Lost photo of UFO found

Originally posted by tpg65
Fact is , this picture could have been taken yesterday for all we know .
We read the OP's account and automatically accepted the picture .

Try not to be so open minded that we allow our brains to fall out .

Whoa there cowboy! no one has excepted the picture just yet.

This is ATS a conspiracy site and it's post under "Aliens and UFO's" section. Wait let me think for just a moment before my brains fall out ..............UFO means Unidentified Flying Object and since the object/picture has not been identified, it's in the right area.

Thanks OP for posting this information.

Awesome thread, I'm waiting on the edge of my seat to see the new scan. OP sounds honest to me.
I can't speak for the photo yet because all the photo's, scans etc. so far have been too low of a resolution to make any kind of detail out.

Just a idea have you gone through all your fathers stuff on the off chance that the negatives might be somewhere in the collection.

Many photo labs back in those days were not very good and the negatives can be scanned with a good scanner and will likely show a lot more.
Many photo programs can convert a negative to a positive print better then having a photo printed in a lab.

I have 1000s of old negatives from starting back in the 1960s that i have printed with my computer.

Old 35mm film is equal to about a 20 megapixel camera of today.

And i still use my old Canon F1 film camera with fine grain film for important photos as i can scan the negatives and get better quality then any digital camera

Okay, here are the first two...of the four (in different formats) from Kinkos' scans for me. If anyone can, please open and post these for everyone, I'd appreciate that. Thank you.

i55.photobucket.com...

i55.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by jvdas
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

If the file is too big try uploading it to www.wetransfer.com... or www....(nolink)/ perhaps?

Thank you...my wife and I are still having trouble with that 16bitt tiff file so I will need to look into your links and try to get set up to send this large file. I'm sorry...neither of us are real computer whizs.

This is exciting! Interested to see the results/finds!

reply to post by IAMTAT


Happy to help , the second one is to small to be any use .

I too would love to see that photo more close-up! My advise, go to Staples, they will scan it and put it on a USB memory stick for a reasonable price (couple of dollars).. then do a updated post on your existing story !!!
Thanks for taking the time to post this !!!!

reply to post by MCL1150


Do this do that, the poor chap is doing his best. You cant expect him to keep running around all the time. Its a very old photograph, your not going to get HD quality no matter how deep your scans are.

Thanks to the OP for doing what they have.

In regards to it being a sombrero with a frisbee, I'm going to have to debate that. With the new photos uploaded, it legitmately looks like it has a cockpit of some kind, and overhang from where the fuselage is. Still could be a fake, but it does look like someone went to great lengths to match up certain features.

Originally posted by MCL1150
I too would love to see that photo more close-up! My advise, go to Staples, they will scan it and put it on a USB memory stick for a reasonable price (couple of dollars).. then do a updated post on your existing story !!!
Thanks for taking the time to post this !!!!

Why not download yourself some free picture viewing software and get your own closeup

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

Happy to help , the second one is to small to be any use .

Thank you. I hope this one is better for everyone. I'm still trying that 'wet transfer' site for the large 16 bitt file but not hearing back from them yet. It's been suggested I try Staples for a possibly higher resolution scan than Kinkos and I will try that later today after I get some work done.

reply to post by IAMTAT


I'm a little surprised that a picture you had scanned at a printing shop would come out as a 72dpi jpg to be honest. Can't wait to see the larger files

Originally posted by davespanners
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

I'm a little surprised that a picture you had scanned at a printing shop would come out as a 72dpi jpg to be honest.

Can't wait to see the larger files

They (Kinkos) said it was 600 dpi

reply to post by IAMTAT


Both images are JPGS. Like i said in an earlier in this thread they really need to be scaned to a NON-Lossy compression format like BMP, PNG (or as another BagBing has suggested) TIFF for any effective analysis to be done.

A lossy compression format like JPG condenses pixels in an effort to save space in the final image. So a JPG image is just to 'messy' to analyse.

What format where they scaned to?

reply to post by IAMTAT

Try this one too.

There is only so much resolution you can get from an old 35mm photograph. The black areas are basically zip for resolution. The outline is in a gray tone and still not too much. Might need some enhancing to bring out the contours and differences between light and dark areas. Looks very nice and think it's probably not a hoax.

reply to post by IAMTAT

TO THE MODERATOR: Could I try to send these files as an email to you and have you post them for me? Please message me if we can do this...I am having a hard time with these large 16bitt files.

Has anyone else noticed what appears to be a little man in the bottom left hand corner of the photo?
It looks to me a like a man, looking to the left. Hard to see because I'm at work and don't have access to my photo tools. Can anyone else confirm this?

To me this picture REALLY look like one of those cheap frozen chicken pot pies upside down.

Probably still frozen and not yet cooked yet.