Lost photo of UFO found

reply to post by srb2001


The smoky wisp's are probably a lit cigarette or burning insense, stuck between the two hubcap's.

reply to post by srb2001

Re:WISPS
Thank you for posting that photo...I have been trying to get info on the red-filtered image posted above on page (29),...the wisps or atmospheric disturbances are very noticable as a darker cloud above and around the top of the object under this filter.

GREAT NEWS....I contacted MUFON at the suggestion of a member here...asked them to have a look at the photo here on ATS. They just contacted me and would like to have me send them the photo for analysis.

reply to post by jritzmann


No, I said that I think the ripples you see as hubcap tabs, were due to some sort of propulsion system, whether the heat produced or the disturbance of the surrounding air.

The problem with seeing them as tabs from a hubcap, is that they are not sized correctly, or spaced correctly, to be that.

You think it is a hubcap, and that's fine, I don't. I don't have any idea of the size of the object either, except that I think you are "outsmarting" yourself on that as well.

reply to post by OlafMiacov


I'm a car guy too. "Dogdish" is also an allusion to that, the 'dogdish' hubcap. Which is why I chose that name, because it looks like a 'classic' UFO picture. (I was also about to feed the dogs as I was registering for ATS)

My '67 Riviera only had one valve stem opening per hubcap. There was no 'protuberance' on the back half of the hubcap.

I just think that it is something more interesting than a '60's hubcap. I don't 'want' it to be, I have seen plenty of them, no pics though!

Originally posted by IAMTAT
GREAT NEWS....I contacted MUFON at the suggestion of a member here...asked them to have a look at the photo here on ATS. They just contacted me and would like to have me send them the photo for analysis.

If the photo turns out to be a real ship, it's priceless. I wouldn't send the original to ANYBODY, even Peter Davenport himself, unless you personally are present during expert analysis. Link MUFON to the hi-res pics first and see what becomes of that.

reply to post by srb2001


Thanks but I don't know if I would be able to hand-deliver it to them and/or afford to be present at the analysis. Should I be concerned about the legitamacy of their analysis procedure? I'm not overly cynical...but I am a bit naive in these matters.

reply to post by srb2001

...In my email, I also told them to see this thread, so I assume MUFON was also able to see the high-resolution scans. I assume they were the reason they contacted me back to request the actual photo.

i want to say first im firmly open to the idea of non human craft in the universe maybe even visiting here... and would love to see an actual picture of that... second i dont want to take anything away from the deceased or anything...

but..

i dropped one of the pics (one of the ones held in hand no from the scan) and dropped it in ps cs5 to detect what i had a suspicion of and that it is a photo with an image laid in, i think proof of that can be seen by doing the following...

1. take a photo from google pics of a plane in flight (for comparison)
2. drop one of these photo's in question (i say use one of the first posted instead of the scan though i suspect you'll find the same in all sots)
3. max the contrast out hard to the left... play with the brightness till you see the pixelation clearly... notice the sharp 90 degree angles on like every border of the would be craft

now do the same process with the jet photo you got from google pics and notice the pixelation in a natural object takes the form of the object instead of hard angles and the pixelation is in tighter to the object

it is my opinion (as someone who plays with hundred upon hundreds of digital images) that you will not see the kind of harsh 90 degree angles (unseen to the naked eye) in a true image as you do in these pics

that doesnt mean the person you got them from tried to fool you but maybe they where being fooled


i604.photobucket.com...

reply to post by 11165

I'm sorry...I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that this is a 'digital' photo?

reply to post by IAMTAT


If, after reviewing your pic, MUFON sees merit in your evidence, you could arrange for the analysis performed at your local (state) chapter and either have a field investigator visit you, or, have them pick up the tab to get you to their analysis center with the photo in hand.

reply to post by IAMTAT

I first photo on this thread I sent was a photo of the actual photo (my wife used our digital camera to take the photo of the original in my hand). Further into the thread, I went to Kinkos and had High-resolution scans made of the original and they have been posted. These clearly show that the original was not taken with a digital camera.

i604.photobucket.com...

^i updated my post with this link to the image i dropped in cs5...
(im not really going to make suggestions as to how it was manipulated but to me and i think anyone who messes with photos this is obviously not a genuine image)

*if i where to speculate at how it was done... is that it was "old school" hoaxing... where images are laid to actual photos... i think the photo minus the craft is real and the craft is laid in

and whats more... if you do the contrast work yourself where you are free to zoom the image and more closely examine the pixelation... it's obvious to see how unnatural those harsh outlining angles are... you just dont see that in genuine imagery..

the pixelation i found in the google images photo of a jet in flight was so natural and tight to the object it was only barely apparent where as the pixelation on this looks plainly cropped and dropped

(ps i still star and flagged the thread as you still dont see good ufo photos anymore real or fake, and again i dont mean to insinuate that you meant to fool anyone, just that the image is not genuine)

reply to post by 11165


Thanks for sharing your thoughts...but I think this photo predates personal computers.

reply to post by 11165


Not true with hi-res .bmp image. Pixelation conforms closely to object shape in PS high contrast setting.



The right angles construed as a cut & paste job were due to the low-res of the original hand-held image the OP posted that you applied the filter on.

reply to post by srb2001


Thank you. That was what I was trying to explain to 11165.

Grats on showing the picture to MUFON.

I think there is one or two people from MUFON here on ATS, might be able to do a member search for the word "MUFON" because I think it is in their user names.

Originally posted by srb2001
reply to post by 11165

 

Not true with hi-res .bmp image. Pixelation conforms closely to object shape in PS high contrast setting.

The right angles construed as a cut & paste job were due to the low-res of the original hand-held image the OP posted that you applied the filter on.

link to photo i dropped in cs5 again: i604.photobucket.com...

^unfortunately a low res image of a photo wont produce that affect... it would just be crappy pixelation and it would be true of every aspect of the photo... let me try to put it in perspective: (and no i am not saying it was necessarily digitally altered keep in mind photo fakes came way before digital photography)

lets say it was really a single image originally every thing pixel wise will be organic... you would not see those 90 degree angles that exclusively (and that's whats important) surround the craft over the other aspects of the photo that's just factual... the pixelation that surround the craft stick out like a sore thumb (especially in a poor quality image it would be hard to seperate the pixelation between the craft and the natural background)

and that's what we are talking about... that craft is obviously not on it's organic background that's why you see the harsh pixelation between the craft and what is presented as the natural background... if anything the poor quality of the first presented shots speak volumes in respect to the outlandish pixelation (and i don't think i'm exaggerating... there are harsh 90 degree angles on every side of that craft and not even close to the body.. just close enough where you are probably looking at the sloppy handy work of whoever over laid the image)

---
now a point to bring you over to my side on this that i think you can relate to...
if this was a shot from nasa of the moon and nasa was trying to explain away these 90 degree angles as natural to the landscape and product of poor quality shots would you except that?

in todays fakes you cant detect them so easy because digital tools allow you to go back and try and fix the unnatural look of the pixels.. but i bet whoever laid that image of the craft to that photo never could imagine how easy it would be to one day scrutinize the photo as it is today with the availability of digital tools

reply to post by RSF77


Thanks. I assume (MUFON) have already been into ATS and seen the scans (along with our wonderful discussion here). I have to say that I've been very impressed with the decorum and expertise of the members here in our thread...(both pro and con).