Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
ShadowBoy86x

Anyone seen this picture?

424 posts in this topic

I have taken a closer look at this is Photoshop CS5, Now i'm not photo expert but to me it looks clearly like their is a light or source of enegry ommiting from the back of the craft you can see this clearly in various formats.

So I think its either a craft of some type or the picture has been hoaxed as some effects it looks like it has been blended in compared to the other objects on the photo. I can post pictures if need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have eliminated the "explanation" that the car window was closed and that there was a little UFO picture pasted on it, or a water drop or a "goat sweat". All that is pure BS.

I have eliminated the "explanation" that the picture is a fake, since no one who analyzed it could find any evidence for that.

I beg your pardon? Even over at ATS, respondents have correctly pointed out that it is almost trivially easy to fake exif or add to a picture without trace. It is ONLY in very precise circumstances and with the ability to forensically examine the original media (which no-one at ATS has done in any transparent fashion) that such fakery can be ruled out. Your 'elimination' is based on a complete lack of knowledge.

So that 'elimination' is eliminated.

I have eliminated the "explanation" that it was a bird because it doesn't look even remotely like any kind of bird.

Oh, very scientific - are your arms tired from that handwave? Just because you haven't seen a bird look like that in a digital image, it can't possibly be one. Can you show me a good collection of bird photography you have done? Do you understand how electronic shutters work? Here's a challenge for you - tell us WHY I mention that aspect. If you don't know (good luck googling something up), then it proves again that you are out of your depth. I'll be happy to elaborate later - but you go first, MacG.

Another 'elimination' based on lack of knowledge of the topic.

I have eliminated the "explanation" that it was a bug on the lens of the camera because it appears to be more distant that that.

A bug on the lens??? Who is claiming that but you? I see several folks discussing a FLYING bug, even some examples. Why did you deliberately misrepresent what was said? Another ridiculous 'elimination', and your use of a strawman is on show for all to see.

So what's left?

Well, quite aside from the points I made above, there's your rather glaring omission of the wind-blown plastic bag.. Did you just miss that one, or simply decide you'd rather not bring it up?

I think the origin of the septic information is now very clear indeed...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you look closely at this picture, you can see where she might have gotten a second picture of the UFO as it moved off in the distance. This one was posted on ATS but not yet on here.

Image2anomoly.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{double post removed}

Edited by Chrlzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is the raw image as it came out of the camera.

THAT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL RAW FILE - it even says so on the page linked. It's a reduced and post-processed JPEG.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg your pardon? Even over at ATS, respondents have correctly pointed out that it is almost trivially easy to fake exif or add to a picture without trace. It is ONLY in very precise circumstances and with the ability to forensically examine the original media (which no-one at ATS has done in any transparent fashion) that such fakery can be ruled out. Your 'elimination' is based on a complete lack of knowledge.

I think the origin of the septic information is now very clear indeed...

No, you have not eliminated anything because you can supply no proof at all that the picture is fake, or that it is anything other that what is shown on the original image in the camera, which I have posted here and you did not. I think that little "omission" eliminates you completely.

You also didn't mention that she may have gotten a second image of the UFO. Why didn't you tell them about that?

Maybe you like this picture, though. LOL

ufobird.jpg

Another example of Septic Skepticism to add to the list--a VERY long list indeed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THAT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL RAW FILE - it even says so on the page linked. It's a reduced and post-processed JPEG.

No? Then why does he say this?

"Thanks to Mark Allin from abovetopsecret.com for emailing me the raw file of this. I've only used some minimum level adjustment, and a very slight color adjustment to bring out details of the object. Other than that, the image is untouched, exactly as it came out of the photographer's camera. I'm posting it here so that I can link to it from the discussion board at abovetopsecret.com

Go directly to their website (linked above) for the full story."

I can read that just as well as you can. Are you saying that he's lying? Prove it.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3493131501524&set=a.1495118552449.60100.1668648446&type=1&theater

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 things this comes down to.

1. UFO some type of craft ethier ET or one of ours(doubtful)

2. Blue Plastic Bag (Why the white light ? or eluminating light ? )

3. Fake Picture.( everything is pointing towards it being real, but you never know! )

So we have 3 options left and we need to narrow it down to 1, c'mon guys almost their!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you have not eliminated anything because you can supply no proof at all that the picture is fake, or that it is anything other that what is shown on the original image in the camera, which I have posted here and you did not. I think that little "omission" eliminates you completely.

You also didn't mention that she may have gotten a second image of the UFO. Why didn't you tell them about that?

Maybe you like this picture, though. LOL

ufobird.jpg

Another example of Septic Skepticism to add to the list--a VERY long list indeed.

You seem a bit upset that some people might actually be trying to figure out what this thing was. As long as they're saying it's aliens then it's ok right? Of course. Your anti-skeptic rhetoric and white knuckle grip on the ETH is only allowing you to see black and white. It's never so simple as that..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem a bit upset that some people might actually be trying to figure out what this thing was. As long as they're saying it's aliens then it's ok right? Of course. Your anti-skeptic rhetoric and white knuckle grip on the ETH is only allowing you to see black and white. It's never so simple as that..

My dear Slave, I was asked specifically to respond to certain questions and I have. You guys just keep underestimating me, evidently forgetting about my background. I am not so easy to roll as all that.

So now I am just "white-knuckled" for actually answering the questions that the Septic Skeptics DEMANDED that I answer. LOL

I just posted that picture of the "bird" because I found it particularly laughable under the circumstances, but all in all you should thank me for posting information that the "skeptics" just omitted for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I am not "white-knuckled" at all, but just sitting here eating potato chips and having a hell of a good time. I will have to go soon, though, and tend to some other business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seen this comment thought it may add to the disscusion:

This photo is unique. Im an architect student and I know a thing or two about perspectives. If you look closely you can see that the camera is angled down towards the animals. If it is a fake then the camera should be angled up above the horizontal line, but its not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is what the UFO looks like with some of the haze removed.

closeupxs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here someone played around with the image a little to get a different perspective.

tg506a7f14.gif

fm506b39b0.jpg

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

nz5064bd0a.jpg

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paranoia is an amazing thing. You are so filled with vitriolic anti-skepticism McG that it is verging on disturbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is deffinatly something fishy about this white light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was initially quite interested in this pic until I read the immortal line "One and a half hour later... This is when we first noticed there was something in the sky" basically meaning "it wasn't until after we looked back at the photo that we say it" which always makes me immediately sceptic. How could one not notice that? Fair enough she's looking into a camera screen but what of her husband driving?

Anyway it reminds me a lot of those banshee things from the Halo games. From the front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

nz5064bd0a.jpg

Hey McG,

this photo must have been taken 5 seconds (or maybe 10 or 15, if there were other photos in between).....before the UFO photo.

You can see the lump of rock in the distance in this photo, in the original photo with the UFO they are close to that rock.

I see the anomoly in the above picture that may well be the 'ufo' captured in the second picture.....I think this would have to rule out bug :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was initially quite interested in this pic until I read the immortal line "One and a half hour later... This is when we first noticed there was something in the sky" basically meaning "it wasn't until after we looked back at the photo that we say it" which always makes me immediately sceptic. How could one not notice that? Fair enough she's looking into a camera screen but what of her husband driving?

Anyway it reminds me a lot of those banshee things from the Halo games. From the front.

The fact that they we're both either looking at the goats and her husband was also or concentrating on the road, and if this is a craft then it could have been going so fast you wouldn't have spotted it with the human eye also add to that their was no sound then it could easily have been missed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paranoia is an amazing thing. You are so filled with vitriolic anti-skepticism McG that it is verging on disturbing.

And if I didn't answer the questions put to me, you'd say that I was just ducking and avoiding the issue.

It's heads you win, tails I lose, but I refuse to play that game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That streak on the right side...vapor trail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey McG,

this photo must have been taken 5 seconds (or maybe 10 or 15, if there were other photos in between).....before the UFO photo.

You can see the lump of rock in the distance in this photo, in the original photo with the UFO they are close to that rock.

I see the anomoly in the above picture that may well be the 'ufo' captured in the second picture.....I think this would have to rule out bug :)

Not a bug, balloon or bird, although it resembles none of those in any case, but I can see why the Septic Skeptics "forgot" to mention the possibility of a second picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you upload pictures onto here from my computer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.