My Pseudo Experiment: Ufo or not

I've taken a few pictures of the moon over the years.
So, what was your point here?

The pictures I just added, well To be honest I dont know.

Some how they come across as photoshopped but I am no photo analysis expert. I have seen similar pictures to this one. Or atleast pictures with similar anomalies.

Those types of anomalies always make me think of crazy straws. Remember those?

the photo it self is very blurry due to what I assume is movement, yet the anomaly shows up clear as day. Does that mean anything?

If im not mistaken it could mean that the light source appears the way it does in the photo only because the camera is moving.

Im not sure im somewhat on the fence about it.

As to the Pics I provided in the Op, a couple of you were wondering about the efix date. I will tell you that while im not quite sure that is the EXACT date, I do believe it was taken around that date.

Though I can't prove it either way, I'd say it's probably a reflection on a window from a household light or it's a prosaic light source such as a star, street lamp, torch or satellite etc...

It's almost impossible to call it a 'UFO' under the terms you've stipulated. To be honest, I was hoping for something that could be debated more such as a 'physical', metallic object taken at daytime. This is a little disappointing.

IRM

Originally posted by RuneSpider
I've taken a few pictures of the moon over the years.
So, what was your point here?

Well the point of this excercise has been explained a few times now

One more thing, Do you think you could answer the rest of my questions?

I asked essentialy what do you think it is? Why do you think it is that? How did you come to that conclusion ETC...

You can apply those question to either set of photos I have posted. I posted more you know. They are pics reported to mufon

I am in a good mood so I wont make you go through the whole thread again, even though the point is stated multiple times.

The point was that there are lots of hoaxes presented here on ATS. THe point is that if we can learn to identify objects in a picture more accuratley and more quickly we may be able to catch on to hoaxes even quicker.

The point is to get people to think of all types of logical explanations for the seemingly illogical.

The point at the same time, was also fun.

I hope you understand the point now my friend

[edit on 17-11-2008 by gimme_some_truth]

Cool! Thanks for the new pics. Here's my take:

1) This shot is heavily overexposed. Without having seen the other pictures, this looks like Venus to me, or some other star, or even a plane. Remember that the average camera will change its exposure time depending on the amount of light it is receiving; at night-time, there is less light, so the exposure increases. You can see more evidence of this by noticing how fuzzy the trees look. In other words, whatever the light source is, it's not actually string-shaped but rather a single point, which drew a stringy line across the film because nobody can hold a camera perfectly still. Therefore I see no reason to think of it as anything other than a star. (again, this was before seeing the next two)

2 & 3) If we are to assume these two pictures are of the same object that the first picture is (and I'd say that's a fair enough assumption), then clearly the object is changing its location across the horizon, so I guess a star must be ruled out. But still, a plane could easily create this image.

The fact that the pictures show the object is moving lends a tiny amount of support to the photographer's UFO claim. However, I wouldn't consider any of these pictures to be strong evidence of a UFO as opposed to, say, a plane or even a meteor.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan


It's almost impossible to call it a 'UFO' under the terms you've stipulated. To be honest, I was hoping for something that could be debated more such as a 'physical', metallic object taken at daytime. This is a little disappointing.

IRM

That is fair enough. Lets drop my guidelines. Each one of you use your own guildlines to determine what you think it is or isnt.

As for the pictures used. I do apologise as it seems they have been found dissapointing by quite a few people. I used them simply because they were the only pics I had taken by myself that would be even remotley possible for use in this thread.

I have posted two other pics that I didnt take if you would like to have a look at those.

Basically the pics are moot & the OP is having a conversation with himself.



*yawn*

C-BuZz

Originally posted by C-BuZz
Basically the pics are moot & the OP is having a conversation with himself.

*yawn*

C-BuZz

Your suggesting I am the only one in this thread? I am talking to myself? Your suggesting I created a bunch of accounts and have been talking to myself? You make no sense.

As for having a conversation with ones self. I checked out the threads you made. Out of the total 22 replies to all of your threads you are responsible for 11 of those replies.... You have no room to talk.

I garuntee if you figure out my how many total replies to all my threads there are and figured out how many replies were mine, At least 90 % would be from other people. 50% of replies to your threads are from yourself. You have no room to judge.

Seriously though I can participate in anythread I want as much as I want. If you dont like it, tough, Dont read the thread, Makes no difference to me.

Do you have anything legitmate and on topic to add to the thread or are you just trolling?

I sure hope you arent because that is a bannable offense.

If you have anything real to add then feel free otherwise, no one is forcing you to participate.

If you dont like the thread then dont click on it. There is no requirment to post in anythread at all here on ATS. Many people have found this thread interesting enough to post REAL posts. If you dont there is no reason to bash it. There is no reason to bash any thread for that matter.

For the sake of ATS and not derailing thread. Please dont troll. It only detracts from this site as a whole.

Is there anything you would like to add to this thread that is on topic and isnt trolling?

As for the pics, there is more than one set that has been posted. You apparently havent looked at the thread close enough to see them. Perhaps if you had done that before making a snap judgment you may have a different opinion in future threads.

That said, I can see you are still fairly new and perhaps you arent aware of the T&C of ATS.

You have already violated a couple rules of the T&C.

1f.) Relevant Content: You will not post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums nor disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

I am only telling you this out of respect for you because I dont want to see you get in trouble or get banned by the mods.

Here is a link to all of the T&C. I suggest you go over them to protect yourself.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now back on topic.


To everyone who has participated and to all who are going to participate, About ALL of the pics. not just the ones in the OP. What do you think of them?

Ufo? Not ufo? Identifiable? Is there a logical explanation? Is there not? Speak up.


[edit on 17-11-2008 by gimme_some_truth]

I think this is a great idea, as there's potentially a lot to learn from a convincing but acknowledged hoax, especially different objects in different conditions. I'd humbly suggest such a resource should even be pinned for future reference. "Here are tell-tale signs of CGI" and so on.

However, I confidently predict a conversation along the following lines:
- "It's a spaceship!"
- "No, it's a salad bowl I threw up in the air."
- "It's definitely a spaceship!"
- "Trust me, I took the photo. Salad bowl."
(long pause)
- "We only have the OP's word it's a salad bowl! Disinfo!"

I mean, there were those two Blair Witch-style movies of aliens in sweaters abducting a family. Even a link to the filmmaker's website isn't enough to stop people speculating he might have been forced to lie about the truth behind his films.

OK let's play along, try guessing what it is. Not the Moon, there are some angles that would be unnatural... not a balloon, too bright... Maybe a reflection on a window of a garden light.

a) I dont even know what trolling means.
b) Why even bother making so called "known" hoax pictures? You only need to look at the zillion other pictures/movies out there & %99.9999 of them are hoaxes so I dont really see the point of this thread.
c) Your replies are way to long & I couldnt be bothered reading the rest...

C-BuZz

Originally posted by OuttaHere
It's the moon - and you have a somewhat wide angle lens or have a zoom lens at a wide angle setting, which is why the moon appears so small. It is not a full moon, which is why it is not perfectly round.

Images 1 and 2.
I'd also plump for the Moon. It appears to be three-quarter gibbous and grossly over-exposed. Because of the small lens, no detail will be forthcoming, no matter how much you zoom it or process it. But it's only what you'd expect from most standard cameras. Whether it's the Moon or not is academic really. Any camera with a focal length of 50mm or less will give you the Moon about this size. Basically, any lens system below 200mm focal length is a waste of time for imaging small objects. And the Moon is quite a small object in photography terms. A 'typical' YouTube UFO is miniscule. This is particularly true of 'lights' in the night sky. Only when a properly mounted telephoto lens of 500mm or more is used, will anything of real value be captured. That's why almost 100% of YouTube photos/videos are without any scientific value. They may excite the masses, but most experts will be uninterested.

As a footnote, I wondered when the thread would develop into a slanging match. Pity we can't even get to a single page of discussion without it deteriorating into mush. It appears to be a characteristic of this forum and it's not good.

WG3

Originally posted by C-BuZz
a) I dont even know what trolling means.
b) Why even bother making so called "known" hoax pictures? You only need to look at the zillion other pictures/movies out there & %99.9999 of them are hoaxes so I dont really see the point of this thread.
c) Your replies are way to long & I couldnt be bothered reading the rest...

C-BuZz

a)Ive said many times now the point of this thread. Everyone else gets it. If you are unable to understand what is going on around you that is your problem and no one elses.

B) Why bother making the pictures? See a.

c) your replies are way off topic and are trolling. I have provided you a link to the T&C. ( it even explains trolling)IF you cant be bothered to read the threads on ATS or to follow the rules of ATS, you will not last long on ATS.

Once again an attempt at deraling and trolling my thread, and once again I put it back on track.

Back on topic. Both sets of pictures, What are they? What arent they? WHy or why not?


[edit on 17-11-2008 by gimme_some_truth]

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


Good thread - this should separate the analytical thinkers from the crack pots.

Data that we considered:
1*Low res digital camera - $30 cheapo lacks high resolution 12Megapixel or higher capabilities, will distort image, cannot capture enough detail to be useful, computer algorithms on digital cameras will also add information that does not exist. (current personal experience / knowledge of 5years in IT service and repair)
2*Dark scene - when using low res digital camera will distort the image greatly. Infra Red filter was not used which would have enhanced the image quality e.g. would have shown stars in the background.
3*No depth scale - unable to determine how close the object actually is to the camera or actual size of object.
4*Static image (non-moving) - unable to determine if object is moving.
5*Light haze around object - appears reflected not emitted.
6*No discernible 3d shape - due to low res image and distortions.
7*No distinctive vehicle shape (windows, ports, etc) - due to low res image and distortions.
8*No additional information given by OP - time when taken, time elapsed between images, prevailing meteorological conditions, lighting conditions (use of flash)etc.

Conclusions:
Possible picture of the moon - no compelling information to jump to the assumption of an alien space craft(UFO).
Could also possibly be a helicopter but not enough information can be garnished from the images provided.

Reason:
Occams razor - the moon is big, reflective, hangs in sky like a brick doesn't, would show up distorted on a low res digital camera, and finally nothing shown in images to discount the moon first off.

Submitted by Optyk Phyba from VLi

to the OP, both photos look like my attempt to photograph the moon


img.photobucket.com...

the picture is quite quite quiiiite large if you want to click it, it should take you to the large image

[edit on 11/18/2008 by teflon_superhero]

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Well the point of this excercise has been explained a few times now

One more thing, Do you think you could answer the rest of my questions?

I asked essentialy what do you think it is? Why do you think it is that? How did you come to that conclusion ETC...

You can apply those question to either set of photos I have posted. I posted more you know. They are pics reported to mufon

I am in a good mood so I wont make you go through the whole thread again, even though the point is stated multiple times.

The point was that there are lots of hoaxes presented here on ATS. THe point is that if we can learn to identify objects in a picture more accuratley and more quickly we may be able to catch on to hoaxes even quicker.

The point is to get people to think of all types of logical explanations for the seemingly illogical.

The point at the same time, was also fun.

I hope you understand the point now my friend

[edit on 17-11-2008 by gimme_some_truth]

Well, unfortunatley I think I can declare this thread dead. I think the initial idea for this thread was a good one, but I guess people werent all that in to it? Or mabye it is the way I presented the OP?

I dont know. Either way, seeing how this thread is dead I guess I will just go ahead and end it.

The two pics in the OP were infact the moon. they were taken with a little 30 dollar digital camera that doesnt have a zoom feature.

Well, the idea was show that there is usually a logical explanations for the seemingly unexplainable. I guess no one was that into it so I am ending it now.