Very interesting case i found online with photo and convincing story

originally posted by: Choice777
IT'S ON TOP of that hill, far far away in the distance.
Get it ? IT@S HUGE.

Actually it does nop appear that far away at all, it looks closer than the high voltage pylon.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
As far as placement, it looks reasonable to me as if i took the picture i would want to include as much of the surroundings for context as possible.
What is the weird flaw in the middle?

It's almost certainly a vehicle with it's lights on as a small road runs round the rear of the power station on a hill.




And here's another shot of the same craft made today from somewhere within about a quarter mile or so of the original.



Can anyone spot the difference?

originally posted by: mirageman
Can anyone spot the difference?

What difference? The Google watermark?

originally posted by: Choice777
- THE thing i wanted you guys to have like a sort of eureka moment if you saw picture, read, saw it again is: The object does belong in the picture after you read the story. IT'S ON TOP of that hill, far far away in the distance.
Get it ? IT@S HUGE. Look at the zise of that hill, it looks like it's car a car, road/s, other contructions, that hill is quite a decent size hill.

It doesn't look "HUGE" or even big, as it doesn't even look like it was part of the scene, the light looks wrong, the blur looks wrong and the photo looks like it was taken closer to the power plant than the road.

-The blur might be the electric haze he talks about.

No, it looks more like the UFO was resampled.

-once you understand that the object is supposed to be over that distant hill, you get a sense of scale and i can understand why someone would freak out and not be able to take a photo from underneath...some people freze, some panic, some are just pussies...he did finally take a photo.

That's one of the problems with the story and the photo, they don't match, the object in the photo doesn't appear to be big (or even there).

originally posted by: Choice777
This is not a digital photo.

It looks like a digital photo.

It's probably an old style film camera, thats why the guy managed to shoot it while driving and it didnt come out blurry.

No, a photo taken with an old style camera would look the same, light behaves the same regardless of the how it is captured, on film or on a sensor.

originally posted by: Pinke
I'd have to check but it doesn't appear to be the usual aspect ratios? Too lazy to measure.

The photo is 1024 x 768, a common size and aspect ratio for digital photos.

a reply to: ArMaP

That little masterpiece took me a good 15 minutes or so to create.

And my feeling is that the original did as well.

Opening the photo in a hex editor (XVI32), this is can be seen.

(click for full size)

This is the output from exiftool:

---- ExifTool ----
ExifTool Version Number : 9.55
---- System ----
File Name : 7352_submitter_file1__Trawsfynydd.jpg
Directory : C:/Users/ArMaP/Downloads
File Size : 78 kB
File Modification Date/Time : 2015:04:08 20:10:16+01:00
File Access Date/Time : 2015:04:08 20:10:14+01:00
File Creation Date/Time : 2015:04:08 20:10:16+01:00
File Permissions : rw-rw-rw-
---- File ----
File Type : JPEG
MIME Type : image/jpeg
Image Width : 1024
Image Height : 768
Encoding Process : Progressive DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample : 8
Color Components : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
---- JFIF ----
JFIF Version : 1.02
Resolution Unit : None
X Resolution : 100
Y Resolution : 100
---- Ducky ----
Quality : 60%
---- Adobe ----
DCT Encode Version : 100
APP14 Flags 0 : [14], Encoded with Blend=1 downsampling
APP14 Flags 1 : (none)
Color Transform : YCbCr
---- Composite ----
Image Size : 1024x768

We can see by the areas marked in yellow on the right side of the image above ("Ducky" and "Adobe") and by the result from exiftool that this image was saved by Photoshop (the Adobe tag) using the "Save for web" option (the Ducky tag).

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Pinke
I'd have to check but it doesn't appear to be the usual aspect ratios? Too lazy to measure.

The photo is 1024 x 768, a common size and aspect ratio for digital photos.

Didn't care to check after noticing it was fake ArChamp.

I vaguely remember a time when enough persons on ATS knew enough of these things that it didn't always require screenshots, but frankly I probably having a happy fuzzy memory. Oh well.

Danke for the screenshot adding etc ...

a reply to: ArMaP

Yes I agree. There are abberations in the photo that lend to the credence of an edit.

Good photo. Bad editing.

So, if the original was photographic paper, then the scanned image would probably be transferred once or twice, and then wound up in Photoshop for brightness and contrast (given, nothing else). The EXIF shows that so just to be fair, not uncommon for a scanned image.

a reply to: charlyv

There are other issues such as lighting and composition not matching the story etc ...

By all means, believe in it, but I personally am not going to extend that charity to this image.

Edit: and if that was the case, why delete the Photoshop app data from the property sheet?

a reply to: blackmetalmist

But if the ufo was in motion like they say then wouldn't the object be expected to blur? The guy also said he has a negative of the photo so maybe if we see that then there would be something really cool here.

originally posted by: Pinke
a reply to: charlyv

There are other issues such as lighting and composition not matching the story etc ...

By all means, believe in it, but I personally am not going to extend that charity to this image.

Edit: and if that was the case, why delete the Photoshop app data from the property sheet?

I don't believe it, but just putting that scenario into perspective. Actually, I do not think photographic evidence is viable at all with the current state of technology. Just a piece of something extraterrestrial will do.

My two cents, it looks pretty much like an alien ship, although it resembles a disc-shaped craft from this photo.

Not a flat type of disc like two pie-pans, but a fatter disc-shaped craft, like a child's top. But the witness saw it much better than we do, so if he says it was a cylinder I believe him, for what it's worth.

This photo might very well be genuine, I've seen ships up close, from the inside too, and I see nothing incompatible with a genuine alien craft. In fact, the blurry edge, the blue halo glow, lend substantial credence.

Funny how so many in here have already dismissed this photo, and most of them have never seen an alien ship to judge it against. And these are the same people who whine that there are no genuine photos.

Too bad they don't make UFOs out of irony.

I took a close look at the photo and to me the UFO looks shopped in. Here is a photo of what I am talking about. You can clearly see the pixels where disturbed when the UFO was added to the photo, it left a boarder of pixels that don't match. In this photo I point out the most obvious top line of pixels, show negative scale and then colored in all the pixels that do not belong in red.

i.imgur.com...

a reply to: defiythelie
That does not necessarily mean a sausage. The oval outline with pixels of a hue that are slightly different to the background sky could be caused by ionised or heated air surrounding the craft. It is not unambiguous evidence of CGI.

a reply to: micpsi

No I disagree. It demonstrates an edit that otherwise wouldnt occur by filtering a raw scan through an image processor for simply saturation or hue. The pixelation abberation exists only on the ufo and just outside of it.

The absalute original needs to be analyzed by an independent third party.

Till then it is an edit artifact.

Me think some people are just chicken sh1t scared of the posibility of us not being the smartest kids on the block...either that or sheer moronic stupidity...
I can photoshop a picture of an astronaut on the moon. I guess i proved the moon landings are fake....Right ?
I can take a paper photo of the astronaut on the moon, scan it, do some normal filtering, a bit of photoshoping his rinkled face here and there, wouldn't want him to look bad in Vogue.......i guess that will turn the original photo into a photoshoped edited faked image which again proves there's no astronaut on the moon... Right ?
Oh wait there's some strnge hue reflection going on here...imagine that ...must be fake.
Oh wait the aspect ratio is strange.....fake
Hmm....is that an odd bit in the hex ? Must be fake ...unless the whole planet runs on eec ram!

I'll try and hunt down the negative.

Edit: Also....the object is indeed huge, 1/4 mile in diam whatever IF one looks at the photo and just tryes to get past the haze around it..IF you look at the photo and for just 1 second force yourself to put the object over that distant hill, then it does get the proper size right. Again i can take a blurry photo of the moon and then claim it's just a speck on the lens.

Anyway..moving onto:

Case number 2) This mufon map is quite the gold mine.

This one is a soccer mom taking photos of the game and when she posts them on twatter she sees the object. Quite a good looking object...16mp photo, i'd guess a galaxy s5 maybe ? is that 16 mp i think ?

Photo
www.mufoncms.com...

Story
www.ufostalker.com...