Object in a picture taken at Machu Picchu!

reply to post by Laykilla


Considering that a bird was in the picture, it would establish that birds are there...hence a good chance that it was a bird in the photo...and zooming in looks like a bird diving...It's called logic and common sense.

Originally posted by Laykilla

Originally posted by isyeye
reply to post by albertfothergill

 

Considering that there is a bird in the photo....I'm going to guess that the object in the background is also a bird.

edit on 26-11-2012 by isyeye because: (no reason given)

That's a silly guess.

If there WAS no bird in the picture, would you still assume it's a bird?

If not, you need to analyze your thinking abilities.

If I caught a dog in my photo, and also had a cat in it too, would you say "Oh there is a cat in that photo, I'm going to assume that other thing is also a cat."

You wouldn't, because that would be stupid, now wouldn't it?

Pretty ridiculous comparisons. Try to think logically and rationally here.

Anyway, my cousin went to Peru 2 years ago and got similar photos with diving birds. THAT is how they look at a distance and out of focus. I know they are birds because he wouldn't shut up about how awesome and scenic and alive the place was and how the birds were so "majestic". He's got video of birds perching on the edge of the ruins overlooking the green in the background....diving and flying back. It made me want to go (And still would like to go). Some of you need to just scoot back in your chair and come back to the real world.

reply to post by elevenaugust


Thank you very much for the info on that! This is why I love ATS, such a great way to learn about topics that I generally would even not think about.

Thanks again elevenaugust!

Originally posted by mcx1942
I think it is a photoshop hoax. Or just another bird. It does seem very large in the distance.

Here is it zoomed in a bit, it is strange how the pic seems more pixelated around the object. Everywhere else around it is smooth looking. Immediately around it though, looks "manipulated".

*edit* when I was posting this, the post above me was not up yet. Sorry for posting a zoomed pic again.

edit on 11/26/2012 by mcx1942 because: wording

edit on 11/26/2012 by mcx1942 because: ditto

edit on 11/26/2012 by mcx1942 because: wording

That pixelization is a jpg compression artifact known as a "blocking artifact". It is a common compression artifact, and does NOT necessarily mean the object was photoshopped into the image.

Blocking artifacts occur because the when the jpg algorithm tries to compress a raw image file, it must also lose some of the original information in that file. it does this by creating a single pixel of a color where at one time multiple pixels existed. The color it chooses for that pixel is based on a math algorithm, but it basically averages out the color of the pixels ALONG WITH taking information from the neighboring pixels.

Therefore, when you have a dark object against a mostly homogeneous lighter background (such as this dark object against the grey sky) the jpg compression gets a little "funky" and spreads out the information of the dark object in the pixels around the dark object, and added to the information of the pixels of light background.

The jpg algorithm does this in blocks of 8x8 pixels, thus the artifact looks mostly square.

It's the pan I flung across the yard like a Frisbee when it became devoid of Pumpkin Pie. Mystery solved!

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Thanks for your explanation. Thats why I started this thread, to get some interesting info from all who have contributed here and have more knowledge than I do in this area!

Pity we cant get the original photo data! So with the info we have so far, are we leaning towards the object being a bird!!!

Thanks, Albert.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Indeed, that is what elevenaugust stated as well in his earlier post.

Thanks for the info friend, I do appreciate it.

reply to post by littled16


now that i do not believe !

reply to post by meremortal


But 'tis true! I flung it as far as I could, for someone stole the very last piece of pie that I was saving for a midnight snack. I had no idea how far it would travel. Must have been the jet stream.

reply to post by littled16


so you live up that high then? the internet connection is probably better than mine lol

reply to post by albertfothergill


I'm not even going to pretend to know what it is. I'm just glad I opened this thread, and clicked that link. Those are very nice pics. Before now, I don't think I've ever seen aerial images from there. Thanks OP.

reply to post by meremortal


Nah, I live on the Gulf Coast of the US. I just have a wicked strong Frisbee toss!

reply to post by BrokenCircles


Hello BrokenCircles, thanks for your reply and I agree 100% with you. The photo's are great, i,d love to go there one day.

I've been to Machu Picchu many times--as I'm a tour director that specializes in Peru.

I even have my own company that takes folks there seven times a year, but that's another story.

I always look up when I'm there---but I've never seen a UFO. I ask the locals about UFO's and many say they have seen them. Many of them also believe some of the older ruins were built by extraterrestials. They are embarrased to admit this to tourists, and know that our western scientists think they're nuts. But they'll take you aside and whispher in your ear about it.

I went to a Shaman once when I was there, and he was absolutely unbelievable. He had my whole life perfectly nailed down. I felt as if he could see right through me.

There is a mystical energy there that is hard to ignore.

What an amazing place. I never get tired of it.

It should be on everyone's bucket list.

It's cheap enough for anyone's budget......

and it's a trip you'll never forget.

I think that is a bird. I am more interested in the Llamas. One of them is like "I am so cute. Just look at me. You know I am. "

reply to post by albertfothergill


You mean the other bird in the background

The picture in question referred to by the OP just doesn't look "right" to me.
I'm not talking about scientific analysis here, just my own perception.
It looks like the picture has been assembled from other pics.
In the foreground the wall lighting doens't seem to match with the background and the edge of the wall against the background makes it look like it was pasted in.
Same with the bird in the foreground. It looks like it's been pasted in.
As for the small object in question, I think it would be a guess to speculate on what that is. The raw image is required to do any kind of enlargement that would be meaningful.
My thought are that it's a bird in the distance.
I wouldn't even come close to the ETH for this.
Overall, the pictures are all spectacular. The whole place is mind-boggling.

Originally posted by Laykilla

Originally posted by isyeye
reply to post by albertfothergill

 

Considering that there is a bird in the photo....I'm going to guess that the object in the background is also a bird.

edit on 26-11-2012 by isyeye because: (no reason given)

That's a silly guess.

If there WAS no bird in the picture, would you still assume it's a bird?

If not, you need to analyze your thinking abilities.

If I caught a dog in my photo, and also had a cat in it too, would you say "Oh there is a cat in that photo, I'm going to assume that other thing is also a cat."

You wouldn't, because that would be stupid, now wouldn't it?

That is a pretty skewed analogy if you ask me.
I for one would still consider a bird in that picture even if there wasn't one in the foreground considering its circumstances yes. It would even be unreasonable to dismiss.


If one is analyzing a photo of a area on the other side of the world where he has never gone before then it is more then reasonable to take the big eagle that is in the foreground into account since it acknowledged that these reasonably big birds do fly around in that area.

It also stands to reason since this is a jungle area that there are a lot more species of birds , big and small flying about. If you ask me he used deduction , logic and reasoning coupled with some common knowledge to a good effect.


A photo of a big bird in the foreground and a flying "object" in the background with no relevant back story over a jungle area hardly opens the door to a u.f.o , man made or e.t made. Grounded reasoning and logic should not be thrown out of the window or dismissed like you did just because a camera cannot resolve a far away object well enough.

Originally posted by synchronomy
The picture in question referred to by the OP just doesn't look "right" to me.
I'm not talking about scientific analysis here, just my own perception.
It looks like the picture has been assembled from other pics.
In the foreground the wall lighting doens't seem to match with the background and the edge of the wall against the background makes it look like it was pasted in.
Same with the bird in the foreground. It looks like it's been pasted in.
As for the small object in question, I think it would be a guess to speculate on what that is. The raw image is required to do any kind of enlargement that would be meaningful.
My thought are that it's a bird in the distance.
I wouldn't even come close to the ETH for this.
Overall, the pictures are all spectacular. The whole place is mind-boggling.

Well it may be something like this HDR photography or High Dynamic Range it can be done by software or by cameras were a few images are taken at different exposures and combined to make one shot that way a photographer can expose for shadows and highlights in a shot.

Or it could have been done by software as well to boost contrast and saturation.

Here are a couple of examples!





It's just as well we have a few photographers (amatuer/semi and pro) on here or every image would be suspicious.

reply to post by mcx1942


You are very welcome, sweetie. Things like this are a learning game of how to analyse not just the subject in question but the whole picture for comparison. I think being more super critical and seeing what else it can be, in a sort of Sherlock Holmes way, then what you are left with must be something extraordinary.

All information and pictures are good, even if it is just to show the fake from the real, because at some point there will be irrefutable proof of the real which passes all critical analyses.

Here's hoping that this proof is within my lifetime