Old UFO pictures from the web found in a backup

Hi!
As I said in the title, I just found them in a backup from 2004. I have been looking for these for a while.
I have no idea where they come from, apart that I grabbed them from the web. If I remember, the story was they could come from a russian satellite...
Anyway, while the quality is poor, I want to believe that they are not a fake. I like the one "retouched" one, showing "anomalies" on the disk, and around it.
And suspiciously, they are hard to find...
Here they are:

a reply to: lovizall

A reverse image search shows that they are purportedly images of a Chinese neutron bomb test, but I am rather sceptical, given that they only seem to appear on one site on the whole internet.

uts.cc.utexas.edu...

Let's take as read for the moment that the photographs are real, in the sense that they actually came ffrom the source described.

I should very much like to know what the second, retouched photo has had done to it. It's clear to me that it's more than just a colour inversion op. Looks like the contrast was played with too.

Now, in either cases, we're having some interesting things going on...

1. The topmost photo (herein the presumptive original) shows a darken field around, or possibly beneath, the craft. If this is the craft's shadow, as you would expect, it is expressed in the wrong direction compared to shadows on the ground. I am not aware of any other effect that could create that sort of "dark halo" appearance in reality.
   
2. There is an outside possibility that the exposure time of the original photo was insufficiently short to capture a good, clear impression of the object-of-interest as suggested by the blur toward the bottom of the photo.
   
3. This blurring effect is not consistent with a similar blurring effect in the retouched photo, in terms of both shape, transparency, and direction.

My conjecture, then, is that this is possibly an artifact of the photography process at play, and I'm not sure the retouched photograph holds any merit whatever.

The only other thing I can think of is an explosion.

a reply to: Rob48

How is this done?

originally posted by: FreshKale
a reply to: Rob48

How is this done?

A reverse image search? You can do it on Google. Right click the image, choose "copy image URL".

Then go to images.google.com and click the little camera icon at the right of the search bar ("search by image").

Then paste in the URL. (You can also copy and paste an image directly in this way.)

a reply to: Rob48

Cheers. Hopefully that will save me looking silly in the future.

The original article seems to originate from WorldNetDaily, which isn't high on my list of trusted news sites.

The author seems to have been active up until 2000 and has written lots and lots of articles about Boy Scouts and paedophiles.

www.wnd.com...

I would have thought that if this were genuine then it would have received a bit more coverage.

Looking at the photo again I am pretty sure it is fake. If that is meant to be a fireball, why are the sides of the buildings facing towards it in shadow?



Looks more like a hole melted through a negative, or something, rather than anything physically in that scene.

originally posted by: Rob48
...Looking at the photo again I am pretty sure it is fake. If that is meant to be a fireball, why are the sides of the buildings facing towards it in shadow?

Rob --
You may be right, but it may also be a matter of perspective.

If this were an airburst of a nuclear bomb test, we don't know how high up the fireball/airburst actually is. Without knowing the altitude of the fireball relative to the ground and relative to the camera, that could cause some peculiarities in perspective.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Rob48
...Looking at the photo again I am pretty sure it is fake. If that is meant to be a fireball, why are the sides of the buildings facing towards it in shadow?

Rob --
You may be right, but it may also be a matter of perspective.

If this were an airburst of a nuclear bomb test, we don't know how high up the fireball/airburst actually is. Without knowing the altitude of the fireball relative to the ground and relative to the camera, that could cause some peculiarities in perspective.

Yes, I did consider that, but it still seems to me that there should be some kind of evidence on the ground of the light from an explosion that bright. I suppose if it was a satellite view with an extremely long lens then the fireball could be a very long way from the buildings, but I'm still struggling to see how the shadows could align like that.

a reply to: Rob48

Well, every threes in the pictures have their shadows going in one direction. If the light was above, there would be a difference in the shadows, but there is none.

I think you have the right idea with a hole punched in the negative, with heat or chems.

It actually looks like a cigarette burn on a negative to me. That would explain the edges and the darkened area.....only reason I think this is because I have seen a cigarette burn on a negative before and it is very similar to this.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: lovizall

A reverse image search shows that they are purportedly images of a Chinese neutron bomb test, but I am rather sceptical, given that they only seem to appear on one site on the whole internet.

uts.cc.utexas.edu...

Its also on this site as a neutron bomb
www.thelivingmoon.com...

a reply to: Rob48

I certainly hope that China has not tested a neutron bomb, they were outlawed by agreement between the soviet union and nato as early as the 1960's despite what you may have heard about them supposedly only being invented in the 1970's by a scientist, a civilian scientist.
The US had some Neutron test and may have already had several of the weapons while russia is not known to have had any at that time.
Now what is a neutron bomb, well you know how during the fission neutron's are released and cause cascade fission, well in a neutron bomb they hardly cause anything other than neutron emission and some radio emission and the kinetic yield is very low when compared to a normal fission device.
At close range organic material is liguified by the high energy neutron's as the long chain molecules succumb to neutron bombardment which breaks there electron bond's and can also shatter some more stable atomic nuclei (the latter at extremely close range), they do not have the same destructive footprint as a normal fission device but as they leave low residual radiation and depopulate an area of human beings and animals leaving most of the infrastructure and building's intact (Unless you are under 6 meters of wet soil or behind very thick lead walls) they are classified as anti personel weapons of first strike purpose and developing or posessing them is in contravention of non proliferation treatis.
They are illegal under international mandate and China should have been held accountable and subject to serious sanctions if they developed what can only be used to kill people and depopulate ready for recolonization of the area of strike, especially considering there use of racial selection in Tibet and other regions where they settle HAN and sterilize the native people.

It may be a Neutron bomb but since like the rest of you I have never seen one detonated and indeed hope to never see one detonated I have no idea.

a reply to: Rob48

Jesus Ch--- they tested one of those things?! I thought they were banned from being produced under global mandate or something.. They are particularly nasty IIRC.

Just saw LABTECH767's post.. thanks for filling in the details!

All right then!
Many thanks for your toughts. In a way, it make more sense when viewing the images upside down, like in uts.cc.ut
link.

A star for the reverse image search trick!

Lov