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.
Please lets us work together on this, nobody is better then the other, just maybe more experience and that's all. Even with all the experience in the world you will miss something, trust me I know. I'm just saying that together we have more chance to solve this.
Originally posted by nothingwrong
I don't understand why this is not in hoax yet.
I could list half a dozen inconsistencies in the story and the picture - I have previously in this thread.
BTW - water droplet my bum! Come on! On what? The window is open! lol
Put this in hoax and lets go home and have a cup of tea.
Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
Originally posted by Phage
The "photographer did not see the object while taking the picture" always raises a flag for me.
I feel the same way, and I'm not sure if it's an object really in the air.
There's a ray of sunlight shining in the window that crosses over the ring on her finger. Is it possible the object is light reflecting off the ring and side view mirror?
Originally posted by nothingwrong
As a serious amateur photographer I would not touch that camera
Originally posted by nothingwrong
Um, yes, of course I know what camera was used
Yes, it does. The exact same size sensor as two of the more expensive cameras *you* nominated.. That sensor is larger than the vast majority of point and shoots, which is the point I was making.
It has a 1/1.7" Type CMOS 12.1 MP sensor.
Reasonable zoom, not great quality lens for a canon.
You can see from This Page that is is a very small high density sensor.
Odd that a professional would choose to shoot in Program auto mode.
Odd that a professional would shoot in 16:9 image size.
Odd that the native 16:9 setting for that camera is 4000 x 2448 (L, 9.8MP) but this picture is only 4000 x 2248 (9.0MP) but she claims the images are not manipulated in any way? Did you spot that in the Exif data?
Note also that camer does not have a 4000 x 2248 setting:
So how did the image end up that size I wonder?
Odd that even though program shift was available she allowed the the system to chose f3.2 for this shot.
I spent ages trying to replicate how she holds the camera, I can't very odd. Here is a pic of me using my camera:
The way she is holding it I am surprised she can even see the screen. Her hands would be blocking her view. Not that she is actually looking at it she is looking straight ahead, and the camera is low and to her right.
There are way too many anomalies.
why it is aligned horizontally..?
Originally posted by CHRLZ
why it is aligned horizontally..?
Yeah, when you draw lines joining imaginary points..
I'll post it later when i do the bag tests..