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

The reality of this is much like a robber breaking into a store and a person takes a photo as evidence. All data can be altered so are we not to believe any data or testimony presented? It can be proved wrong but it can't be proved true. All the witnesses also can also be lying but can you prove they are not? The robber would like you as his defense witness!

You're being ridiculous! If I told you I took a picture of a tree, you would probably say "so what". If I told you I took a picture of Bigfoot, you would probably want to examine the picture (unaltered) to try to discern what was in the shot. It comes down to degree of probability....UFO's and cryptids require more scrutiny!

If this is true about Canon I would say the word needs to get out to serious people in gathering edvidence!

Point is with UFO's no witness testimony is taken serious even from astronauts, common people et al. then if there is any edvidence its is thrown out because is could be altered.

Maybe UFOs should be taken to the courts to establish the truth of the UFO occurrences LOL

At least then we would focusing on what each UFO really is instead of trying to defeat anything that is presented as evidence just like the case of a robber!

It's called the "Canon DVK-E2 Data Verification Kit".

http://www.bhphotovi...cation_Kit.html

What we really need is a downed UFO in the public's hands. Until then all we will have is back and forth bickering.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that ufo was there when the photo was taken. The pixelation of the ufo and the goats head are identical.

Here's a couple of blowups:

goatshead.png

1000ufo.png

Edited by synchronomy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're being ridiculous! If I told you I took a picture of a tree, you would probably say "so what". If I told you I took a picture of Bigfoot, you would probably want to examine the picture (unaltered) to try to discern what was in the shot. It comes down to degree of probability....UFO's and cryptids require more scrutiny!

It's called the "Canon DVK-E2 Data Verification Kit".

http://www.bhphotovi...cation_Kit.html

What we really need is a downed UFO in the public's hands. Until then all we will have is back and forth bickering.....

I agree with on this. Thank you for the link :)

It shouldn't be ignored that if you eliminate the probable the answer lies in the improbable no matter how impossible it seems.

Create several scenarios when researching , when it's fake toss it aside. If it might be real research to discover what it is as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that ufo was there when the photo was taken. The pixelation of the ufo and the goats head are identical.

Here's a couple of blowups:

*Snip*

Even if the photo is unaltered, it still doesn't explain what it is.....just that something was between the sensor and the view of the lens.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it still doesn't explain what it is.....

It's a UFO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the photo is unaltered, it still doesn't explain what it is.....just that something was between the sensor and the view of the lens.....

That's what I said:

"Seems to me that ufo was there when the photo was taken"

There's not enough detail, even in the blowup to determine what it is. It appears to be a highly irregular shape. There's no symmetry at all. There appears to be two "arms" sticking out to the right.

My conclusion is simply that this photo is inconclusive.

I think it's pointless arguing about it when it's impossible to even get a detailed shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? He said this:

Without the ability to travel to the location and do specific measurements of stationary objects to compare with focal lengths and other triangulation points,
I cannot determine the distance of the object
.
However, it's level of atmospheric haze indicates to me it is of some distance away and of substantial size (perhaps even the legendary 40ft diameter is not out of the question)

What does that mean exactly?

If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious.

You invariably have a snappy little comeback no matter what, but once again you "forgot" to mention everything he said:

"Overall, the object does exhibit atmospheric haze one would expect to see in a solid object of some distance away - note the existing weather and atmospheric effects in the rest of the photo. The UO appears for all intent and purposes to this examiner as highly reflective, and "chrome-like", as it appears to be reflecting it's surrounding environment. However, the darkest areas are effected by atmospheric haze which soften this "chromic" effect. While the reflective quality seems quite prominent, it would be even more so without the hazing environmental effects of distance."

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

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

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a UFO.

No *#&%!

That's what I said:

"Seems to me that ufo was there when the photo was taken"

There's not enough detail, even in the blowup to determine what it is. It appears to be a highly irregular shape. There's no symmetry at all. There appears to be two "arms" sticking out to the right.

My conclusion is simply that this photo is inconclusive.

I think it's pointless arguing about it when it's impossible to even get a detailed shape.

Agreed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the photo is unaltered, it still doesn't explain what it is.....just that something was between the sensor and the view of the lens.....

I can easily explain what it is NOT, but even if I were to say it was an ET spaceship obviously I wouldn't know where or when it was from.

I think the two pictures show a flying object of unusual appearance moving at very high speed and a considerable difference from the camera. What more could I say about it unless it come in for a landing or we communicated with it?

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's pointless arguing about it when it's impossible to even get a detailed shape.

It has a shape, albeit a very peculiar one, but we've seen all we're ever likely to see in these pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You invariably have a snappy little comeback no matter what, but once again you "forgot" to mention everything he said:

*Snip*

You still haven't said why this mans word should be taken as absolute proof!

He may be correct or......not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still haven't said why this mans word should be taken as absolute proof!

He may be correct or......not.

Well then disprove him. Who's stopping you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, even if I thought it was ET, who is to say that it came from way out in space or somewhere much closer?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can easily explain what it is NOT, but even if I were to say it was an ET spaceship obviously I wouldn't know where or when it was from.

I can easily explain that it is not a flying Elephant.....but not that it isn't a bug or a plastic bag of some sort....

I think the two pictures show a flying object of unusual appearance moving at very high speed and a considerable difference from the camera. What more could I say about it unless it come in for a landing or we communicated with it?

What you think and what you know are two entirely different things. I certainly couldn't say with absolute certainty that it was moving at high speed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then disprove him. Who's stopping you?

The onus is on you to prove him correct!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, even if I thought it was ET, who is to say that it came from way out in space or somewhere much closer?

It is over water. It could have just flown out. USO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No *#&%!

Are you saying it's not a UFO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The onus is on you to prove him correct!

No, no, no, no, you have that 100% wrong. If you think he's incorrect or unreliable, as you have said many times, then it's up to YOU to prove those assertions. You have not. You haven't even posted a singe link to anything, and I'm getting tired of doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying it's not a UFO?

Not at all.....just that it's something unidentified/unidentifiable. Everything else is just conjecture...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly a UFO, we just need to decide on if it's coming from space, or underwater and who or what is piloting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all.....just that it's something unidentified/unidentifiable. Everything else is just conjecture...

Its clearly not a plastic bag or bug, no one can explain it so that means wolla its a 'UFO'.

The person who has provided the analysis states the object was some distance from the shooter so this rules out those two possabilitys, we can't be 100% sure he is correct but I would love for you to prove him wrong and provide your plastic bag theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no, no, you have that 100% wrong. If you think he's incorrect or unreliable, as you have said many times, then it's up to YOU to prove those assertions. You have not. You haven't even posted a singe link to anything, and I'm getting tired of doing it.

Wrong again! This man's credibility can certainly be questioned.......especially when I haven't a clue as to who he is other than his own word. Do you believe everything you see posted on the internet? If so, I got a story for you....

You claim this mans word as absolute proof by his word alone. Prove he is correct.....you're the one making the claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly a UFO, we just need to decide on if it's coming from space, or underwater and who or what is piloting it.

No, it's not certain....at least not in the way you're thinking. Can you say with absolute certainty that it's not a plastic bag.....or an insect? If so, how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all.....just that it's something unidentified/unidentifiable. Everything else is just conjecture...

Ok...you need to know this.

UFO means Unidentified Flying Object, and that's exactly what this is.

You are confusing it with ETV which is Extraterrestrial Vehicle.

UFO does not automatically mean it's of extraterrestrial origin.

Some UFO's could be ETV's.

Any object flying through the air that you cannot identify is a UFO.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's not certain....at least not in the way you're thinking. Can you say with absolute certainty that it's not a plastic bag.....or an insect? If so, how?

Like the Mac said its up to YOU to provide evidence of this bag theory, the analysis has already been provided for the other side by more than one person and I have seen anything to suggest you're theory?

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.