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.

 

Stunning 'domed' craft photograph captured over Vancouver Island 1981

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

uncommitted

whyamIhere
Looks like a UFO....

The older pictures have more credibility to me.


Why? Because they look like how Alien spacecraft looked in films when you were growing up? So what, why does that make them credible?


I am talking about photos before digital cameras.

I don't know what an Alien spacecraft looks like.

Do you?




posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 





Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with colour, definition or light intensity. It has everything to do with shape and angle of both objects.


No it has nothing to do with color, but everything to do with light intensity. You can't get the shape of a tiny pixelated version of the ufo to match by just enlarging it on your computer. Like the poster above me "more noise on noise" It must be from the negative. You would enlarge it in the darkroom.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


I could tell by looking at the original photo that the enlarged version, was not the same object in the photo. But, thanks for putting the two side by side because that confirms it. It's a shame they were so lazy.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Then make the big one smaller as was done on this exact image before on this forum:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The images are not the same, and nothing you can say can explain it away. Whoever created the "enlarged" image edited it. The original image without the inset may have been studied in detail, but the enlarged image is a hoax by all appearances.

Edit, also this has been brought up may times on ATS, and it usually dies pretty fast because it is so obvious the inset is not the same image as the original photograph.
edit on 24-12-2013 by raymundoko because: Forgot something



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Its an oldie, and its a goodie, but it still isnt undeniable proof, or any sort of proof at all. No photo ever will be, old or new.

Thats just the unfortunate circumstances of reality.

The only proof of UFO or aliens is if an alien turned up and said "hey there" to a large number of people or a wreckage of a ship or a ship itself was put on display or landed somewhere very public and stuck around for anyone turning up to see.

Even that wouldn't be actual proof given the way some people have extreme paranoia towards things like the media and government, you'd have them saying its all a hoax for what ever nefarious reason.

Ufo's unfortunately no matter what will never be given their break, im a believer but after 30+ years ive started to come to some rather sad truths about the subject my earlier more optimistic self didnt quite think about.

Proof for UFO's is and always will be until that day, a personal thing. Which in an annoying way makes it very much like a religion...
edit on 24-12-2013 by BigfootNZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


That's nonsense. Look at the picture in the paper I LINKED to the OP. Every single image in that study is the exact same picture that is enlarge in the red square you claim foul. Look at the other LINK for the Frisbee manufacturer website. The same image as the one in the study and here.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


You linked a photo taken from a David Icke web site. You also used a paper written by Richard Haines...That Richard Haines of "UFO's are REAL", "The Secret KGB UFO's", "UFO's VS the Government", "UFO Files"...And who's only scientific papers published have to do with UFO sightings...Also note his doctorate is in Experimental Psychology. Even with that said his paper does NOT include your OP image with the inset.

Can you please get some credible evidence and come back?

But hey, maybe those Lizard Men are behind this.
edit on 24-12-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


Not everyone was lazy.


Now what?



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

FlySolo
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


Not everyone was lazy.


Now what?


Do you really, actually believe those are the same image?



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 





You linked a photo taken from a David Icke web site.


it doesn't matter if it was Mr. Magoo's website. Your point is irrelevant and a straw man




You also used a paper written by Richard Haines...That Richard Haines of "UFO's are REAL", "The Secret KGB UFO's", "UFO's VS the Government", "UFO Files"...And who's only scientific papers published have to do with UFO sightings...Also note his doctorate is in Experimental Psychology.


When you can't attack the evidence, attack the people surrounding it. You're not fooling anyone with those tactics. I'm surprised your not slamming Dr. James Harder...yet

And what exactly is your capacity in the industry? yea.... I think I'll take both of those scientist's point-of-view over yours. But Thanks for your opinion.

edit on 24-12-2013 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


I agree , clearly not the same object




posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


I'm really confused to how you come to that conclusion. Can you specifically show what's different? It can't get any closer than what you've got.

ETA: Even by reducing the size and overlaying it the way you did, actually proves it is the same object. Let me explain. The smaller version gives the illusion that it is filmed from underneath as opposed to it being on its side. Right? Then when you reduce the larger image and overlay it, it has the same illusion when we know the larger image is on its side. So essentially, you've proven that when reducing its size, you're changing its perspective.
edit on 24-12-2013 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


If you are confused between the differences between two different objects in color, shadowing ,shape and rotation theres not a lot i can do for you




edit on 24-12-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


The color is not the way to determine if it's the same picture. It's the light intensities. I've said this before. Give me a few minutes and I'll show you exactly what I'm talking about. Besides, we don't know what contrasts and filters were applied to the larger image.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Filters to the enlarged image?


I think you are trying to bang a square peg into a round hole there



edit on 24-12-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Nope I'm being pretty logical about this I think. Here, look at the points in this picture. While the hue may be off, it doesn't explain the near perfect shadows and reflections. Especially no. 5. See the horizontal line separating the shadows? Even look at the angle of the two images, they're identical. Now, if these are indeed two different pictures, then what is the likelihood that out of BILLIONS of images and no internet at the time, how can someone find one with the exact dimensions and light intensities?


Second point, or third (who's counting)...
I've brought this up already. The larger image is what is used in the journal of scientific exploration. Not the small one, even though it is the same picture. But all the analysis was done to the picture you and the other guy say is a hoax. Get what I'm saying? You're saying that picture is not authentic, but that's the picture they studied.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


A few lines with numbers on them doesnt change the fact the crafts have different colors, brightness, shape and rotation. One shows the top edge of an object while the other shows the bottom of an object.

They are not even close



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


I'm afraid you're stuck in a situation where your brain is unable to determine the correct values of the shading keeping you perpetually trapped in an illusion.

Ever seen this before?
Spinning dancer

That's what's happening. It's because the smaller picture doesn't have enough definitive lines to help the brain determine the right perspective. The same thing happens when you shrink the larger picture.

The numbered lines I made clearly point out where the shadows and intensities are the same. Please, enlarge your browser and look again.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Yes ive looked again and they clearly are not the same shadows and intensities.

I checked in photoshop and the brightest point on the enlarged picture has and RGB of 224,248,255 195,188,188 which are not even close to the same intensities on the light spots.

Then i checked the shadows the smaller one is clearly darker with an RGB of ,50,51,43 while the clearer object is 83,89,121. Also the darkest points on the objects are in different places. One is top left one is bottom right.

Sooo... in conclusion

-They dont look alike.
-The colors dont match.
-The shape is different.
-The rotations are different.
-One showing the top#
-The other showing the bottom
-The light point intensities dont match.
-The shadow intensities dont match.


edit on 24-12-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

PhoenixOD
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Yes ive looked again and they clearly are not the same shadows and intensities.

I checked in photoshop and the brightest point on the enlarged picture has and RGB of 224,248,255 195,188,188 which are not even close to the same intensities on the light spots.

Then i checked the shadows the smaller one is clearly darker with an RGB of ,50,51,43 while the clearer object is 83,89,121. Also the darkest points on the objects are in different places. One is top left one is bottom right.

Sooo... in conclusion

-They dont look alike.
-The colors dont match.
-The shape is different.
-The rotations are different.
-One showing the top#
-The other showing the bottom
-The light point intensities dont match.
-The shadow intensities dont match.


edit on 24-12-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


I think this answers the question. From page 5

The concept of "graininess" and "granularity" of photographic film is im-
portant here. Graininess is defined as the subjective sensation one gets when
viewing an enlargement of a photograph of a random pattern of variations
in texture, color, or both in regions of homogeneous luminance and color
exposure. Granularity is the result of an objective measurement of the film
using an instrument known as a densitometer which measures the local density
variations that give rise to the sensation of graininess (Kodak Publications F-
20, 1973). Most silver halide crystals that make up photographic film are
dispersed in a gelatin and coated in thin layers on a supporting (paper, etc.)
base. Importantly, these crystals vary in size, shape, and sensitivity to light
energy. In general, they are also randomly distributed. As the Kodak manual
states, "Within an area of uniform exposure, some of the crystals will be made
developable by exposure; others will not. The location of the developable
crystals is random" (Kodak Publication F-20, 1973, p. 3; italics mine).
One result of this random distribution of light-sensitive crystals (grains) is
that patterns can be produced which have nothing to do with the object that
was originally photographed. If such a pattern is perceived as having a rec-
ognized shape, it is possible to conclude that the shape represents an object
somehow related to the primary object when, in fact, there is no functional
correlation with the object.



Lets just step back for a second and take a breath.

If this...


is this...


but you say it's not the object photographed, then what was Haines studying? What is the paper about? If that isn't the image in question, then by default you're saying the entire study is a hoax. And that's no straw man. You are saying the entire study is a hoax and a well respected NASA scientist had a hand in it. There's no other way around that logic. The entire premise of the paper is about the photo you say is not real.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join