popping into view" like they were catapulted into the sky from a single source?

reply to post by FireMoon


Yes, the lights appeared as if they were being catapulted from a single source.

reply to post by Druscilla


wow... you a ray of sunshine. The reptile thing was a event that didnt happen to me, it was posted for a friend to be reviewed by ATS. I personally believe that incident was a self inflicted event, however, those present claim otherwise.

As far as this topic, i uploaded the pic I had. Do you see any editing within the photo? Do you see paint smudges or alteration or any sort? NO! Sooooo... get lost...angry troll.

Thanx for that

Well that is interesting as I was present at a sighting some 25 years ago, where a very similar pattern of lights were seen. I hasten to add, I was not a witness myself, just in the same area as those who did see something. I asked about the Earthquake as some also reported, commensurate with the "lights", a sound emanating from the hillside they seemed to be appearing from that sounded akin to the earth being struck with a huge weight.

Originally posted by mahon

As far as this topic, i uploaded the pic I had. Do you see any editing within the photo? Do you see paint smudges or alteration or any sort?

I see an image that was re-sized, and obviously edited in Adobe Photoshop 7 (which is in the exif information for the photograph). If you would like is to examine that incident, please upload the original, unedited photo. Thank you.

Originally posted by mahon
reply to post by Druscilla

 

wow... you a ray of sunshine. The reptile thing was a event that didnt happen to me, it was posted for a friend to be reviewed by ATS. I personally believe that incident was a self inflicted event, however, those present claim otherwise.

As far as this topic, i uploaded the pic I had. Do you see any editing within the photo? Do you see paint smudges or alteration or any sort? NO! Sooooo... get lost...angry troll.

I see extremely obvious alteration in the ASPECT RATIO.
The photo has been CROPPED.

If you look at the below image (adjusted for a 2:3 aspect ratio with the missing area showing in red)

You can see where a section of the photo has been cut out.
Whether the photo was cut from the left, or the right, is speculation, but, in looking at the lights, it seemed appropriate for the missing section to be on the right side of the photo.



If you don't know what ASPECT RATIO is, then follow the link.
Cameras follow a 35mm format aspect ratio of 1.5:1 (3:2) even though they shoot digital.

Your photo is 359 x 640 which rounded up to 360 x 640 gives us an aspect ratio of 9:16
If we don't round up to 360 and stay at 359 x 640, that's our aspect ratio - 359:640 - further glaring evidence of an arbitrary crop to delete/hide something out of the photo.

If we compare that to standard 3:2, or 2:3, this 9:16 is much much thinner than it should be.
You've cut the picture, or, someone has cut the picture, and since you're claiming it's your picture, you're looking guilty of deception in attempting to hide what you've cut out of the picture.

We've seen the same thing where a supposed 'professional' photographer claimed to have taken pictures of UFOs HERE
The Aspect Ratio was off on the photos and once the unedited uncropped photos were obtained it became very obvious very quickly that the so called 'professional' photographer was either a liar, or an idiot because the lens flare sources were glaring.

You can make believe these photos have not been cropped all you want, but, the aspect ratio doesn't lie.
You're aspect ratio should be 2:3, or 3:2 and, it isn't.

If you wanted the photo to at least pass the sniff test in this hoax, you should have used an automatic crop that maintained aspect ratio at the very least.

If you're going to commit photographic fraud, at least learn the basics.

For additional illustrative purposes, the below is another way the image could have been cropped, in keeping with the 2:3 standard Aspect Ratio:

reply to post by Druscilla

Your photo is 359 x 640 which rounded up to 360 x 640 gives us an aspect ratio of 9:16

From Aspect Ratio

In still camera photography, the most common aspect ratios are 4:3, 3:2, and more recently being found in consumer cameras 16:9.

This is why even though I suspect the image was cropped I purposely avoided the accusation.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


If that's the case, then, let the record show that I am wrong.

Let the OP submit the make and model of their camera for us to verify the default aspect ratio, as well as some other sample pictures of chairs, pets, trees, anything that show the same exact aspect ratio in the OP photo.

Such would then verify consistency of aspect ratio (to some degree), though, now that I've given an ear full in the public forum about aspect ratio, OP, if deceptive, now have the knowledge to replicate the 16:9 ratio consistently.

If, however, I am wrong, then, as stated, let the record show that I have indeed been wrong in regard to the variety of standard aspect ratios available.

I will, however, stand by the 2:3 ratio stance until proven otherwise.

From the link:

16:9 standard Main article: 16:9

16:9 (1.77:1) (generally named as "Sixteen-Nine", "Sixteen-by-Nine" and "Sixteen-to-Nine") is the international standard format of HDTV, non-HD digital television and analog widescreen television PALplus. Japan's Hi-Vision originally started with a 5:3 ratio but converted when the international standards group introduced a wider ratio of 5⅓ to 3 (=16:9). Many digital video cameras have the capability to record in 16:9, and 16:9 is the only widescreen aspect ratio natively supported by the DVD standard. DVD producers can also choose to show even wider ratios such as 1.85:1 and 2.39:1[1] within the 16:9 DVD frame by hard matting or adding black bars within the image itself. Some films which were made in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, such as the U.S.-Italian co-production Man of La Mancha, fit quite comfortably onto a 1.77:1 HDTV screen and have been issued anamorphically enhanced on DVD without the black bars.

This seems to apply to HD recordings of VIDEO.
In the OP, we have a photo.

Still, If I'm wrong, then, such is so, and I'll submit no more argument in this thread.

Sometimes i wonder why UFO photos have to look like as if photography was invented just last week.
It's an awful picture in terms of image quality, sorry.

reply to post by Druscilla


That may be and I would think the model might be enough to determine the ratio but maybe I'm wrong. I doubt OP will help us help him.

The red orbs look nothing like a cell tower and I think the area in red supports the lens flare theory. If they really were lights behind the tree would they look like this? I don'tthink so.

Another "take it or leave it" thread, with little or no substance from the O.P, though a noticable level of touchiness.
Photoshop 7 is one of my favourite versions, no bells or whistles, but a definite step up in editing power.

Can I ask the OP if they only took the one photo, because I know if it was me I'd be snapping away like crazy ?

reply to post by scrog77


I didn't take the photo...my friend did then sent it to my phone..and then I uploaded to photo bucket the uploaded to ATS. I wish there were more photos but there are not.

reply to post by jamdan


The noticeable "touchiness" is because instead of people telling me what it is they choose to instead insist I am making fake pictures.....and for what purpose? What do I gain from submitting fake photos? I will find out why it says the image is edited in adobe and I will let you know. Feel free to meet me in Chicago/ and or north suburbs and I can show you the original stored on my buddies phone. .I'm no liar and I am offended for being called one. I think you haters are just jealous that you didn't get to see anything because your stuck on the internet all day trolling instead of getting outside more and seeing interesting things for yourselves. I'm done with this thread..

The camera phone was HTC evo and was zoomed in.

reply to post by mahon


I'm questioning your circle of friends then. One group of friends claim to be attacked by ghosts or spectral beings, now this one claims to see ufos, but gives you a photo obviously edited in Adobe Photoshop 7. It almost seems that they are playing you for a fool, knowing you will run home and upload this to the internet on who knows how many forums.

Why do I get the feeling they are snickering behind your back?

Originally posted by mahon
The camera phone was HTC evo and was zoomed in.

In the interest in due diligence and self-policing:

HTC evo 4G

The photos are taken in 16:9 aspect ratio and are in 3264 x 1840 resolution. The idea is that you can snap fast-paced pics while you're recording a video.

The same aspect ratio applies also to the 3G version.

Thus, in regard to my statements pertaining to aspect ratio and cropping, I WAS WRONG.

I'm humbled by this, and if you will, please accept my apologies.

Hopefully other will take this as a lesson as much as I have.

On other points, however, I'm still confident that the photo is either lens flare, or internal window reflection.
In light of my error regarding aspect ratio, however, the legitimacy of such a statement is necessarily suspect except where supporting contributions ratify the stance.

Les flare, or internal window reflection attribution is pointed out in the post by DenyObfuscation:

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Druscilla

 

That may be and I would think the model might be enough to determine the ratio but maybe I'm wrong. I doubt OP will help us help him.

The red orbs look nothing like a cell tower and I think the area in red supports the lens flare theory. If they really were lights behind the tree would they look like this? I don'tthink so.

With that, as stated previous, due my error in aspect ratio, I will no longer contribute to this thread.

reply to post by nobody you know


I agree with you! I would say anti aircraft guns. maybe 50cal auto.

Click here for more information.