strange creature photographed at Argentina Airport

Photoshopped. I've seen a lot of these "blurry unknown creatures" lately. Could you indeed be producing them?

Edit: By the way a blogspot page is not considered a credible source by any means. You probably own this blogspot for all we know.

[edit on 12/14/08 by Yoda411]

ummm yea if you dont know much about photoshop you might not want to make claims, im pretty sure it wasnt photoshopped from my opinion, im not a expert but i am pretty familiar and alot of other people who sound like they know about photoshop also dont believe its photoshopped

now the question is what it is

a bug seems to be the best bet, now i think the only way to go from there is to figure out what type of insect species is in the area the photo was taken and do some comparisons

but the wasp seems to be the best bet so far

but i think its important things are taken for what they are

it may not be a alien photo but that doesnt mean its a fake photo

and i think if we ever are going to find a alien photo people need to learn to know what they are talking about before they talk about it

i mean its helpful when someone shouts photoshopped on a photoshopped, but when its really a real image, we need to be able to figure out what the image is and prove that is the case, not just scream its fake and dismiss it

If I had to theorize as to what this "creature" is, I would say a Mud-wasp. Those dangling legs are quite characteristic of such an insect, as is the color.

Originally posted by Yoda411
Photoshopped. I've seen a lot of these "blurry unknown creatures" lately. Could you indeed be producing them?

Edit: By the way a blogspot page is not considered a credible source by any means. You probably own this blogspot for all we know.

[edit on 12/14/08 by Yoda411]

I've seen a lot of these "blurry unknown creatures" lately.

You have ? where ?

and NO i didn't produce or create this photo...

and NO i don't own the Blogspot...

reply to post by Allred5923


The legs do look more like a frog than anything else at first glance. The dark area in the center of it does resemble more like a small bird or a hawk. I wonder about the frogs or toads in this area that might resemble this color.

Otherwise, it's quite possibly a frog or toad that's caught an insect in flight? How far is this picture taken from the gound?

edit:
After looking again, and the thought of an insect, there does also appear to be a thin front set of legs directly in front of the others. An insect would have more of a transparent color. The distortion representing it being closer, but not so close that it blocks the lens and is still somewhat visible.

I wonder if there's any sites that show close-ups of insects such as this.

What about locusts and grasshoppers?

[edit on 15-12-2008 by aleon1018]

wow this is interesting...it kinda looks like a duck with dinosaur wings! its hard to tell if it is superimposed or not....
maybe a dinosaur ghost? i dunno..

With the part of the world this picture is supposed to take place I think it almost looks like a bat with a dog like head. Since the picture is not clear and in very good focus all we can do is speculate. I wouldn't say the thing is alien but more like a possible undiscovered species. Either that or it is a poorly perpetrated hoax. I say poorly perpetrated because it really does not come close to convincing without a doubt it's supposed authenticity.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by NorthEastTexan37]

It could also be a bird flying towards the camera, which would account for even more distortions.



Also gave some consideration to the "Birds of Paradise" family as well.

There are more than three-dozen species in the family Paradisaeidae, more commonly known as the birds of paradise.

Type: Bird
Diet: Varies by species
Average lifespan in the wild: Varies by species and habitat
Size: 4.75 to 39 in (12 to 100 cm)
Weight: Varies by species
Size relative to a 6-ft (2-m) man:
Birds of paradise are found in New Guinea and surrounding islands. The manucodes and riflebirds species also dwell in Australia. Birds of paradise are so attractive that their appearance once made them the target of skin hunters, who decimated some species.

animals.nationalgeographic.com...

Now, I realize the locality description bases these birds in New Guinea and Australia, but as of lately, I have been seeing birds, namely Geese and other North American types flying rather chaotically rather than their normal migrations.

Here's a map of Argentina:

Argentina is situated in southeast South America. It shares its northern border with Bolivia and Paraguay; its eastern border with Brazil and Uruguay; the west and part of the south with Chile, and the south and most of the east with the Atlantic Ocean.

It also could be a species of aquatic long legged birds that are also indigenous to Argentina as well, the picture in question is "Severely" blurry, none the less.

These are Herons and their family species that are indigenous to Argentina.

FAMILIA Nombre Español English Name Scientif. Link
ARDEIDAE Hocó Colorado Rufescent Tiger-Heron Tigrisoma lineatum link
Mirasol Chico Stripe-backed Bittern Ixobrychus involucris link
Chiflón Whislting Heron Syrigma sibilatrix link
Garza Bruja Black-crowned Night-Heron Nicticorax nicticorax link
Garza Mora Cocoi [or White-necked] Heron Ardea coccoi link
Garza Azul Little Bule Heron Egretta caerulea link
Garza Blanca Great Egret Ardea [Casmerodius] alba link
Garcita Blanca Snowy Egret Egretta thula link
Garcita Bueyera Cattle Egret Bubulcus [Ardea] ibis link
Garcita Azulada Striated Heron Butorides striatus link

www.fotosaves.com.ar...


As you can see, "I am pretty stuck on the 'It's a Bird' theory!!!"LOL

reply to post by easynow


Pretty obvious that it is a bird of some kind.

Regular visitor, first time poster. Just to say I googled 'very strange insect' and this vid was at the top: uk.youtube.com...

It's either a monkey or one of those things from Star Wars.

It's a cricket. "...carnivorous mammal..." genius, thanks expert!

seamouse

Originally posted by easynow

Originally posted by Yoda411
Photoshopped. I've seen a lot of these "blurry unknown creatures" lately. Could you indeed be producing them?

Edit: By the way a blogspot page is not considered a credible source by any means. You probably own this blogspot for all we know.

[edit on 12/14/08 by Yoda411]

I've seen a lot of these "blurry unknown creatures" lately.

You have ? where ?

and NO i didn't produce or create this photo...

and NO i don't own the Blogspot...

On ATS jokester. Did you think I meant in real life? I'm not going blind quite yet.

To the person asking if I'm a photoshop expert: Yes, and I could easily reproduce this image.

reply to post by tcujie




Isn't that Howard the Duck, from the cartoons? Looks to be wearing a superhero costume of some sort...

Then again...?

To the person asking if I'm a photoshop expert: Yes, and I could easily reproduce this image.

But why would you produce an image like this in the first place? If this is a Photoshop job, it's the first one I've ever seen that shows an almost completely ambiguous image. People that perpetrate hoaxes generally create images that look like something specific, even if what they're supposed to represent is from urban folklore or 'the unexplained'. It would be a total waste of time to create something that looks more like something mundane than anything else.

If I created this image in Photoshop with the intention of bamboozling people into thinking it was something anomalous, I'd be entirely disappointed with the assessments being expressed on this thread.

If you really are a PS expert, you'll be able to point out how this pic has been digitally manipulated. Just saying "Photoshopped" carries no weight at all. This is a real photograph of an event that actually happened in the third-dimensional plain that you and I live in. There is NO EVIDENCE of it having been digitally manipulated AT ALL. Period. It is almost certainly NOT an 'alien entity', the 'Jersey Devil' or Howard the duck either, just something that is hard to identify in the pic.

Plus - your inferring that this is a hoax that Easynow is responsible for is not only rude, but ridiculously misguided.

[edit to add: ]


[edit on 12/16/2008 by Teratoma]

Originally posted by Nohup
Since there's apparently no more evidence than this photo of this blurry thing. I would have to say it's useless and pointless to even bother with.

I agree! How come the photographer didn't take any more pics of this 'alien creature'? Just one? If I was in his place, I would have kept clicking till the cows came home or till it disappeared from view. Heck! Here's something strange, possibly an alien creature and this guy is satisfied with just one blurry pic??

Something smells fishy, what?

Cheers!

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by Nohup
Since there's apparently no more evidence than this photo of this blurry thing. I would have to say it's useless and pointless to even bother with.

I agree! How come the photographer didn't take any more pics of this 'alien creature'? Just one? If I was in his place, I would have kept clicking till the cows came home or till it disappeared from view. Heck! Here's something strange, possibly an alien creature and this guy is satisfied with just one blurry pic??

Something smells fishy, what?

Cheers!

In the original article here:

ceufo.blogspot.com...

It says that the photographer was not aware of the object hence no extra frantic shots.

Originally posted by Jinni
In the original article here:
ceufo.blogspot.com...
It says that the photographer was not aware of the object hence no extra frantic shots.

So this get's more smelly, right? The darn thing covers the entire frame and he didn't know? Ah yes! That thingy was invisible to the naked eye. Caught by the camera lens only, as it was beyond the visible spectrum! (Now where did I hear this before?). Oh yeah - Ghosts!

Heck! The sky and Earth must then be full of these funny creatures! And the tragedy is we can't see them with the naked eye! Or is all this just hokus pokus? I feel so!

Cheers!

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by Jinni
In the original article here:
ceufo.blogspot.com...
It says that the photographer was not aware of the object hence no extra frantic shots.

So this get's more smelly, right? The darn thing covers the entire frame and he didn't know? Ah yes! That thingy was invisible to the naked eye. Caught by the camera lens only, as it was beyond the visible spectrum! (Now where did I hear this before?). Oh yeah - Ghosts!

Heck! The sky and Earth must then be full of these funny creatures! And the tragedy is we can't see them with the naked eye! Or is all this just hokus pokus? I feel so!

Cheers!

Calm down.

Given the following:

+ The photographer did not notice the animal
+ The animal is hghly blured and it is way in front of the focus point of the plane
+ The animal is transparent also indicating that the focus point is way in front of the plane.

I am certain that the photograph is of an insect close to the camera lens when the photo was taken.

The reason why there is more definition in the animal (given it is so close to the camera) is because of the high shutter speed.

I doubt the photorapher is intentionally trying to hoax more like he doesn't know what it is and is genuinely asking questions to find out.

I don't know WHAT insect it is but it certainly way in front of the focus point and it is very small.

Case closed.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by Jinni]

Originally posted by mikesingh
...The darn thing covers the entire frame and he didn't know?

I'm disappointed, Mr. Singh! Your work is usually more thorough than this!*



If this person is really a 'photographer' (as opposed to just a guy taking pics with a camera), he probably used the highest quality settings, which I believe for this camera produces a picture 2100X1500 pixels. So depending on your screen resolution setting, this pic below is roughly 3 to 4 times bigger than it would be in print. So the little object is really taking up less than one square inch of the pic, not the entire frame. We know that most cameras take pics in the proportions of 4:3. Not square -I doubt this camera is any different.



(I estimate that this pic hasn't been enlarged and is presented in its original resolution. The jpeg compression artifacts stand out more due to the fact that the color saturation has been brought up, but I believe this is cropped straight from the original. I too would like to see the whole pic, as well as others he took that day - even if they just show the airport.

So, from what little data we do have, I am guessing that this little guy is a wasp. I dunno how big the little buggers can get down there, but I'll venture to say that if he has a wingspan of as much as two inches, he is roughly about 18 inches away from the camera lens.

Here he is in Teratoma-Vision:







**I'm familiar with your extensive Martian and Lunar anomoly research.


[edit - tags]


[edit on 12/17/2008 by Teratoma]