Black Triangle UFOs and an Alleged Breakaway Civilization- Discuss

originally posted by: Jukiodone

Jukiodone makes an excellent point. The ONE piece of "physical" evidence A-to-tha-O provided were these pics.

Therefore, if the pics were to be properly analyzed then that's our best bet in determining if there's anything to this other than some fool-me-once members and yet another addition to ufo-mythology along with the likes of Dulce and Serpo.

Jukio also points out that the pics are pretty detailed and therefore should lend themselves rather well to analysis.

I've sent a pm to Springer asking if ATS will have the photos checked out.

To Jukiodone:

a reply to: The GUT

check page 78.

I was linked the color versions and posted the EXIF data that could be pulled.

WHo are they? they are humans except they live way longer. They dislike the way they experiment on us but have no choice in the matter because they still need what the powers that be have to offer.

a reply to: yuppa

Please go on.... can you tell me about the RK'ers?

originally posted by: ATODASO
screw this crap indeed. look around, man. have you noticed that there are people following this thread who appear to have had traumatic experiences that they have now had framed for them by this rotten story?

they don't seem to be having much fun.

Poignant.

I mentioned earlier that we've seen a few posts here where those believing the story expressed anxiety about being left behind and not escaping doom by shooting the stars with the RK's. I DESPISE hoaxes especially in ufology and especially on these boards. So, to whom it may concern, I'm not trying to rain on anyone's star trek daydream, but I wanna know what's going on here.

If A's pics hold up...maybe there's something here after all and I'll be the first to say mebbe I was wrong. In the meantime, yeah, I'm with you ATO: Harmless it ain't.

originally posted by: AnonyMason

I've also checked out the EXIF data:

EXIF tags in 'ah53b7226e.jpg' ('Motorola' byte order):
--------------------+----------------------------------------------------------
Tag |Value
--------------------+----------------------------------------------------------
Image Description |
Manufacturer |HTC
Model |HTC One X
Orientation |Top-left
X-Resolution |72
Y-Resolution |72
Resolution Unit |Inch
Software |
Date and Time |2013:03:07 00:21:10
Artist |
YCbCr Positioning |Centered
Copyright |[None] (Photographer) - [None] (Editor)
Compression |JPEG compression
Orientation |Unknown value 0
X-Resolution |72
Y-Resolution |72
Resolution Unit |Inch
YCbCr Positioning |Centered
Exposure Time |1/14 sec.
F-Number |f/2.0
Exposure Program |Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings |1250
Exif Version |Exif Version 2.2
Date and Time (Origi|2013:03:07 00:21:10
Date and Time (Digit|2013:03:07 00:21:10
Components Configura|Y Cb Cr -
Compressed Bits per | 4
Shutter Speed |0/0
Aperture |2.00 EV (f/2.0)
Brightness |0/0
Exposure Bias |0.00 EV
Maximum Aperture Val|1.51 EV (f/1.7)
Subject Distance |0.0 m
Metering Mode |Center-weighted average
Light Source |Unknown
Flash |Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length |4.8 mm
Subject Area |Within rectangle (width 61185, height 57090) around (x,y)
Maker Note |2041 bytes undefined data
User Comment |
FlashPixVersion |FlashPix Version 1.0
Color Space |sRGB
Pixel X Dimension |1840
Pixel Y Dimension |3264
Sensing Method |One-chip color area sensor
File Source |Internal error (unknown value 0)
Custom Rendered |Normal process
Exposure Mode |Auto exposure
White Balance |Manual white balance
Digital Zoom Ratio |3.81
Scene Capture Type |Standard
Sharpness |Soft
Image Unique ID |
Interoperability Ind|
Interoperability Ver|0110

The other image data from the second image was scrubbed. Pretty sweet pics, wherever they are from.

Yes. Color versions. Thanks AnonyMason. I guess you have the most "pristine" copies available for analysis then?

a reply to: The GUT

As far as I can tell the pics are very real. My assumtion based on the exif data is that wherever they originate from the person scrubbed any personally traceable data and left enough to prove they are real. It's a good security practice, something i have done with my own pics.... however none of mine are of top secret projects...

So while the data has been modified, in those versions the image doesn't seem to be. I also took the time to run them through a stego program and found nothing. Theres no other data associated with them.

a reply to: The GUT

Yup, that was a purpose of mine in restarting this... some resolution.

I've been driven to distraction by high tech sky machines that are certainly seen and the whats and whys of it most of my life... and if this seemingly decent answer is a hoax, well... back to square one... or two... and for people struggling with mental illness or actual abduction/intrusion it can certainly stir up ...emotions...

If you can get a decent analysis of said photos, then excellent... I'd love to know what the heck is going on, too!

a reply to: Baddogma

And if the picture is real, that suddenly makes the story true and gives people closure? All it proves is that the pictures are real, and that they're pictures of something flying. It doesn't give any evidence for what they are, who's flying them, where they're flying from or anything besides it's real. It's not going to answer any questions if it's real.

a reply to: AnonyMason

Good job.

However, if I understand correctly, the EXIF data will have to be deemed a "maybe" as it can be changed. That the data seems to have only been scrubbed of identifying markers might be a plus, or might be just a ploy to legitimize it.

The plus side is the detail of the photographs and what might be gleaned there as you of course know.

Hey, is there enough detail for some kind of triangulation that would indicate size/distance?

a reply to: The GUT

There is, but without knowing the exact location of the shot, you could never prove it scientifically. The reason the exact location would be needed is to reconstruct the circumstances. Without knowing that Focul length and camera model don't mean very much. There is some software used for photo analysis that may be able to estimate it based on the metadata, but they cost an arm and a leg and are proprietary.

And you're correct. Because the data has been modified it does fall into the "maybe" realm. My personal opinion is that the images are real, and the photographer took some basic security precautions for sharing them.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Baddogma

And if the picture is real, that suddenly makes the story true and gives people closure? All it proves is that the pictures are real, and that they're pictures of something flying. It doesn't give any evidence for what they are, who's flying them, where they're flying from or anything besides it's real. It's not going to answer any questions if it's real.

Nah, maybe you're too close to the subject to get the inference. For one, if they were deemed to be fake, or an RC craft, then we can pretty much put ol' A-0 and the whole sci-fi melodrama to bed. Another check mark for the hoax-busting record of ATS.

If, on the other hand, an analysis confirmed an object of some size remaining motionless and maybe filtered to show more detail, then we can give the whole 75/25 another look see and maybe a tip o' the hat.

We won't be any closer to quantum dream-suckers and Orion, you're right. But maybe closer to some closure if not resolution.

a reply to: The GUT

And you've already said that the pictures are in the MAYBE category because of the EXIF data. So even if they don't appear to be tampered with, since the EXIF data was altered, even if it was for security, that's going to be enough of an excuse to claim it's a hoax. There is no way to prove that any of it is not, short of one landing on someone's front yard at noon.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No, only that the exif isn't a reliable marker. There seems enough visual detail to--possibly--either support or falsify the pics. The different angles would be another point of interest to an analyst and in itself tell much. The particular streetlight might be identified as to country of origin.

Do the pics suggest any platform you are familiar with?

a reply to: The GUT

I disagree. The data thats been removed is pretty implicit of basic security. If you don't want personal information being leaked through the metadata you would modify it in the same way as this data was modified.

The data thats left behind leaves little room for doubt that the images are real. They only fall into the "maybe" realm strictly because some data has been removed. I wouldn't say they were hoaxed at all. I would say someone wanted to share them, and be safe while doing so.

a reply to: AnonyMason

Here is a link back to that post.

I am aware that we may be able to use the following information provided in another UFO thread, by an ATS mod , to pry information out of the available exif data.

[Edited to add] Such as the size of the object![edit]

originally posted by: elevenaugust
Camera used is a Canon Powershot S100, which is the successor to its wildly popular S90 and S95 high-end compact cameras.
Focal Length value is 5.2mm (35mm equivalent 26.3mm), with an hyper-focal distance of 1.42m.

Calculations of the angular size of the object could give us some good indications of possible sizes.

It can be calculated using the following formula:

alpha = arccos [(2*sqr(F)+sqr(PA)+sqr(PB)–sqr(AB)) / 2√[(sqr(F)+sqr(PA))((sqr(F)+sqr(PB))]]

With:
F=Focal Length value equivalent 35mm
PA=Measurement between the center of the photo and one extremity of the object, in mm (after conversion from the measurement in pixel to the real dimension in mm using the real size of the sensor)
PB=Measurement between the center of the photo and the other extremity of the object, in mm
AB=Measurement of the length of the object, in mm

It can also be done using a specialized software in a graphic way:

imageshack.us...

Then, for the object to be 1m (39.37 inches) away from the camera, it will have a length of 0.02943m (1.16 inch);
if it's 100m away (328ft), then it will have a size of 2.943m (9.66ft), etc....

Now the exif data for ***'s picture details ...

Focal Length |4.8 mm

I don't know what that equates to in 35mm focal length unfortunately.

And I assume that "'Motorola' byte order" implies that *** took the picture with a Motorola mobile phone, but I have no clues as to which specific model of phone they used to take the pictures.

I hope this helps!

a reply to: AnonyMason

I'm not disagreeing at all. Your theory is as valid as any, and even more than some, because you have actually done some forensics. I respect and applaud members that do that.

Just pointing out that a thorough and professional image analysis could possibly tell us much more than speculation about the exif.

a reply to: The GUT

My friend;

Haven't we discussed the devilish tactic of using real
'experimental aircraft' to perpetuate a hoax many times?

I personally have no interest whether that photo is a 'craft'
or not. If it is (and here i agree with Zaphod) that means
nothing; and if it is not that means only a very little..
but yes I agree with you that analyzing the photo
couldn't hurt.. might give us some more info.

I'm considering writing a post on this in terms of the
Trickster narrative. For human servants of tricksters
at least, the 'trickster phenomenon' is unreliable..
can't be called on to cause effects at will ---
and in fact leaves their 'high priests' high and dry
eventually; they go insane/die/stop posting,

So to counteract this 'flaw' these self-appointed
'high priests' to tricksters have to learn stage
magic, to keep their audience hypnotized and
their power intact.

So using a wand.. or an experimental aircraft
or some other schtick would actually be REQUIRED
to keep the melodrama moving along..

Now, I know that there are some sincere followers
of experimental/black aircraft who want nothing to
do with the OP OP narrative and just want to talk
about modern killing devices.. but unfortunately
in this case, a 'pure narrative' like that is now
hopelessly muddied.

So either:

1) Black aircraft are being used to perpetuate a new mythos.
2) A new, purposely failed mythos is being used to discredit
real black aircraft programs.

Or maybe just a few freak coincidences and a tall tale.

Kev

Lol! I got mental illness!

Sigh......
You people need to wake up to some things and fast. You seem rather more interested in keeping steady the graces of folks you'll never even meet or know in any significant way.

Oh and, his pics are real, but you dare not appear to have mental illness. Be good cattle and call them chinese laterns.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You're right, of course, but it would help a little wee eency bit.

For myself, it's really a tug of war ... this info is mind blowing, but there's that bit of my mind that tells me because of that, it must be false... yet the craft are there!

At the end, we'll likely file it under 'maybe' and wait for the day it all spills... either way... but dangit, it IS fun to talk about, isn't it?

And really, what if... maybe this is the answer to the big UFO question... dropped in our laps on this website after years of search, like a lottery. Put that way, it just seems too good to be true.. but it doesn't mean it isn't.

a reply to: ForeverMan

Manufacturer |HTC
Model |HTC One X

HTC One X spec sheet