Another lost UFO photo found

page: 3
27
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Hmmmm....I say its a Bird!!

I've seen so many of these photo's that are birds with their wings tucked in, this just looks the same!



An example that is similar

I did a google search for "birds that look like ufo's", silly I know, but, a little way down in "images" I see the image in the op

google search

so, I'm not the only one that says bird!
edit on 19-3-2013 by zerozero00 because: (no reason given)


haha...oh maybe not, that image is related to Brad Bird and not the fact it looks like a bird


I'm still sticking with bird
edit on 19-3-2013 by zerozero00 because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-3-2013 by zerozero00 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tahnya86
reply to post by elevenaugust
 
thank you to your grandfather, you cant fake this stuff, thats what i love about these old photographs, legit and also you can see the evoulution of old time ufos to the modern day ones we see that ARE authentic, its like looking at man kinds evoulution of aviation but instead extraterestrial.



I agree. I don't think this object is fake either. I think it's a real hubcap...

Actually, I have no idea. I agree with the member before who said without the original negative, photo analysis is a waste of time.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 

Did I thank you. I didn't... well thank you.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Any artist will tell you that objects get lighter as they get further away from the viewer. Dark colors and more importantly shadows get more washed out and lose their intensity. So objects of similar distances from the viewer will have shadows of similar intensity or darkness.

With this in mind i zoomed in on the object and picked what i decided was one of the darkest pixels.



I then did a search in the entire picture for pixels of the same darkness or intensity of shadows. If this object was far away then you should find pixels of a similar darkness on the ground in the distance. But I only found the same pixel shade in the branches of the trees in the foreground.

Ive colored these pixels in red to make them easier to see :




There was not a single pixel of the same intensity of shadow found anywhere other than in the branches of the trees which are just a few feet away. So i would have to conclude that the object in the sky is not any further away than those branches. This would be a simple perceptive trick that we have seen a lot from that era where someone throws an object just above the tree line and then claims its further away from the camera than it actually is.

This sort of analysis is much easier to do with black and white pictures than it is with color ones.

edit on 17-3-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


A couple problems with this analysis:

First, your sample size is basically non-existent. Comparing the pixels on the object to "everything else in the photograph" - what else? The only other object in the photograph was the tree. So, of course, if you're looking for comparisons, you're probably gonna find them in the tree!

Second, intensity of shadow is just as related to the angular size of an object as it is to the literal distance of that object to the camera. So an object that is 1 cubic foot at a distance of 20 feet, will have a comparable shadow profile to an object that is 10 cubic feet at a distance of 200 feet. Shadow alone is not an indicator of distance.

ETA - Does it *really* matter though? Every competent researcher in UFOlogy knows that the phenomenon is real. That part of the controversy ended decades ago. Nowadays the questions are more like "what exactly is going on?" and, "who exactly is piloting these crafts, assuming they are crafts and assuming they are piloted?" And examining these old photographs doesn't seem very likely to bring us any closer to an answer to those questions.
edit on 19-3-2013 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 




ETA - Does it *really* matter though? Every competent researcher in UFOlogy knows that the phenomenon is real.


It matters because the role of an investigator is to work out through scientific process what is real and what is not. A 'competent researcher' as you put it wont overlook a fake because they consider the 'phenomenon is real'. That would be the action of an incompetent researcher , a fanatic or a person with an agenda.



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


The phenomenon has already been proven to be real, so that is really not an issue here. My point is, the authenticity of this photo or lack thereof in no way impacts that reality. While some seem to think that the debate is still ongoing, with photographs like this being actively-investigated "evidence", that is simply not the case. The question of authenticity regarding this photograph is, at this point, for historical value only.
edit on 19-3-2013 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


The phenomenon has already been proven to be real, so that is really not an issue here. My point is, the authenticity of this photo or lack thereof in no way impacts that reality.


That's debatable. People have been see things they cant explain in the sky of course. But to make an assumption that these things are visiting aliens is a total leap of faith.

I agree with Pheonix, this picture is probably a fake.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


I was going to say that in almost every old pic, UFOs look to be the exact same clunky size, they actually look antique compared the ones we hear about and "see" now-a-days. My two cents.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaExplorer15
 


Agreed ..the old fake ufos are old hat compared to the latest fake photos and vids



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaExplorer15
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


I was going to say that in almost every old pic, UFOs look to be the exact same clunky size, they actually look antique compared the ones we hear about and "see" now-a-days. My two cents.


Easier to toss a hubcap than a 22" dub.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
No I think there are many real photos of unidentified flying objects. This is definately one. There is no evidence to indicate its from an intelligent being from some other planet or dimension. It looks like a pie pan.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sitchin
reply to post by ZetaExplorer15
 


Agreed ..the old fake ufos are old hat compared to the latest fake photos and vids


Some of them actually were old hats.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
This is old now. Can it be removed from homepage. It's another he said she said she a ufo way back when where no one else could see it






top topics



 
27
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join