[HOAX]saw flying metallic disk in nashville... WITH PICS... and now my dog is sick[HOAX]

reply to post by weavty1


Wtf..? I just quoted Jesiaha's comment of that YouTube vid.... Long quote, my ass..? LOL, and I get a U2U warning about it? Dang. Sorry..?

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Even your own analysis states the minimum size of 20 cm (about 8 inches) and a maximum size of 2.91m. I still don't see how that proves a hoax unless it is an accepted fact that UFOs are never smaller than 2.91m. I must have missed that lecture.

In that same post, I concluded that it was on the smaller end of that range based on the absence of haze in front of it as an indicator of distance. the tower (center of the tower) is about 152 meters away, and that is the upper limit if the range - the 2.91 m end of the range. the object doesn't display anywhere near the amount of haze that the tower does, and so it must be a lot closer than that.

The OP says that the disk looked to be a few hundred feet behind the treetops. This could have been a lie or maybe he made a mistake, believing the object to be larger than it was. It certainly shouldn't be taken as an accurate measurement.

No, "a few hundred feet" is pretty vague. From the appearance, however, it was a lot closer than that, and unless he has an optical problem that limits his binocular vision, such as blindness in one eye, he should have been able to tell that. Most people who are blind in one eye develop other depth cues to determine distance, usually relying on haze and occultation by closer objects to a much higher degree. Since there was no occultations apparent in the photos, haze would have been the primary indicator in that case, which is absent in the photos, and is what I based my own determination on, not having an alternate viewpoint for another eye. Since a regular photo is a 2d single view, we have to use the same depth cues that a one-eyed man would use.

Mistakes of size, giving the impression that an object is larger and farther away, are generally made at higher elevations from the horizon, where reference points are fewer and haze is thinner. this one was right above the rooftops, not at a high elevation, and the haze it shows can be compared against the haze of an object at the same elevation, and a known distance (the communications tower)

As far as I'm aware every single contention raised to show this is a hoax is debatable.

Absolutely - that's why it's still being debated.

But that debate has been rendered moot by SkepticOverlord's proclamation.

No, the debate has not been rendered moot - we just don't have an eyewitness to grill now. We can still work and debate off of the evidence that is present.

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I was being dramatic. Not necessarily the real deal but not completely unreal either. At least in my opinion at this point.

Oh, I believe that it absolutely IS a real object - the main bone of contention at this point is what - extraterrestrial or mundane? I believe it to be both terrestrial and mundane, but it seem that not every one is going to share that view, which I don't mind at all.

reply to post by jesiaha


I think it unlikely the OP has anything to do with that Youtube channel. Seems more likley a chancer has simply grabbed his words and photos and made their own video about it.

reply to post by nenothtu


Of course we're still discussing it but it's moot in the sense that anyone coming across this thread will see the hoax tag and likely move on. And it's also moot in that the OP, whose real name has been outed, has been branded a hoaxer and no longer has the right to reply or any obvious means of redress.

By the way is there an objective way of measuring 'haze' in the photos other than by a purely visual inspection?

This is a photo of an honest to God, verified, bona-fide, certified and confirmed... hub cap.

Now, being honest, how many could have spotted it out as a fake had I not said so? Go ahead and run it through photoshop and whatever you like, twist it tweak it slap it around, and find the evidence that it is a fake. It will be tough to do, probably, but not impossible - there are telltales, but no evidence of pasting, compositing, or anything like that. No suspension wires, or anything of that nature, because it really was airborne.

That's because it's a real photo - and a real fake. It was taken in the early 70's, before digital photography - heck it was even long before either PCs or the internet were even wet dreams. it was taken in black and white originally, so it's not grayscale, and it was taken on chemical film on a cheap camera by a 13 year old kid - me - who was interested in finding out just how hard it would be to fake some of the UFO photos of the day.

The hub cap was from a 1964 Ford Fairlane, as I recall, and it flew like a dream. I wasn't interested in fooling any one with it per se - I wanted to see how hard it would BE to fake the image, and how well it would turn out, because I was suspicious of a lot of the images of the day - see George Adamski, for example. As it turned out, it was at least as good as the one in the OP, but low tech, in black and white. I scanned it at 300 dpi from the only print in existence. negatives are long gone, and I can't even remember for sure what kind of camera it was - Kodak Instamatic, I believe, using a 110 film cartridge. Gimme a break on my bad memory - it was 40 years ago!

Note in particular the too dark underside, and the inexplicably dark upper side with a glare at the upper right. yeah, it was shiny, but the play of light over the shine, the variant reflection angles, gave us this. It really wouldn't have been all that different from the ones in the OP, had it been in color and at a slightly different angle.

Well, except that I never tried to pass it off as real.

reply to post by nenothtu


Best UFO pic I have ever seen.

Seems legit.

vvv

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Of course we're still discussing it

but it's moot in the sense that anyone coming across this thread will see the hoax tag and likely move on. And it's also moot in that the OP, whose real name has been outed, has been branded a hoaxer and no longer has the right to reply or any obvious means of redress.

Yeah, instances of his name and address ought to be edited out. It wouldn't be that difficult to find them in this day and age, but anyone looking ought to at least have to work for it. if he's an enterprising young man, and has any desire to reply, there are ways he can get that done, though... other avenues and that sort of thing. I really doubt he has any desire to respond, though.

By the way is there an objective way of measuring 'haze' in the photos other than by a purely visual inspection?

I'm sure there are, but I don't know what they are. There are algorithms and methods to calculate haze at varying distances for CGI renders given an initial set of atmospheric parameters, so I'm sure that a method could be worked out backwards from those, if nothing else. There are probably methods already in existence to do it, but I don't know what they are. maybe separating the image out into the separate RGB or CMY color components would be a place to start, to try isolating the relative amounts of blue in various areas of the image..

ETA: There is a book called "Adobe Photoshop Forensics: Sleuths, Truths, and Fauxtography" by Cynthia Baron that may have answers like that in it. it's 381 pages to drudge through, but there's no telling what nuggets one may find in it to assist.

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


I took two test shots, but the other one was face-on onto the bottom (inside) of the hub cap. Oddly, there appears to be a ring in the center of it like the one seen on the "Jupiter II" on the old Lost in Space series. it's blurrier, so I didn't post it. I have no idea what caused that ring. It's faint, but it's there.

Here it is:

reply to post by nenothtu


Indeed mate, I can see it.

I just want to applaud you for all the work you have done in this thread, and without any prejudice or malice. Well done.

Onto the pic.

Do you think it might have been caused by exposure, the camera struggling to capture it crisply. Thus juxtaposing the blurred ring of the hubcap onto the actual hubcap creating the illusion of a ring on it?

vvv

reply to post by nenothtu


That hubcap looks like something driven by the The Galactic Federation...
would you care to elaborate on how you felt 'driven' to take the picture?

Inquiring minds, wish to know

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Do you think it might have been caused by exposure, the camera struggling to capture it crisply. Thus juxtaposing the blurred ring of the hubcap onto the actual hubcap creating the illusion of a ring on it?

vvv

It was a simple point and click camera - chemical film and straight shutter release, so it wasn't struggling to do anything. In those days, the crispness of a picture with such a cheap camera involved holding still for the most part - along with film speed and shutter and aperture adjustments, which were not available on that camera. It may have been some sort of piercing design in the hubcap, combined with the blur from the spinning set up when I tossed it, or it may have been some sort of stray reflection from the inside of it.

Originally posted by A boy in a dress
reply to post by nenothtu

 

That hubcap looks like something driven by the The Galactic Federation...
would you care to elaborate on how you felt 'driven' to take the picture?

Inquiring minds, wish to know

There were a lot of charlatans and hucksters in those days, just as there are now, as well as some photos I thought might be genuine, just like now. George Adamski's photos would be an example of the former, and Rex Hefflin's photos or the McMinnville photos examples of the latter. I wanted to see just how hard it would be to create a convincing fake with off the shelf equipment, and use what knowledge I gained from that in evaluations of other photos.

In my 13 year old mind, frisbees were too well recognized as a shape (and not shiny enough or thick enough), and suspension with a fishing line was out of the question - it would have been too easy to spot, I felt. That limited my options, and the "off the shelf" item actually came off of a nearby car.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


SO at this point this thread isn't really about being it a hoax or not. This is about how the OP was handled, the OP got handled TSA style.

Is this the message ATS wants to send out ? Do you really want to post a picture? I might get you banned.

Everyone here sees that this went in the hoax bin on subjective opinion of a moderator.
This guy got banned out of the ego of one staff member.

ATS takes pride in the community driven content, yet ATS-staff is the court, judge and executioner.

Originally posted by weavty1
reply to post by weavty1

 

Wtf..? I just quoted Jesiaha's comment of that YouTube vid.... Long quote, my ass..? LOL, and I get a U2U warning about it? Dang. Sorry..?

they removed mine as off topic and it was a direct reply to someone else's comment. 44 pages later and we're not talking about the guy's pictures or sick dog any more but the one comment where I criticized GEL gets whacked pronto! None of this thread is on topic any longer so why are they keeping it open AND because it has been considered a hoax?

I would like to get on topic. Is there any one here with image enhancing software that can try and get a picture up of a reflection on this thing maybe?

I was thinking, if it is a shiny metallic disc, alien or not, a reflection should show more evidence.

perhaps from a window on the house?


cyan hide:
yes it does man.

reply to post by BIHOTZ


Haha for some reason this thread doesn't appear on the recent posts anymore

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Why isn't everyone able to obviously see the very clear visual indications within the photos themselves that SCREAM hoax?

The link added to the opening post merely establishes that the thread author's story doesn't jive with the embedded information within the photos. Combining that with the clearly laughable attempt represented by the photos... and it's a pitiful hoax.

Seriously people... why so much consternation over one of the worst hoax attempts we've seen on ATS?

The consternation is not over a hoax, it comes from the fact that we were not given the chance to judge for ourselves what you dictated as obvious a little too soon in the game. And the reasons that were posted in the OP were pretty thin at best and a bit twisted. Personally I think the members would have done a better job.

I've seen worse hoax's here that were with due diligence vetted. By the way you still have a hoax hoovering on the boards.. It certainly had not reached the popularity of this thread, but was called out by the members and fairly quickly. Strange how he is still a member though.

reply to post by Cyanhide


I am still seeing it among the recent posts ..