Chile: An Alleged Non-Human Pic?

All i can say is that the photos in the original link (Here) have been produced using a photo package. Now i'm not saying the original picture was, but why do some websites have it in color and some in black and white. Also, there is what appears to be a negative of the photo (also on the link above), but if this is the picture negative its self or some thing done on a photo package i can't say, i'm no expert!!

MRQ-- Where did you get the photo of my sister? Glad you got her good side......

This is what I noted.. maybe it could a homage to the famous picks of bigfoot from the 60's(wasn't it?) Which look like a 6'6 body builder in a gorilla costume.

jeeze why the hell do pictures never work on ats anymore?

Edited to try and fix WOS

[Edited on 5/27/2004 by earthtone]

[Edited on 5/27/2004 by earthtone]

[Edited on 5-31-2004 by William One Sac]

Looking at the picture and having worked with Photoshop for a couple of years, its looks fake to me.

If you look at the pic of the officer on horseback with his back to the viewer, to his right on the other side of the tree is what looks like a copy of him, perhaps using the clone tool or some cutting and pasting. The branches of the trees also look somewhat suspicious, almost like they were cloned in as well.

Looking at it closer, its interesting to note the creature just happens to be crossing with both officer's having their back to it. Something about the how smooth the creatures outlines are compared to the relative sharpness of the officer's or the trees strikes me as odd too.

Overall, I think its just an above average Photoshop fake of a pic that had too much digital zood, threw in a creature, and was liberally doused with blurring filters. But I could always be wrong.

Originally posted by zakk
Looking at the picture and having worked with Photoshop for a couple of years, its looks fake to me.

If you look at the pic of the officer on horseback with his back to the viewer, to his right on the other side of the tree is what looks like a copy of him, perhaps using the clone tool or some cutting and pasting. The branches of the trees also look somewhat suspicious, almost like they were cloned in as well.

I agree, also if I'm not mistaken that rider on the right is about to smack his head on a branch. Another thing look closely at the leaves in the upper right hand corner, very odd...

Earthtone I'm with you, the stride is exactly the same, if you compare pictures its almost the exact pose.

Im definately not an expert, but from what i can remember of Bigfoot video analysis, the Size of the creature and length of its limbs determine its stride, so If this thing is only a few feet tall, why is it walking(or striding) like it was a bigfoot.

I don't know of what to say about this pic for it could be anything except human

At this point in my life I just assume that anything that looks good HAS to be a fake...

But, as a mental exercise, let's just see what you would need to fake this (i think most of the above posters said they thought it hadn't been photoshopped):

1.Two horses
2.Police-issue riding equipment
3.Police issue uniforms
4.Two male models
5.Models of varying ages in the background
6.An actual 'model' of an alien
7.The ability to close-off a section of a major park

Now... all those things can be done with a little cash...

But if you're going to pull a prank you want it to be as private as possible. Someone, while you're at the park, is bound to see you setting up a model, posing your people, etc, etc... and people are going to NOTICE that your centerpiece is a model of an alien (or creature, whatever you want to call it). People REMEMBER when they see weird stuff like that. Sure... they might not tell their friends about it right away... but when it starts to circulate on the net they'll remember seeing the phot shoot.

So -- if you're not doing this prank via photoshop -- you have a relatively expensive prank that, at best, is going to be 'believed' for a day or two at most.

I imagine that a 3rd man could have run between the two mounted officers and dropped the alien prop there... but doing so would almost certainly get the attention of the cops.

In the end, I think that this guy *probably* took a photo of a little kid who was wearing a large hood. When the photo came out in poor shape the guy jumped the gun and thought the 5 year old was an 'alien' or creature.

I have to say, though, that I give the guy credit, if this is a deliberate fake, for making an interesting alien. It's much more intriguing than that cardboard thing from the Netherlands...

Originally posted by Bluecollar
Earthtone I'm with you, the stride is exactly the same, if you compare pictures its almost the exact pose.

Hey bluecollar. It is the same! It's funny huh? That certainly isn't the way a small, shortlegged creature would walk, or maybe it would.

Fake! Why? 1 - It's blurry... 2 - It is quite easy to get that effect in Adobe Photoshop (and other programs)... I think it is in the effect browser and it's called "wind blast" or something to that effect. It also looks like a couple other effects were used as well.

I get annoyed at fakes like this... I don't even know why people are questioning if it is real... I'm not impressed, it isn't even a very good fake. It sucks. It is a waste of time but a study on how fast something can move across the internet.


[Edited on 28-5-2004 by tacitblue]

I wonder what ~~TacticBlue~~ THINKS of the Alien Poultry pic?

I am gunna GUESS........FAKE!

Sorry everyone, I would love to say that they had a real picture, just as much as I would like to say that the pic was "blurry". The fact is, using that kodak camera and the light settings, (It is early in the day with a slight overcast; I know this, because A: the streetlights are not on, and B: there are no shadows).

My daughter has a $20 wal-mart digital camera that would do much better in those conditions... as a matter of fact, you couldn't ask for better conditions. Which leads us to one possibility, it was faked and what better way to fake it and leave out details that to say that it was "blurred".

Which leads us to ask; how can we tell it was blurred? Well other than the fact that they were in perfect photo lighting and using superior equipment, I guess the best way would be to show an artificial blur... Below I have included two pictures, the first I took from CNN the second I added an artificial blur and the "creature". The artificial blur was to make the creature blend in better.

Hopefully everyone will notice that the in the supposed photo, everything is blurred except the "creature", the "creature is simply out of focus, which proves that this image is a fake.








____________________________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS

This is my personal opinion. First how can Kodak DX6490 lose so much focus? Zoom? Perhaps but not with optical even if its 10x, digital perhaps but not optical. I have photographed many many pictures with Optical zoom up to 30x (Photo sniper) with Zenith russian conventional camera;s and i have never lost focus so much.
I assume that this is not a video clip from this:

The author of the photo explains the white spot as well as how the street lights began to turn on in sequence .

then obviusly image is cropped (320x240) hm what a precise crop why exactly 320x240?

This is the reason why the photo shows motion (those knowledegable about photography will know the reason why)Furthermore, the Carabineros were som 20 meters distant, and I employed the camera's optical zoom (10x) which added to the blurred result.

Oh yes i would love to see that "why the photo shows motion" weird i have never experienced that not with conventional nor digital camera (except when you move it intentionaly).

Oh yeah, in case there was a doubt; our photographer tries to act like an expert by saying

It was a cloudy day and the sun was hidden, for which reason my digital camera ( Kodak DX6490) adjusted to low speed (1/10 seg.).

the sun being hidden tells us nothing, my cannon will sometimes run as high as 1/5000 of a second when the sun is hid, it is called diffuse lighting, which is EXACTLY what you want when you are taking a picture.

Also the photographer claims that his camera adjusted to a low speed 1/10 seg. I am assuming that seg. means segunda or second. Again a problem because the flash will automatically switch on at anything less than 1/30 of a second. If he didn't use the flash the autofocus would not work in light dimmer than 1/30th without flash.


Going by what they say it was MAy 10 2004 and the time was 17:40 or 5:40 p.m. A full 14 minutes before sunset. (Info taking from here. ) Anyone knowing anything about photography knows that minutes after the sun SETS the light is bright enough to run at least 1/250th a second unless there is a major storm front. So we need to know the weather. According to Weather underground there was no percipitation and the visibility was 7.0 miles / 10.0 kilometers. In other words there would be plenty of light... another shocking disprover was the windspeed. At 5:40 p.m. the windspeed was approximately 29.9 mph. At that speed if the people were actually "Blurred" then the leaves that are in the road would appear as streaks or lines on the picture. Even if there was a calm spell there would be a great concentration of leaves on one side of the road or the other depending on which way the wind was blowing.


____________________________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS

You sure know lot of photography so what did you just say simplified means that the picture is intentionaly blured right

Hehehe... studied it for years... and still studying to be honest with ya.

Yeah, simply stated, they blurred it on purpose.

____________________________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS

Ok if the blurryness was from a low speed camera shutter then the various things in the pics would be blurred different amounts. ie stuff that was moving faster would be blurred more. This is not the case in the picture as it seems to be a uniformed blur (like a photoshop filter).
Also on close inspection of the picture you can see the 'non-human' is of a different quality to the rest of the image. More pixely, and almost transparrent.
Also there is a larg blob of one colour around the image of the 'non-human' which suggests photoshop 'airbrushing.'
The other police man on the right of the pic is not an issue, there would be no point what-so-ever of using the clone tool in that area. Also the images do not match in angle.
And is it just me of does the guy on the horse look like he's gonna' fall over, his horse look tilted too much.

Regards,
Ash.

I'll upload pics of what I mean tomorrow, am too busy at the moment.

This is the reason why I started this thread. Because of the discussions here about the photo being fake or not. But apparantly not much people want to find out if we can take a real picture and after critical observation, label it a fake...

C'MON people!!! This is so we can find out, if the critical looking at every single part of a picture and then concluding it to be a fake routine, is valid or not.



[Edited on 30-5-2004 by TheBandit795]

I don't know anything about photo shop or how to alter pics like that, but I have worked with horses before. Horses that are used by Police are trained to ignore every day items and noises that they would come across while working with the police. But, when introduced to something new, like a freaking alien, they would definitely have had a much greater reaction than to just keep trotting along. Even if the thing wasn't in thier direct path of vision, they have such a keen sense of what is around them that they would have been triggered into a frantic state. I've had a horse almost have a heart attack when a blue plastic bag blew in fron of him and he's been a riding horse for 8 years.

i'd like to see a pick a few seconds later to see if the horses had that reaction.