Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Anyone seen this picture?


  • Please log in to reply
423 replies to this topic

#166    thewonderman

thewonderman

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined:22 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:18 PM

View PostEuphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

Now your just being silly! Again, you don't seem to understand what a camera raw file is! I can prove it's not the original raw file just by looking at the extension of the picture you posted. .jpg files are not raw files! Period!

I've been doing photography for more than twenty years with four years of schooling in it. How about you?

You attitude and ignorance of photography is appalling!

Thats the difference you use proffesional cameras, every standard camera like this one used in the photo produces JPEG images that get saved to the card reader and then taken off the card reader as a JPEG. the RAW image is not available unless you setup you're camera for that and why would a normal person be looking to have the RAW file which can not be viewed? Thanks.

For something to be created there must have been a Creator

#167    Quaentum

Quaentum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,624 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The number of fringe believers is inversely proportional to what is left to discover in our world.

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:25 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

If you enlarge this picture and zoom in on the right, above the bush, some people claim that they can discern the UFO moving off into the distance.  Given that there were five seconds between each picture, that would mean that it was moving along at a high velocity.  

Posted Image

If you look at the exif data for this picture and the one showing the ufo in the op, this picture was taken 30 seconds before the other one.

AA LOGIC
They didn't use thousands of workers - oops forgot about the work camps
There's no evidence for ramps - You found one?...Bummer
Well we know they didn't use ancient tools to cut and shape the stones - Chisel marks?  Craps
I still say aliens built them!

#168    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:26 PM

View PostEuphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

I've been doing photography for more than twenty years with four years of schooling in it. How about you?

I could care less about that, but I can read what they guy said.  The picture was not enhanced or tampered with since they have the original, and that's all I'm interested in.

If they have to use that particular format to post them on the Internet then so what?  Everybody does that.


#169    thewonderman

thewonderman

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined:22 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:28 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

I could care less about that, but I can read what they guy said.  The picture was not enhanced or tampered with since they have the original, and that's all I'm interested in.

If they have to use that particular format to post them on the Internet then so what?  Everybody does that.

Thing is every camera produces a JPEG image which any normal untrained person would precive as the ORIGNAL photo, When I put my camera in the computer I goto where all my photos are and everytime it will be the JPEG I don't go looking for a file that I can't even view and wouldn't have any clue about.

For something to be created there must have been a Creator

#170    Euphorbia

Euphorbia

    Odd Plant Grower

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,273 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere east of San Francisco

  • You can't just choose to believe something.

    Believing in something doesn't make it true.

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:30 PM

The answer as to what is in the picture more than likely will never be known unless the person that took the picture admits it to be a hoax. I'm not saying it is a hoax, but all we can really do here is speculate as to what it is.

It is claimed that the original raw file was sent to ATS and that it/they were examined by them. This site is for the most part from what I can tell, a conspiracy theory site. So am I supposed to believe them?

If the original raw files, before / actual shot / and after shots were uploaded in their original raw format for us to open in Photoshop, I would feel better that I was actually looking at what the camera took.....

Get three coffins ready.

My mistake, four coffins.

Separation of corporation and state!

#171    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:31 PM

And the person who originally analyzed these pictures had 26 years of experience:

http://www.abovetops...hread886584/pg1


Some items I would like to highlight in examining this photo which are extremely interesting:
a) "SHOOTER" has been nothing but forthright and accommodating in providing every piece of data I requested. She has not made any suspicious excuses, nor has she concealed one very interesting aspect of her life: she is a professional, and very artistic photographer. Her work is shown in prominent upscale galleries and she seems to be very well seated in her long standing professional career. She has nothing to gain and everything to lose by presenting a UFO photo for public view. She made no hesitation to ask me how I could figure out that she had not "photoshopped" this UFO into the picture, nor that she was versed in computer image editing. She made the comment to me that she didn't think anyone would believe her based upon what she does for her livelihood. That an evidence provider would make such statements is not the hallmark of a hoaxer, but one of someone being extremely forthright in genuine curiosity about what she captured on media.

The photo exhibits:
-atmospheric distance haze consistent with the rest of the photo which indicates an object of some distance from the shooter
-channel specific data relating to the UO - one cannot overemphasize this point
-appropriate lighting, and shadows consistent with the rest of the photo
-accurate focus in relation to stationary objects
-clean and unfettered EXIF data, and files obtained directly from the camera
-correct pixelation across the image

c)The horizon is out of level with the UO and camera, which match. Ordinarily this is one of the evident issues with a photographic hoax. Rarely does the garden variety hoaxer take the time to make sure his objects are level with the photo's horizon orientation. Composition is not on his/her mind, composite quality is. However in this case we have data that shows the object is very likely not a composite photo, nor a typical hoax. Channel specific data as shown in this case, would be far too much to ascribe to an easy composite hoax, nor a 3d modeling re-render with UO elements added. It would also be near impossible to do effectively and have channel specific data as subtle and unseen as this. This is far and away past what someone would go through to fake a simple photo in my opinion.

Examples of assumed natural or misidentification explanations for the UO and reasons for dismissal:

1) Water or other debris on the lens / lens chip or fracture
- photo taken just seconds before shows no debris of any kind, nor do any of the subsequent photos after
-water droplet would not show correct alignment of the sun's highlight per a 3 dimensional external object
-object is in consistent focus w/ the rest of the shot

2) Camera defect
-No defects in any other photos, no evidence of aberrations in the image caused by bad write to chip or typical known glitch.

3) Physical object blowing in wind
-Object would have to be of extremely significant size
-Object displays symmetry, and structure not consistent with random blowing debris
-Witness relayed that this was an amazingly remote area, which involved lengthy drive on non-paved roads. Populace ratio to trash seems unlikely.
-absolutely no discernible movement blur whatsoever.

4) Weather Phenomena
-Object in photo is not attributable to any known weather anomaly.

5) Planetary body
-Daylight photo

6) Thrown object (hoax)
-Object again shows symmetry, and clarity which would be unlikely with a small thrown object
-Object displays distance hazing inconsistent with a small object in close proximity.
-Focus of object not consistent with small thrown object

7) Digital Composite (hoax)
-Object shows channel specific data not visible in the combined channel, or "normal" viewing mode. Such data is more visible in LAB color mode in the A channel with simple "auto level adjust" operation in photoshop.
-No evidence of composite edge, or poor alpha channel mask.
-Pixels of image seem consistent throughout.

8) Aviary Explanation
-Object does not resemble a bird in any way whatsoever
-While birds can appear to have highlights, they do not reflect the light per this object, nor have reflective properties

I cannot identify or explain the UO in the photo. Of importance to mention is that I am not familiar with every sort of high level and undoubtedly secretive aerial projects employed by any government, military, or private contractor and therefore cannot rule this out. I do find it unlikely, for the horizon alignment issue alone.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 04 October 2012 - 05:32 PM.


#172    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:31 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

Now you're clutching at straws.  You wouldn't even have known there was another picture unless I posted it.

Nonsense.  Of course I knew there were other pictures.  The lady's account mentions other pictures.  You're just being ridiculous, as usual.


#173    Sweetpumper

Sweetpumper

    Heatseeker

  • Member
  • 10,637 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Avengers Tower

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:34 PM

Crashing?

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated." - Hunt for the Skinwalker

"The ultimate irony of the Disclosure movement is that it deeply distrusts officialdom, while simultaneously looking to officialdom for the truth." - Robbie Graham Silver Screen Saucers

#174    Euphorbia

Euphorbia

    Odd Plant Grower

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,273 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere east of San Francisco

  • You can't just choose to believe something.

    Believing in something doesn't make it true.

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:36 PM

View Postthewonderman, on 04 October 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

Thats the difference you use proffesional cameras, every standard camera like this one used in the photo produces JPEG images that get saved to the card reader and then taken off the card reader as a JPEG. the RAW image is not available unless you setup you're camera for that and why would a normal person be looking to have the RAW file which can not be viewed? Thanks.

Lots of "standard cameras" now have raw file settings and this is what was stated it was received as! I can view raw files on free image viewers, so don't tell me they can't be viewed.

Get three coffins ready.

My mistake, four coffins.

Separation of corporation and state!

#175    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:36 PM

View PostQuaentum, on 04 October 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

If you look at the exif data for this picture and the one showing the ufo in the op, this picture was taken 30 seconds before the other one.

Maybe so, since they are driving up the road toward the large rock, with the goats moving ahead of them.


#176    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:38 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Nonsense.  Of course I knew there were other pictures.  The lady's account mentions other pictures.  You're just being ridiculous, as usual.

If you knew, you gave not the slightest hint of it, nor did any of you Septic Skeptics bother to post them--or even inform anyone of their existence.  Why is that?


#177    Euphorbia

Euphorbia

    Odd Plant Grower

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,273 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere east of San Francisco

  • You can't just choose to believe something.

    Believing in something doesn't make it true.

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:38 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 05:26 PM, said:

I could care less about that, but I can read what they guy said.  The picture was not enhanced or tampered with since they have the original, and that's all I'm interested in.

If they have to use that particular format to post them on the Internet then so what?  Everybody does that.

Wow, you just simply don't get it, do you? It's like talking to a wall.......

Get three coffins ready.

My mistake, four coffins.

Separation of corporation and state!

#178    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:45 PM

View PostEuphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Wow, you just simply don't get it, do you? It's like talking to a wall.......

It sounds completely irrelevant to me.


#179    Euphorbia

Euphorbia

    Odd Plant Grower

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,273 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere east of San Francisco

  • You can't just choose to believe something.

    Believing in something doesn't make it true.

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:48 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

And the person who originally analyzed these pictures had 26 years of experience:

*Snip*

Yeah, I can read.......so what. What makes this person so reliable to you? Do you know him personally? I would only trust seeing the original raw files, or having them examined by a forensic photographer.

It's not necessarily the years of experience but the experience itself! I don't know this guy and have no real reason to believe/not believe him.

Get three coffins ready.

My mistake, four coffins.

Separation of corporation and state!

#180    Sweetpumper

Sweetpumper

    Heatseeker

  • Member
  • 10,637 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Avengers Tower

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:53 PM

View PostEuphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

Yeah, I can read.......so what. What makes this person so reliable to you? Do you know him personally? I would only trust seeing the original raw files, or having them examined by a forensic photographer.

It's not necessarily the years of experience but the experience itself! I don't know this guy and have no real reason to believe/not believe him.

I'm sure he knows the other person about as well as he knows you.

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated." - Hunt for the Skinwalker

"The ultimate irony of the Disclosure movement is that it deeply distrusts officialdom, while simultaneously looking to officialdom for the truth." - Robbie Graham Silver Screen Saucers




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users