This picture *IS* a hoax.

double post

[edit on 13-4-2010 by Metal Head]

reply to post by Metal Head


reply to post by SaturnFX


reply to post by _Del_


Good Job,
I applauded you all

Originally posted by Sauron
reply to post by Metal Head

 

reply to post by SaturnFX

 

reply to post by _Del_

 

Good Job,
I applauded you all

Wow thanks. Your applause means so much since I... hey. Wait a minute. Metal Head, SaturnFX, ME, then _Del_. Something is missing here.

Well I guess it is a good thing I am not in it for the glory but I am sure I was in your thoughts.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


hahaha sorry I missed you the first time I read it but, I fixed you up too.

reply to post by Sauron


Hey thanks a ton. I really did not expect anything since I was the third one to post it (and as Saturn pointed out mine was just a link and not the pic .) I just wanted to see my screen name in a positive light for a change, lol. I wish more threads had this sort of challenge in them. There are many arguments over "proven facts" that never seem to get backed up and you sure found a way to get people to scurry. Thanks for adding a little more fun to it.

Can we move this to hoax now?

Please?

-m0r

As was noted in the U2U. If there are any complaints, use the ATS Complaint / Suggestion form

Thank you for explaining: "this is not a hoax." Sauron gets 500 points, Saturn FX gets 500 points. Fair?

reply to post by DJW001


should of gave me some too....lol

I can't believe you guys turned this into a photo contest..but whatever...

I still think this photo is not a hoax since it was first put out there as just a computer rendering...just because it was turned into a hoax does not mean it was intended thaat way..

Originally posted by baddmove
I can't believe you guys turned this into a photo contest..but whatever...

I still think this photo is not a hoax since it was first put out there as just a computer rendering...just because it was turned into a hoax does not mean it was intended thaat way..

Well...was there something else about this photo that you wanted to discuss? I came in here for the reason I assume you intended the thread so lets go. What else would you like to say about it?

all good here..
second line

reply to post by K J Gunderson


yea..my point was that it was not a hoax..this picture was supposed to be a colaboration between 2 guys to try and figure out what this ship actually looked like..was'nt supposed to be a hoax...but the internet got a hold of it at changed all that..point being was..it was not to be a hoax...was just a rendering of a pic to let the guy know what he saw looked like that pic...don't know why he used the airforce pic to proove his point..kinda stupid if you ask me...

Originally posted by baddmove
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

yea..my point was that it was not a hoax..this picture was supposed to be a colaboration between 2 guys to try and figure out what this ship actually looked like..was'nt supposed to be a hoax...but the internet got a hold of it at changed all that..point being was..it was not to be a hoax...was just a rendering of a pic to let the guy know what he saw looked like that pic...don't know why he used the airforce pic to proove his point..kinda stupid if you ask me...

I get you. I completely see your point and I think I agree. It seems to have gotten mired down in the muck that is internet group logic and all.

Let me see if I understand.

The picture was made and released with full disclosure that it was a computer generated image. It was not intended to be an actual photograph at all but was full intended to be an artistic rendering of something?

Somehow someone got it online and said it was real.

Someone else found the original and said it must be a hoax then because it is not real.

You are trying to point out that it was not intended to be real- so it can be called a hoax - to begin with.

Am I right?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Yes..basically i am trying to find out why he would use the original AF photo to prove his point on said picture.. i wrote to Micheal Schratt to see if he will tell me why he did it this way instead of just using a blank page.. i hope he writes back..i will post what he says if he does..

reply to post by baddmove


Well then I agree that is seems misplaced in the Hoax bin but it seems to have been misunderstood. Perhaps if you trying having a calm conversation with a mod in private about it or something. If there is more information about this, especially the origins, I would like to get to see it.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by baddmove

 

Well then I agree that is seems misplaced in the Hoax bin but it seems to have been misunderstood. Perhaps if you trying having a calm conversation with a mod in private about it or something. If there is more information about this, especially the origins, I would like to get to see it.

I find myself agreeing as well KJ! I never knew the history behind this pic...I just figured some idiot made it and then once the real AF pic came out it was like... WTF! (*sigh*)

It may be hard to get the *hoax" tag off however, since the pic itself really is not authentic and was intentionally altered...but the pic was created for a very *valid* pourpose (I'd like to know more about that) before the internet came along and washed all of those intentions aside.

Edit: I would be very interested in learning more about the origin of this one.



[edit on 16-4-2010 by Wookiep]