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

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.

do you know if any of the other pictures have been posted anywhere? there may be some good clues in those that may help..

Also safe to rule out the flying beetle (car) that was posted as I cannot make out any number plate :w00t:

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 :)

What makes you think they are the same object Q?

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.

No, it isn't that at all.

You can choose to respond to the questions, opinions, and hypothetical explanations that people ask, express, or present without all of the nastiness. The contempt in your words oozes off the screen with such a vile hatred that it is downright disturbing to behold. When you turn that viscousness on people it is such an aggressive expression of absolutely hostile loathing that I wonder if you ever find any joy in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think they are the same object Q?

I never actually said its the same object, I said it may well be and this has to be a distinct possibility dont you think? two photos in quick succession showing a possible dark object in nearly the same bit of clear sky...

No, it isn't that at all.

You can choose to respond to the questions, opinions, and hypothetical explanations that people ask, express, or present without all of the nastiness. The contempt in your words oozes off the screen with such a vile hatred that it is downright disturbing to behold. When you turn that viscousness on people it is such an aggressive expression of absolutely hostile loathing that I wonder if you ever find any joy in life.

them potato chips sounded nice :yes:

guys lets focus on the object :gun:

Edited by quillius
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

yes thats from the jets scrambled to get to the UFO.... :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....&type=1

Do you even know what a camera raw file is? I shoot with a Canon SLR and the raw files it produces are ".CR2" files. Once you save it as a .jpg file, it is no longer a raw file! Converting a raw file to a .jpg file strips away a lot of information. Not to mention the fact that he "used some minimum level adjustment, and a very slight color adjustment to bring out details of the object." Every camera brand has their own raw file extension (some more than one for earlier/later models).

So, if someone was going to try to shove a raw file my way, I would expect a file to download with the raw extension, not a .jpg. Do you have access to the original raw file? If not the shot you posted means nothing!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never actually said its the same object, I said it may well be and this has to be a distinct possibility dont you think? two photos in quick succession showing a possible dark object in nearly the same bit of clear sky...

Sure, I consider it possible, but more likely that it is just another bug or something else entirely. There have to be tons of bugs in the air on a day like that. You're bound to pick some of them up on film as little blurs like these.

When you said "I think this would have to rule out bug :)" it led me to think that your stance was that this other blurry something in the distance must be the same object.

Thanks for clarifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you know if any of the other pictures have been posted anywhere? there may be some good clues in those that may help..

Also safe to rule out the flying beetle (car) that was posted as I cannot make out any number plate :w00t:

There was a discussion about all of it on ATS that went up to 48 pages.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread886584/pg47#pid15087598

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If not the shot you posted means nothing!

That has got to be one of the most truly ridiculous comments I have ever read on any website.

As I said, the people who posted it stated that it was the original picture from the camera, so if you can prove otherwise then do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you said "I think this would have to rule out bug :)" it led me to think that your stance was that this other blurry something in the distance must be the same object.

Thanks for clarifying.

Oh yes, now we have ANOTHER bug, a different bug, a new and improved bug! LOL

There's always another bug when you need one.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has got to be one of the most truly ridiculous comments I have ever read on any website.

As I said, the people who posted it stated that it was the original picture from the camera, so if you can prove otherwise then do so.

Forgive me for butting in, but the following portion of what you posted means that it isn't the original picture.

"I've only used some minimum level adjustment, and a very slight color adjustment to bring out details of the object."

Any adjustment at all makes it not the original picture.

Or am I missing something here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, now we have ANOTHER bug, a different bug, a new and improved bug! LOL

There's always another bug when you need one.

Are you going to say that a setting like that in the photo wouldn't have any bugs? You're joking right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ET really keeps it's machine clean, wow look at that shine. I wonder what kind of wax they use?

One speculation of mine in some sightings is that is has something to do with a electro magnetic type system of some sort and that some metal in the field becomes a liquid, some sort of mercury which is liquid and shiny... just a thought....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has got to be one of the most truly ridiculous comments I have ever read on any website.

As I said, the people who posted it stated that it was the original picture from the camera, so if you can prove otherwise then do so.

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you going to say that a setting like that in the photo wouldn't have any bugs? You're joking right?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I consider it possible, but more likely that it is just another bug or something else entirely. There have to be tons of bugs in the air on a day like that. You're bound to pick some of them up on film as little blurs like these.

When you said "I think this would have to rule out bug :)" it led me to think that your stance was that this other blurry something in the distance must be the same object.

Thanks for clarifying.

Its clearly no bug and what would this something else entierly be ? a bag ?

Just face it no one can explain it, it could just be a blur of paint that someone has added to the photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread886584/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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crashing?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.