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

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
Appears to me to be a small object thrown in the air.
Does not look convincing, but who knows, I guess.
Sorry about your dog.

Ok let me get this right....

You think the ufo is a faked thrown object but you believe the part about the sick dog???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Logic.....we here at ATS miss you.

OK let me get this straight. you are rude enough to "HAHAHAHA" me and think I'm illogical yet you can't detect basic and obvious sarcasm.

!!!!EYEROLL!!!!
!!!!FACEPALM!!!!

ATS, you allow children's book "writers" on here?

Originally posted by RickyVelveeta

Just found some pics on a site and one reminded me of this instantly. It's on this page : Extraterrestrial or Fake?

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by RickyVelveeta

 

Can you explain why these look like iPhone apps and you have an iPhone and the file names have been changed? these are not original pictures. no phone would name the images "object 1, 2, 3"


sure does look similiar to this UFO app....which we have all seen by now..

edit on April 11th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

To greeneyedleo, Hello my name is Deum.

On this thread you posted a link to a UFO app with three UFOs in the sky as an example of the Iphone UFO capabilities. Thanks,

My question to all is:
In that photo ( called SS2 ) images.macworld.com...
If I take that picture into my math program and size it to the pixel count. 320 x 480 and then measure the 3 UFOs as best I can, I get in width.
15.893, 15.447, 14.507 Average to “15.282”

If I take the Object1 photo, size it at 768 x 1024 and do the same, I get “19.086” ( on the angle )

Now we have 2 different photos and 2 different size formats. I will stick with the width for now. #1=768 pixels vs SS2=320 pixels, this gives me 2.4 times scale factor between the 2.
If I advance the scale on SS2 to equal #1. Enlarge SS2 by a factor of 2.4. Now both photos are equal in width. ( 768mm ) The average for the UFOs in SS2 is now “36.67”

So the question is can you enlarge/shrink the size of the Iphone UFOs. Is the size constant no matter what is done?

Recap: Originals given me
Object1 UFO = 19.086 ( larger than SS2 )
SS2 average 15.285
SS2 scaled 2.4, UFO average 36.67 ( now 1.92 times larger than #1 )

Can anyone help me out on this?

I also think that the title on Object 1 and 3 has been miss-labeled; they should change places that would work out better. I have other work to show that if wanted.

Deuem ( first post , so take it easy on me, please )

Some Math data off of object1 photo
This is the first time I did this with a digital camera. If it is wrong, advise me.

Based on the camera data, focal point and the ccd information on line I worked the angles up the best I could. I am using an average persons height of 5’8” then minus 4” to lens center. So the lens center is figured at 5’4” or 1.625 meters. He is holding the camera on a 47.37 angle relative to ground. The distance was worked off the first full red brick on the right. 4th pane of glass, up from the right corner.
If you take that as a photo plane, then from right to left, the size is 8 meters and 10.7 tall. This means to me that if you took a piece of cardboard and cut that sixe out and held it at 5.8 meters away from the camera on a 47.37 angle, you would get this photo as shown.

For reference the window panes measured about 6-1/2inches by 14 inches for the glass.

The UFO is 31.827 degrees from ground.
The top of the tower is 58.487 degrees from ground
The center line of the photo is at 47.37 degrees from ground
The top is at 70 degrees
The Sun angle is around 6 degrees, so it should be close to noon as printed.

In Google, the tower is 146 meters away from the pov
At the angle it should be about 238 meters tall? 780 feet tall?
If I set the photo plane at the top of the tower, the photo there is 350 meter tall
If the UFO was at the same distance as the tower it would be at 90.6 meters in altitude.
At the red brick the altitude is 5 meters for the UFO.
So it is 8 inches at 5 meters or larger and higher. Your call!
The tree on the left is around 7 meters tall

The UFO would scale at the red brick photo plane at 200mm or almost 8 inches.
If we move that same ratio all the way to the tower the UFO is 5-1/2meters in diameter or 18 feet in size. Not very large. The exact location is not found yet.

That all I have for now.
Deuem

reply to post by Deuem


we SO need more like you~! I really hope GEL will respond, I'm not a photo expert but there are a few on ATS that are, so, I'm bumping in hopes to get their attention..

I don't have the software to do a exact experiment on the photo, but, I hope someone on ATS would.

Star!

reply to post by Komodo

Thank you Komodo, I guess that every ones interests died on this event once they published it was a hoax. I have also processed way too many UFO photos and so far on this one there is a lot of misleading information that sent them down a path. See, it all depends on how far the debunkers want to take things. With all videos and photos the moment the pendulum starts to swing their way so does the crowd. It seems that in our new world speculation can get you hung as fast as proof. Too bad for the OP. There was no proof that I saw or read here that could be taken to a court of law and proved 100% beyond doubt that these photos were faked. Of course there are problems. The biggest one even I found was the time. My program is very good at seeing the sun rays and It shows that the photos were out of sequence. Is that a reason to bunk this story, In some eyes yes, in mine it is just a fact to work out.

If I trow something in the air it leaves a trail unless the shutter speed is very fast. I see no trails. I see no Iphone app that matches this , besides the sizes and angles are wrong. I saw a member banned because the owner said it was an upside down pie plate. hum? I pick up a solid object and no plate. I saw no one re-do this on their Iphone. I saw no one make an exact copy example.

With an EM Field, many times the camera has a failure. A pixel block will be affected and every thing in the box will be slightly off. This will cause the block to stand out from the others. You can also see this happen with known items but they never talk about that. Also when you see black bars above and below a bright object, this is a camera failure. So the EM Fields effect the new digital cameras a lot. Using the camera failure as a de-bunk issue is very hard on the OP. In my line of work, if it did not have the failure, it would be CGI. Most CGI artists always try to get their work clean and free of failures, then give it a little motion, blur and off they go.

It is very rare that I post here so If I don't get back for a month, you know why. In the mean time keep an open mind and think through things to your own end.
Deuem

I never think that this case was a hoax.

Without any information they say this case was a hoax, it is amazing how easy they say any case is a hoax.

Originally posted by lke123
I never think that this case was a hoax.

Without any information they say this case was a hoax, it is amazing how easy they say any case is a hoax.

Have you read the thread?
If not then you should! It is a hoax.

Can you offer any evidence to help us understand why you think it is not a hoax?

reply to post by rigel4

the people at this site spend more time on hoaxes than they do the real thing. I posted links to two videos and three still photos of the same object and even Jeff Ritzmann couldn't figure out what it was and no one wants to talk about it. Talk about an intellectual wasteland, this place is IT!!!!

The ats motto should be "Espouse mind-numbing ignorance"

a close up with various filters applied;



i'm on the fence.

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
a close up with various filters applied;



i'm on the fence.

nice one!

so, you on the fence that is a hoax because what you see in the filters.. can you explain why? I'm a complete amateur when it comes to filters on pics & what I should extrapolate from them ..

please expound.

reply to post by RoScoLaz


Hello RoScolaz, I would like you to try something on your work. Take the original and turn down the white, The white is affecting the results. I would suggest to try 200. White goes from 0 to 255. 255 being the brightest. Tone it down and reprocess the print. You can even try to mask the white out completely and run it again. Don't worry about the white, it is a reflection and everyone agrees to that. You can pick that whit and mask it to black and run again. See how it will change your work. Sometimes I even step down the white 1 level at a time. Ok, this means that you have to find all the colors of the white and step them down one at a time. If any of the white is at 255 then it is what I call burnt out. That has to be forgotten and masked or let it run. I find most of the time I can turn it down and get a better photo.

You do remind me of someone else I know but that's another story.

For now we can look at the processed photos as a collection. For those who don't understand why we do this, it is easy. Rather the craft is real or fake we all build up a library of processed photos. Myself, I have thousands. I also like to process known items. Like real plasma balls or Chinese lanterns or military jets, helicopters, fire, soap bubbles, lights of every known design. This gives us a data base to evaluate our work against.

I would suggest for you to start with a very well known. A burning candle. Make sure when you do your gif that the first photo is the candle as is, then run the filters on that photo and add them to the gif. What did you learn?

Back in 2009 when I started Deuem, I looked at what was going on with message boards like this and found out that most people only offer an opinion. Anyone who is willing to step forward and offer some type of work is in a different class. Call this the UFO debate team. These are the people that earn the right to comment and suggest opinions. On either side of the debate!. For a lot of people reading this, I have found out that they want to get involved but just don't know how. The very first UFO study I did was with a clear piece of plastic tapped to my screen, frame by frame I marked it, then measured it with a ruler. Hi tech? No, but it is a start. Over time you can get deeper or find a new hobby. I got deeper.

You see, rather this UFO is real or not does not matter to us. What matters is how we look at it and what work we can do to generate information to add to the data base. I put a Deuem percentage on my findings, you can also do that. 0% Fake-100% Real

Just so you know where I stand on this photo, I have not declared it to be a hoax, nor do I think it is a pie tin. I do say there is a problem with the timing and that I can prove by using the sun. By the way I have read the entire thread, all 48 pages and looked at all findings. I can not find evidence that proves it is 100% fake. Yea there is a lot of circumstantial findings but not the loaded gun.

If I used the same logic with every UFO photo, we should claim them all hoaxes and shut down all investigation work. One thing I have learned from this thread is that if I ever get the chance to film a real UFO ( what ever it is ) I am going to have to think very hard about where to post it. Maybe I won't. Maybe that's what TPTB want! I don't know.............

Deuem

As you can see in the 3 photos the sun has had time to change between 1 and 2 yet 2 and 3 are very similar.

In my opinion there is a time lag between 1 and 2.

Deuem

reply to post by Deuem


Welcome to ATS Deuem.
There are so many so-called ufos on the net and so many ways to create them that I am becoming more and more sceptical with each picture/video. But is ever there was somebody's opinion from on the web who I trust, it would be you. The issue with the time between shots is a big one. I will have to do my own analysis and will get back to you.
By the way, I quit DTV yesterday. Too many trolls and a few of the mods are on a power trip. Out of all the web sites we discussed so far, this one seems best suited for you I think. I'll send you an email and detail what happened.

reply to post by Willease

Hey Will, nice to run into you here. I guess a lot of people are looking for new homes. This UFO were working on here has taken quite a bashing. I don't even know where to start. Another of our mutual friends asked me to research it and that led me here. By the time I got here it was page 46 and Rick was banned.

If you had a chance to go out to my sun photo you will see that the Deuem program clearly shows a time difference. ( 3 photos grouped )So I would say the photo titles are mixed up. But even I do this all the time when in a hurry. I don't know how this site will take our workups. If they will understand me and work with them or trash them. I can try.

Did you read the entire thread, Wow. today I had a blank slate and I started at page 1 till here. Read every note and went to every link. With my Net connection, it took me 7 hours. OK, I have no life today. Got 4 pages of notes though and 3 pages of word.

My next step will be to try and explain the Deuem program on dead objects and live objects. This Golden UFO shows up fro me as a "live" where as the hub cap photo shows "dead". OK, Alive means energy, dead means none. A jet airliner will be dead but the exhaust will be alive. The sun light will be alive, even if reflected. Any source of EM should show up, even sometimes when you can no longer see it.

I am not going to claim that the Deuem program is 100% accurate or you should believe it. That is something you have to do on your own. We just offer another piece of the disclosure puzzle. But it is nice to see something other that the photo as is. Many people from all over the world have requested a photo been worked before they made up their mind. So let me get back to work and I will run the one near the house and post it. See what you think.
Deuem

Hi, to let all of you evaluate what I mean by an object being dead or alive, I first present the hub cap posted by nenothtu. You can look at that process first then the same exact process on the gold UFO.

First the hubcap,


Now the UFO,


In the hubcap photo the object has no life except the reflection on the top, the rest of it is what I call "dead".
In the UFO photo you can see amazing patterns of light, (call this "live") they criss-cross, you can see through them and so on.
You can also see that it interferes with the atmosphere where as the hub cap does not.

So this is a different approach to UFO studies. It is a home grown, written program that took several months to work up and has been updated for 3 years now. There are now 4 different styles. Balloons, daylight, mid range and night time. I used mid range on these. Deuem is also just 1 part of the process, we also use other programs before and after. If from a video a total of 7. The difference is how many colors we are looking for. Balloons the most, night time the least. After processing the photos all I did was to add some saturation to bump up the colors and add the text and insert. i never change the EM Fields. I am looking for the patterns of light caused by EM Fields and how they interfere with the photo.

I had all ready done the hub cap so this why it was quick today. Most photos take at least 1 hour to work up.

Now for my opinion: The object is in camera, it is interfering with the atmosphere, I see no cut and paste lines, I see no mat lines. I see an object that is broadcasting its own EM Field. There are some tell tale signs of movement left to right. It could very well be that the magnetic field altered the camera pixel block. This happens with Energy. I am getting very detailed lines of energy. I am not getting a block, like the hub cap ( I am not picking on the hub cap, I am very happy you posted it and not me so everyone can believe it )

I would also like to view the remaining photos that the OP took, even if they are blurred or empty. Photo 2 which I had done a preliminary on seems to be phasing. I can see right through it. Need to do more work on that one.

I would also like to add that because of compression on the downloaded photo the results would be better if I had the original. Guess we will never get that. Oh well...Right now I can only work with what I can get my hands on. Oh Ricky?

Please remember I am in China and have a hard time getting on line at times, so if I don't respond instantly or for days you know why. Also the time difference. If anyone needs me the best thing to do is to send me an email. Most of my work is done by request. So yes you might see me in a lot of places. Even I don't know where is next.
Deuem

reply to post by Deuem


Could you please show how the "UFO" looks if you change the image from colour to greyscale?

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Deuem

 

Could you please show how the "UFO" looks if you change the image from colour to greyscale?

Thanks in advance.

Your Gray scale request on Object 1 with an insert. I think I know where your going with this one.Good call.
If I am right you just need the one photo.



Deuem

reply to post by Deuem


Sorry for not being clear about what I wanted, what I want to see is how a greyscale version of the "UFO" looks after being processed by your program.

reply to post by ArMaP



Taken from the gray scale insert
Deuem