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.

 

Can anyone validate/debunk these UFO photos?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
A few images taken from my own research over the web. Anyone ever seen these? Havent been able to get any good feedback on these. I will post more as I can.

Location, Unknown:


Location, Unknown:


Location, Unknown:


Maslin Beach, FLA




[edit on 14-2-2008 by AGENT51]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
all except the first 2 looks like hoax photos to me.

the first 2 photos in question though I would be confident is real, but its military related craft.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sarentack
 


I tend to agree. The first two look like the same craft, but taken in different places. Maybe Southwest U.S.?



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Sorry to say, but little, if any, debunking or analysis is necessary to most with half a brain on those photos. Some may get angry with that statment, and wonder how I can dismiss out of hand such evidence so quickly. But for anyone with even a modicum of photo experience can tell you, those photos are ridiculous (as are most UFO photos).

It's no different than if I showed you a drawing done in Crayon and told you it was a UFO photo. You are familiar enough with Crayons to realize there is no need to go any further investigating the "photos".


I'll leave it to some of the other armchair experts to tell me I'm close minded, and to some of the other eager believers to claim these pictures represent the second coming and are the beginning of "disclosure", lol.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Sorry to say, but little, if any, debunking or analysis is necessary to most with half a brain on those photos. Some may get angry with that statment, and wonder how I can dismiss out of hand such evidence so quickly. But for anyone with even a modicum of photo experience can tell you, those photos are ridiculous (as are most UFO photos).

It's no different than if I showed you a drawing done in Crayon and told you it was a UFO photo. You are familiar enough with Crayons to realize there is no need to go any further investigating the "photos".


Can you please explain why you feel these photos are comparable to crayon drawings? Please elaborate.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
The top two look like paintings to me. But it doesn't mean,that it don't represent a real UFO.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
the 3 in the middle look like un-manned drones seen at gulf breeze.


Google Video Link



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
If you have -ever- played with photoshop, you would understand why people believe these are fake.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AGENT51
 

The one from Maslin Beach, FLA- years ago I seem to recall it being identified as a smokeless ashtray.

The one from Venezuela, has been examined by Dr. Maccabee (Optical Physicist, US Navy), which he commented on when he talked with the Paracast some months ago. I don't believe he dismissed it. You'll have to listen at www.theparacast.com in the archived shows.

The rest, who knows. Not even remotely enough to go on. I got a pile of photos/video sent to me anonymously over the years that are actually a lot more compelling then those.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
They all could be very easily produced using CGI/3D/Photoshop.
I pretty sure these are all fake. too obvious.

I really don't understand why people still having discussions on UFO pictures or videos.

A picture or video is not gonna convince anyone anyway.
I could easily make fake pictures like these using photoshop or a 3D application.

Pay more attention to testimonies by credible witnesses, declassified documents, black box recordings. You will not convince a skeptic with pictures or videos. I'm sure.
They always use the same CGI excuse.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
NOt only do the first two photos look like the same craft, they look like the same photographer. The angle of the camera appears to be the same in both shots, and if the photograpgher was a trained artist, that could be a reeemreging style.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Originally posted by AGENT51


Can you please explain why you feel these photos are comparable to crayon drawings? Please elaborate.


Perhaps I mistyped my thoughts, as you didn't understand my post. I didn't compare these to crayon drawings. What I meant was I do not even need to put ANY effort in analyzing stuff like this, as would anybody with ANY experience in photography and image processing (even a small amount of experience)

What I was trying to say is that, if you know nothing about photography or imagine processing and are awestruck by such photos, the reason people like myself don't bother to "investigate" them is that it is no different than showing you a picture drawn with crayons and telling you it is a real photo. You are familiar enough with crayons to understand there is no need to bother looking into the images any further. And after seeing hundreds of crayon "photos" you have lost your patience with those who have never used a crayon before and stand there gaping open mouth at such obvious tripe.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by IgnoreTheFacts]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
True that photographic evidence isn't really evidence any more. Photo ehnancement softward has become to common place. However, a trained eye can usually spot artifacts on a doctored photo such as repeating cloud, grass, sky patterns, changes in resolution, manufactured blurs, etc.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Originally posted by abovetech


I really don't understand why people still having discussions on UFO pictures or videos.

A picture or video is not gonna convince anyone anyway.


You sir, get the prize for having common sense, reason an logic, lol. You are correct, a stupid photo on the internet is about as worthless as the toilet paper I just flushed. It's the verifiable circumstances around the photo/video evidence that matters. Unfortunately, with almost all UFO photos/videos it is the story, or lack of, that pretty much does the debunking for you. If things don't add up, then generally it is BUNK.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by abovetech
I really don't understand why people still having discussions on UFO pictures or videos.


Because when all the right evidence is there, they're incredibly interesting to some. They add to a body of data that might not be of particular value now, but can become so later as more data presents itself.

It ain't the end-all in evidence by any stretch.

But, by the same token, if you're out to truly examine the enigma, then you don't dismiss anything out of hand (including internet photos) without knowing a bit about where they came from. (if not by anonymous sources, which are by-in-large fairly worthless - although interesting if corroborative evidence exists)

Out of 20+ years in image examination on UFO data, I got a handful of decent stuff. Thousands in the trash bin.

But, you dont look, you dont find.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by jritzmann]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo
True that photographic evidence isn't really evidence any more. Photo ehnancement softward has become to common place. However, a trained eye can usually spot artifacts on a doctored photo such as repeating cloud, grass, sky patterns, changes in resolution, manufactured blurs, etc.


What if the photo was taken before photoshop and programs like that existed? Doesnt that lend at least some validity to a photo? (provided orig. negatives are identical to prints)



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MajCom
 


Some validity in the sense that it's not digitally created. But ya have paste ups, glass appliqué shots, forced perspective models, thrown objects, reshoots, double exposures/frame advance defeats, etc etc.

There's just a ton of ways.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
sorry, double post glitch.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by jritzmann]



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MajCom
 


Not necessarily. If you are seeing it online, it has been converted to a digital file at some point. In that case photos can be doctored years after they taken, and photoshop can even replicate a time/date stamp. However, almost all photo manipulation leaves some signs.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
First two are easily debunked by someone that understands the princibles of light and shadow in pictures. They are photoshopped.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join