Scan of 35mm picture (UFO) I took at lake Almanor in CA

a reply to: bwillie

One question and one suggestion:

- Can you scan it with a higher resolution, so the details appear bigger?

- I suggest you save the image as PNG instead of JPG, that way we will not have JPEG artefacts messing the image even more.

a reply to: bwillie

Where was this?

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: bwillie

One question and one suggestion:

- Can you scan it with a higher resolution, so the details appear bigger?

- I suggest you save the image as PNG instead of JPG, that way we will not have JPEG artefacts messing the image even more.

I scanned it at 2400dpi. Suppose it looses that in conversion. I'll try it again and see where I can put a 50 mb pic at online.

originally posted by: prevenge
a reply to: bwillie

Where was this?

Lake Almanor, sierra mountains.

a reply to: bwillie

NASA calls those photographic "artifacts", don't they?

a reply to: opethPA

Thanks OpethPA, I amn going to try a rescan and post someplace in a few minutes. May use another scanner as well.
I'm on Ubuntu and have not used linux to scan much. MS and Apple puters are down with bad drives.

a reply to: carewemust

or ice crystals...lol.

a reply to: DupontDeux

Imperfections maybe. Damages... I don't think so because the reason I kept the photo around from the get go was that whatever that is is soo obvious. There was no damage at that point. But I also could not zoom in and look more in depth at it.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

LOL.
I shall try and remember your ironic sense of humor.

It reminds me of an 18 wheeler tractor trailer on a bridge lol. My imagination

originally posted by: bwillie
I scanned it at 2400dpi. Suppose it looses that in conversion.

If a 35 mm photo is scanned at 2400 DPI it will become (if my calculations are right) a 3300 pixels image, and what you posted is only 1600 pixels wide.

I'll try it again and see where I can put a 50 mb pic at online.

You can try a file hosting instead of an image hosting service, I'm sure something like Google or Microsoft have one of those. You can also try Mega.nz.

Or you can crop just that part of the photo and post it. Please don't forget to save it as PNG instead of JPEG.

Kewl thanks. What is the mb limit for cropping and posting on ATS?

a reply to: bwillie

The obvious UFO in the photo was not what I was seeing with my eyes at the time.

Sorry but there is no obvious UFO in that pic.

Sometimes you even get telepathically threatened or they try to convince you that what you saw was something innocuous.

So its not UFOs but intelligent beings flying a cloaked craft you are saying is in that pic?

Sorry but there is no obvious UFO in that pic.

Yes but there is, otherwise others, as well as myself, wouldn't have spotted the cigar[ish] shaped anomaly, just the right of centre and just above the clouds. I don't get it with people like you, why not just use the prefix of "in my opinion" instead of stating what you believe as fact.

If you have an opinion on what the supposed object may, or may not be, then why not give it?

To me, it looks vaguely rocket-shaped with an intense white area to the rear and possible some kind of trail. On the other hand, it could be damage to the paper's coating. Whatever, it's a nice, vintage photo.

originally posted by: bwillie
a reply to: DupontDeux

Imperfections maybe. Damages... I don't think so because the reason I kept the photo around from the get go was that whatever that is is soo obvious. There was no damage at that point. But I also could not zoom in and look more in depth at it.

It does look like possibly damage. You scanned the print or the negative? It looks like a scan of the print. If you still have the negative I'd suggest examining it with a magnifying glass or jeweler's eyepiece to look for scratches or damage on the negative. Scratches can be identified on a negative because often you'll see a shiny reflection on the negative everywhere but where the scratch or other damage is, so you can angle it toward a light source to look at that reflection and see how smooth it is.

a reply to: fromtheskydown

I don't get it with people like you, why not just use the prefix of "in my opinion" instead of stating what you believe as fact.

You don't get that you just misinterpreted something?

Seeing as I posted it its my opinion, why should I say my opinion is my opinion.

No where did i say its a fact that there no obvious UFO. But thinking of it now, it is not a obvious UFO but simply an anomaly on a scan of a photo. so yes my opinion can be taken as fact


let me break it down for you

1st point:

we are asked to look at a picture, so everyone's response will be their observational opinion of what is in the photo, their opinion of the quality, etc ,etc.

its opinions that people are posting.

are you going to reply to every post with the same nonsense because everyone didn't specifically say its their opinion.


2ND.

seeing as the OP was talking about telepathic communications warning them which leads me to be confident that UFO to them means intelligence of some sort that can telepathically communicate.

My curiosity takes over when posters make such suggestions and questions arise.

If you have an opinion on what the supposed object may, or may not be, then why not give it?

a dot on a photo.

It could be a bird just in the right position not too far from camera with a cloud far off in the distance just aligned perfectly at the time of taking the pic and having a tiny portion of the cloud lit by the sun giving the impression its a rocket plume or something there abouts.

IT could be simply damage on either photo itself or negative.

I am curious and grateful for any input!

Cheers

New scan. Think it can be seen from this one that it's not damage on the photo. But who knows.

Load load load...

imageshack.com...

imageshack.com...

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I was observing orbs moving about when I decided to take the photos.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

This specific photo did not include any telepathic warnings. I was refering to others. Which I am working on getting up here.