[!HOAX!] Pic of UFO very close range. [!HOAX!]

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
I have played dumb, played ignorant over matters,

Am I misunderstanding your post or do you mean that you have been deceiving us?

Regarding exif data when you wrote: "OK how do I get that please. I will get it for you if you tell me how. thanks. I understand you are only trying to help, and I like to learn." you were fooling us because now you admit: "...EXIF data. Data which I can manipulate anytime and you would be none the wiser." which implies you are fully versed in exif data and its manipulation.

After reading the comments on this thread and other threads I can conclude that people are not ready to see "real" proof because they are too concerned with little things to which they have no idea of what they are talking about.

Seems that we don't measure up to your expected standards!

I have read many times on here that if you can see a UFO clearly then it must be a fake. The old "if its too good to be true" saying quickly dribbles out of their mouths.... I possess photos (many in number) that would fall into the old saying category and therefor are wasted on such sites as these...

Guess we're not going to see your "really good stuff" then! Still, at least we got to see the blobs!

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
So you are saying that can not possibly be a ship.

I said absolutely no such thing, and I do NOT appreciate people putting words into my mouth.

When you have something based on:
- reality
- things that people actually SAY
- something OTHER than your one-track-Tesla-solution-for-everything-that-ever-was

do come on back...

You accept the Tesla aircraft theory.
Heaven forbid.
Thanks for an answer to my wonderment of ship or not.
Very good work on the image as I appreciate the care in showing
the image.
Sorry if I think the close up supports my theory of ships of that nature.
Do take care.
Best.
ED: To sum up my focus.
A man saw a ufo ship.
He made a drawing.
The ship had fuzzy edges.
This OP photo has an object with blurry edges.
He saw a ship, perhaps we see a ship in the photo.

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
Does the general blurry blob [scenario] make any sense? That depends on what you call sense. You are now talking about how you think a possible Alien species might act. Which does not make any sense.

Ok, so you are saying that we can't assume what aliens would do or think. Remember this, because you then go on to say:

You can not go on to presume what an alien culture if one existed would do once here.

Read that back to yourself CAREFULLY. Do you notice YOUR presumption? You just assume they would come here, if they could. WHY? You said a minute a minute ago we can't guess at motives, yet you have blithely presumed they would be not only motivated to come here, but also motivated to *want* to leave their own planet/system, and motivated to furtively sneak around and just leave tantalising glimpses of themselves, and....

You can't have it both ways.

Again I am just speculating based on Zero fact.

Indeed. Which means you need better evidence than blurry blobs and absolutely no hint of intelligent or directed behavior.

But for you too sit there and think nothing like this would make sense shows me that as a human species we are limited by our thought and imagination.

Like 'THIS'? Like WHAT? A blurry blob. Again, you need to rethink this a little...

I came on to ATS to seek some form of knowledge that I may not possess. However this has been a fruitless exercise as of yet but I still hold very high hopes. I have played dumb, played ignorant over matters

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. You say you play dumb, which implies you are much smarter and are being deceptive. Or that you know something we don't, nyer nyer. That's a copout, and you know it.

We can not be so quick to judge what other present with so called "educated guessing" or such things as EXIF data.

And yet that is exactly what YOU are doing, according to these new remarks. Rather than look at the data logically and dispassionately, you seem to be wanting a particular result. Yet pink fairies are just as good an explanation as aliens, for that blurry blob. Indeed I could provide much more compelling evidence for the fairies.

Data which I can manipulate anytime and you would be none the wiser.

What?????

I'm afraid that comment was a terrible mistake. You want people to help you (despite all this knowledge you tell us you have), yet you brag that you know so much that you could, and would manipulate the data. Slight tactical error there...

I possess photos (many in number) that would fall into the old saying category and therefor are wasted on such sites as these for people

yeah. SURE you do. Just like you know how to fool us.

We are obviously not worthy of these images.

I used to work in Biochemistry. Our first rule of publication was "leave out the details that will baffle and confuse the "general" public, and present only quantifiable easily explainable facts or thereabouts".

yeah, SURE you did, professor. And yep, that's what 'they' said. I sooo believe you.

I am a non believer in so much as I do not believe what people say about thing that are not quite explainable.

That's hilarious!!! Thanks for the entertainment..

Goodbye.

The only reason I will be returning to your stuff is to quote you, so that others realise the tactics you are prepared to use.

reply to post by CHRLZ


The Actual UFO in the pic is THERE. Or the blurred blob as you call it. THAT object as I said in my thread "A UFO close up" is exactly what it is, a UFO, Unidentified Flying Object. I never misled you on that OBJECT. But your analysis is so poor.

You have misread my post and as per the type of person who has a limited field of understanding, have taken offense and are now feel wounded.

You photo analysis is poor as are your observational skills for such an experienced person. You have not even looked at the photo clearly enough or do not have the required knowledge enough to analyze it properly. Your "expert" opinion is little more than amateur at best. I was informed that you have some good knowledge of the photo process. You are the one who lacks any skills in the area of photography.

Your summary on page 6 (link below) is so far from being correct it did make me and others laugh a little. But then again it was nice to hear from a self taught "expert".

Charlz Summary

You can not go on to presume what an alien culture if one existed would do once here.

I did not presume anything in my post as you claim. I put the word IF in the sentence you mentioned and highlighted. How is anything there presumption by me. Its fact. You can not know what an Alien culture would do once here.

I want to see how people view things, analyze them and come to their judgments. I like to see how so called experts or people with supposed knowledge put it into practice. For comparing ones skill sets and knowledge it must be tested against those who have some interest in the same field.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


L1U2C3I4F5E6R.....

Your summary on page 6 (link below) is so far from being correct it did make me and others laugh a little. But then again it was nice to hear from a self taught "expert".

Would you be able to provide some expert commentary with a view to helping us to understand the deficits &/or mistakes to which you allude?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
Guys,

I have zoomed in really close. I hope that this proves its not photo shopped.

If anything it has a glow around it?

I zoomed in with photoshop, and it had a square pixelated box around it. Whatever method you used wasn't a great one

Originally posted by jessejamesxx

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
Guys,
I have zoomed in really close. I hope that this proves its not photo shopped.
If anything it has a glow around it?

I zoomed in with photoshop, and it had a square pixelated box around it. Whatever method you used wasn't a great one

Jessejamesxx.....

It appears you may not have reviewed the content of the thread in detail.

There is significant commentary therein pertaining to this issue that you may find interesting.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by jessejamesxx

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
Guys,

I have zoomed in really close. I hope that this proves its not photo shopped.

If anything it has a glow around it?

I zoomed in with photoshop, and it had a square pixelated box around it. Whatever method you used wasn't a great one

Ah but my methods was nothing to do with the UFO my friend. That is there in the photo as I have stated MANY times. Or are you challenging Mr Charlz data analysis and expertise

By the way, lucifer - may I have your permission to REPOST the U2U you just sent me?

As for me, I prefer conversations (and insults) to be PUBLIC, rather than hide like a miserable coward behind the anonymity of a pm - so I won't respond in that form. Why don't you repeat what you said on the forum?

But thanks for revelations about yourself. Like MMN, I now eagerly await your technical expertise to be SHOWN, rather than talked about. And to the 'others' you now claim to speak for, why do they not reveal themselves?

What a lot of bother about nothing?

It's a drop of water on the lens or a window in front of the lens. There are two other specks of moisture on the lens. Who ever shot this knows what it is.

No cut and paste, just a drop of water.

The buildings are already going out of focus and the focus of the camera was such that the object is far closer than the buildings are and its tiny. Could be a speck of crud on the lens but I think water drop refracting the color from below it.

This is like so many others we see here. A person discovers a speck on an old photo or a blur or speck they did not notice when they took the photo, then they speculate it's a UFO and before long, it becomes it was a UFO and that's what I was photographing.

The photographer should invest in an umbrella perhaps or clean their lens more often.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by jessejamesxx

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
Guys,
I have zoomed in really close. I hope that this proves its not photo shopped.
If anything it has a glow around it?

I zoomed in with photoshop, and it had a square pixelated box around it. Whatever method you used wasn't a great one

Jessejamesxx.....

It appears you may not have reviewed the content of the thread in detail.

There is significant commentary therein pertaining to this issue that you may find interesting.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Yes, I was apart of all of that. I was saying that the zoomed in version she(?) posted, was completely different than mine. It's like she did a screen cap of the image, and then zoomed in. The original pixels aren't in her post. So whatever point she was making.. would be less effective.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Blaine91555.....

No cut and paste, just a drop of water.

Here's a previous thread where a "droplet" image was discussed & analysed:

Disk Shaped UFO Over Snowdonia 24/07/2009

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


It should be made plain that this thread and the water droplet thread are vastly different. In fact not really related at all. The water droplet thread was an after the fact UFO sighting. An "Oh look at this photo Ive taken, it looks like a UFO was there and we didn't see it. This current thread is about... " Oh Look a UFO, where's my camera?" That is a wholly crucial difference and should be made clear.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


I remember that one. I've ruined many shots with these dark blobs myself. The dark edge of the lens extends a bit beyond the face of the lens and that is what the drop picks up in the refraction. You end up with exactly what is in this photo. Specks of dust look like orbs.

I've experienced these now and then when shooting wildlife. Opportunities at shots often preclude worrying about good conditions, so you shoot and hope.

reply to post by FireMoon


That does not change my opinion. I've seen too many shots like this myself. No matter the story, I'd guess that the spot was noticed after the fact and had nothing to do with the reason for the original shot.

It's all a guess, but in this case one from a person with lots of experience.

There is no evidence however of any funny business with Photoshop. This was not cut and paste. The sharpening feature of these low end camera's always leave those artifacts in areas of high contrast.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Who ever shot this knows what it is.

I think you're right there. And I suspect Lucifer is the one who has taken the photos that he/she has posted in this and other threads.

I was somewhat suspicious from the start but alarm bells rang with this

The time it took her to run through her house and get out the other side is around 8 - 10 seconds that day she thinks. So she re-enacted the run through the house today while we were skyping and did what she did before. She did this 4 times for comparability today.

Each time it actually took around 7 secs. 7.28 secs was the average of all 4 runs.

I just couldn't imagine phoning a sister and asking her to run through the house from front garden to back once let alone four times! Was that ".28" of a second going to add any credibility to a rather dull photo? The alleged sister was also 4 years younger when she did the original run so maybe she achieved it in 6.48 or 6.52 seconds in 2006!

Based on Lucifer's comments and claims rather than the photos I'm calling hoax on this.

Originally posted by torsion

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Who ever shot this knows what it is.

I think you're right there. And I suspect Lucifer is the one who has taken the photos that he/she has posted in this and other threads.

I was somewhat suspicious from the start but alarm bells rang with this

The time it took her to run through her house and get out the other side is around 8 - 10 seconds that day she thinks. So she re-enacted the run through the house today while we were skyping and did what she did before. She did this 4 times for comparability today.

Each time it actually took around 7 secs. 7.28 secs was the average of all 4 runs.

I just couldn't imagine phoning a sister and asking her to run through the house from front garden to back once let alone four times! Was that ".28" of a second going to add any credibility to a rather dull photo? The alleged sister was also 4 years younger when she did the original run so maybe she achieved it in 6.48 or 6.52 seconds in 2006!

Based on Lucifer's comments and claims rather than the photos I'm calling hoax on this.

That is fair comment. And I welcome it. However, which part of the photo is hoax? ? How is it hoaxed if you could explain then that will be great. By the way, she did do the run through the house for the purpose of the statement. My sister is 23 now so 19 when UFO photo was taken.

I am aware that UFO's are most probably not visiting earth, and more than likely they are something quite explainable. However, I only wanted to know what the blurry object was as my opinion might be biased. I have NEVER stated its an alien aircraft in this thread. Only UFO.

Thanks torsion.

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
Garbage can lid used as frisbee.

Yup, Definitely a garbage can lid

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Blaine91555.....

No cut and paste, just a drop of water.

Here's a previous thread where a "droplet" image was discussed & analysed:

Disk Shaped UFO Over Snowdonia 24/07/2009

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

edit on 4-10-2010 by Maybe...maybe not because: Format

That was a nice pic on that thread. I know that someone analyized the pic but I personally do not believe it is a rain drop.