Hi, I may have proof that the foo fighters where Alien Aircraft

Originally posted by Odin2305
reply to post by Panic2k11

 

And why does no one focus on the window, why doesnt anyone mention how perfect the right angles are..

and yes the squiggly shadow does resemble a serpent. idk what it is and I never claimed to.

why does every reply contain some sort of unimportant information about other stuff than what Im showing.. its seems distracting. purposely so..

I myself am astonished that I got a coherent shape out of such an old photo.

The filters ARE centered at the origin of the light.. the ship.. its moving up and pulling air through its center and out the bottom somehow.

just to point out..pixels are perfect right angles too

Wouldn't windows NOT be perfect right angles on a circular convex shaped object? And why would the object appear 2 dimensional?

Originally posted by Odin2305
Those filters create shapes on their own that resemble known objects.. :| like when applied to an overly bright light in other colors around the area where the craft would be.. it automatically (inside of a round ball of light) created a trapezoid figure, complete with window and safety handles. straight lines and geometrical shapes. FTL capability and so forth :|

You seem to think zooming into a low res photo by 500% is going to magically reveal items that weren't in the original picture. The photo is already of terrible quality, and by zooming in you're furthering the decrease in quality exponentially. Then you're flip flopping filters back and forth. Of course you're going to end up with image artifacts.

The question I have is, what "known" objects are you seeing? A craft? Might I ask what type of "known craft" you're seeing here? I'm pretty sure the "typical disk" you have been mentioning would not fall into the "known" category for most of us. Perhaps it was the "trapezoid figure, complete with window and safety handles?" I'm tending to doubt it, because who in the world knows what that would be? It must be the "FTL capability," because everybody knows what that looks like, right?

No dice, bud. Your attempt at delving into the mysterious is appreciated, but kick this one to the side. Your getting worked up over some fuzzy/grainy pixels in a picture taken by a camera that probably wouldn't even have the ability to take a picture of the mystery object you're WANTING to see in this photo.

Cheers,
Nos

reply to post by Odin2305


Interesting photos. I don't know if they signify anything, but thanks for trying.

Here's an interesting story my dad told me years ago, probably in the 80's. He served in the CBI flying The Hump. As a radio control operator he flew 75 missions. One story he told had me intrigued. He said one mission (not his plane) encountered something like St. Elmos fire outside the plane. He said they called them 'Foo Fighters'. He then said, "Some damn fool opened a window and the damn thing got inside the plane. They had a hell of a time getting it back out!"

My Dad was NOT a liar. He wasn't long on words either. I wish I had asked him more questions and tape recorded his answers. I thought I would get around to it, but I never did and he is gone.

Hi All, long time lurker first time poster! The UFO subject as a whole is something that has always fascinated me. When I saw this post and the theory behind ‘something’ being inside the orbs, it reminded me of an article I came across quite a while ago now. I’m not sure how a link to an external site works on these forum but check out the link below. It’s an article that describes a similar technique when photographing the orbs. I won’t pretend to understand the terminology and technology behind the methods used but I think you’ll agree, the results are remarkable familiar!!!

LINK: www.examiner.com...

Originally posted by psyshow
Hi All, long time lurker first time poster! The UFO subject as a whole is something that has always fascinated me. When I saw this post and the theory behind ‘something’ being inside the orbs, it reminded me of an article I came across quite a while ago now. I’m not sure how a link to an external site works on these forum but check out the link below. It’s an article that describes a similar technique when photographing the orbs. I won’t pretend to understand the terminology and technology behind the methods used but I think you’ll agree, the results are remarkable familiar!!!

LINK: www.examiner.com...

Finally, something useful. No one here is an expert and cant say for sure what is or isnt possible.. Im sick of ppl saying toss this aside I will release another photo pointing out the thrusters... the energy being emitted from this thing is better seen from colors green-blue-violet.

They say toss this out.. yet its a sensational photo of a foo fighter captured up close.. who the f is to say what the camera did or didnt pick up.. if this is nothing more than filter effects and pixel distortion whytf does it look so damn much like a ufo.. where a ufo wud be.. if it were in that light!?

Originally posted by Odin2305

Originally posted by psyshow
Hi All, long time lurker first time poster! The UFO subject as a whole is something that has always fascinated me. When I saw this post and the theory behind ‘something’ being inside the orbs, it reminded me of an article I came across quite a while ago now. I’m not sure how a link to an external site works on these forum but check out the link below. It’s an article that describes a similar technique when photographing the orbs. I won’t pretend to understand the terminology and technology behind the methods used but I think you’ll agree, the results are remarkable familiar!!!

LINK: www.examiner.com...

Finally, something useful. No one here is an expert and cant say for sure what is or isnt possible.. Im sick of ppl saying toss this aside I will release another photo pointing out the thrusters... the energy being emitted from this thing is better seen from colors green-blue-violet.

They say toss this out.. yet its a sensational photo of a foo fighter captured up close.. who the f is to say what the camera did or didnt pick up.. if this is nothing more than filter effects and pixel distortion whytf does it look so damn much like a ufo.. where a ufo wud be.. if it were in that light!?

This is what I put together.. I can keep on pointing things out. Do people think that the ufo use plain whited led lights to get so bright in real life or in photos? No, they are generating some kind of anti gravity field and they are radiating different types of energies and radiation that we can only take an inkling of a guess at.. so yes the image will be and need multiple colors. I got the idea to do this when I learned a bit about how astronomers use different filters and hues to indicate heat and or distance. this thing is covered in God knows how many different types of energies and fields, radiating at maybe all the spectrum frequencies. Perhaps it is also covered in some kind of charged plasma..

Light

A source of light can have many colors mixed and in different amounts (intensities). A rainbow, or prism, sends the different frequencies in different directions, making them individually visible at different angles. A graph of the intensity plotted against the frequency (showing the amount of each color) is the frequency spectrum of the light. When all the visible frequencies are present in equal amounts, the perceived color of the light is white, and the spectrum is a flat line. Therefore, flat-line spectrums in general are often referred to as white, whether they represent light or something else ...> en.wikipedia.org...

Use a program with variable zoom capabilities and download the original full size from imagebam and take a look for yourself. Download all the original files from the OP and look closer at different zooms.. the little window on this site isnt going to allow you to see much.

Windows where windows would be, thrusters (or whatever you call them) where they wud be.. hmm these filters have an odd habit of creating a ufo out of a ufo picture.. Funny thing too> I once saw a crop circle that looked like that red ball on the bottom of Max2 (the 2d version of course).. the two inner circles also match an area where the smoke is mostly absent in the original photo, so I placed the red ball over the A7 render (because I know how much the aliens or cropcircle makers love their geometry) and behold.. the A7 and most other ufos fit perfectly and are shaped in such a way that they can generate the field around the ship.

The angles on the bottom photos dont match perfectly, but its just to give a rough idea. This A7 variant seems to be using that field to either contain or help generate what ever its emitting and or allowing it to fly so damn fast. Maybe if gravity isnt an issue, at all, you wouldn't need super powerful engines to go super fast or stay afloat, you'd slide along like and air-hockey puck, with a small tap, you'd be sent flying.

www.imagebam.com...

OP

A friendly suggestion , for image analysis its better to have the film (negative). Any old image that was digitized very poorly like that cannot be used as a base for image enhancement research.

and tying this degraded digital image to extra terrestrial is a bit too much. its like looking into clouds and seeing animals on the cloud.

if you want to believe in aliens its your rights, but there are no evidence, only hypothesis back by belief/faith.

I just want clarification on the purpose of this thread? I hope that isn't too much to ask.


The OP specifically said the PURPOSE of this entire thread was to ask others if they saw a UFO in his alterations of the image. When some say they don't, and there is nothing there, he seems to get offended and then posts more pictures, and goes on the defensive.


I just think you need to make it clear what the purpose of this thread is.


If you are just sharing these photos because you think it is interesting what YOU see in them, after editing them, that's cool. However, you shouldn't go on the defensive when A) people explain to you they don't see it, and B) people try and explain to you why editing the photos in the way you are doing isn't going to produce higher visibility of objects previously invisible.




Personally, I don't agree with your analysis of the photos you edited, and furthermore I think your OP was HIGHLY misleading. You claim this is PROOF, beyond a reasonable DOUBT, of alien presence/craftsmanship of the object in question in the photo.

You HAD to know that making such a claim would subject you and your "photo" to heavy scrutiny.


The photo is definitely interesting, and I'll even go as far as to say your editing, and analysis of the photo is interesting too! I'm just not sure what more you want. 1) it isn't proof of ANYTHING, and 2) it is just as likely , as others pointed out, that the "saucer" you are seeing is due to the editing of the photo + you wanting to see something there .


Just keep an open mind! Remember, you are asking others to keep an open mind regarding the photo, so try to keep an open mind yourself, and be mindful of the possibility that nothing is there.

Sorry to interject once again but if you would go back to the top of page two on this thread you will find what the US GOVERNMENT found in WWII documents from Germany, one of those documents is a picture of what the germans called reported as a "foo fighter" it's not a disc at all.

seems silly this has gone one this far and it seems the OP has not taken a look.


you wanted a picture of a "foo fighter" without the light, it is provided on page two at the very top.

Originally posted by supermarket2012
I just want clarification on the purpose of this thread? I hope that isn't too much to ask.


The OP specifically said the PURPOSE of this entire thread was to ask others if they saw a UFO in his alterations of the image. When some say they don't, and there is nothing there, he seems to get offended and then posts more pictures, and goes on the defensive.


I just think you need to make it clear what the purpose of this thread is.


If you are just sharing these photos because you think it is interesting what YOU see in them, after editing them, that's cool. However, you shouldn't go on the defensive when A) people explain to you they don't see it, and B) people try and explain to you why editing the photos in the way you are doing isn't going to produce higher visibility of objects previously invisible.




Personally, I don't agree with your analysis of the photos you edited, and furthermore I think your OP was HIGHLY misleading. You claim this is PROOF, beyond a reasonable DOUBT, of alien presence/craftsmanship of the object in question in the photo.

You HAD to know that making such a claim would subject you and your "photo" to heavy scrutiny.


The photo is definitely interesting, and I'll even go as far as to say your editing, and analysis of the photo is interesting too! I'm just not sure what more you want. 1) it isn't proof of ANYTHING, and 2) it is just as likely , as others pointed out, that the "saucer" you are seeing is due to the editing of the photo + you wanting to see something there .


Just keep an open mind! Remember, you are asking others to keep an open mind regarding the photo, so try to keep an open mind yourself, and be mindful of the possibility that nothing is there.

Hi, I may have proof that the foo fighters where Alien Aircraft. (was what I said word for word.)

"You claim this is PROOF, beyond a reasonable DOUBT" (Can you highlight where I said these words? Because this seems like another attempt at trolls/bot to get ppl to look the other way) (And excuse me if I try to get the ego maniacs and know it all off my back..) What is one thing that brings us all here, whats the one questions we cant answer - are they real? And I believe very few people on this planet know the true answer to that question and none of them are here on this site. You come on here throwing more negativity and disinformation and putting words in ppls mouths and you dont want me to get defensive or offended..

Im offering more evidence with every picture that this is real, and you offer nothing to either prove or disprove.. just words of advice.. thanks, I'll go ahead and trade you in for a couple of fortune cookies.

I'm only interested in progress, so I wont reply to you again or argue on this post. This and everything you said isnt progress.. just your two cents.. gee thanks.

If you have evidence to contribute (good or bad) please do, otherwise take your little forum words of wisdom and get out.

This is a long post but hopefully it will show the issue with the images after your process.

10 out of 10 for trying Odin2305 and just to let you know the reason I joined here was from a post on another site I was told to look here to see real proof.

Well out there somewhere there is bound to be life that's 100% certain but does it visit here I don't think so BUT if I saw something I thought was real on here I would back it 100% no problem at all.

When someone makes quotes like this it's obvious they don't really know/understand FULLY what they are doing .

Originally posted by Odin2305
No. The process took like 2+hours. I said fancy filters b/c it seem like my process was being trash talked by a free program with some contrast features. There were no 'fancy filters' used. All I did was increase saturations, adjusted hues, and contrast, I also sharpened the image. But it was a mix of all those, going back and fourth, I cant really give instructions, but I'm willing to try if you guys want to look for it yourselves.

Originally posted by Odin2305
I re-sampled and re-sized, enhanced, re-sampled and enhanced.

You are claiming your process was being trash talked by a free program yet you said this.

I have used everything from GIMP to Serif Photoplus to photoshop. I assure you I have quite a lot of experience and many years working with photos in these programs... I know my way around.

G.I.M.P is a free program it's a great program not as good as Photoshop but almost and it's free!! Lets look at your first image link you took a screen grab from youtube in COLOUR of a picture that was originally B&W so lets look at some data from your first Image.

Using Irfanview another great FREE program lets get some info on your picture.

As you can see it has 29008 UNIQUE colours.

Lets crop round the so called foo fighter and use same program again

As you can see now 6849 UNIQUE colours.

Here is the info from a quick B&W snap from my 16 MP Sony SLT (DSLR) camera.

ONLY 256 UNIQUE colours (black to white) AND as you can see less colours but way more detail than the foo image but that's to be expected!

Now if I adjust the hue saturation or contrast on my B&W image do colours appear NO
I would have to alter the red,green,or blue channel levels to do that.

If I load a typical colour shot from my camera I get this using the same program

202911 UNIQUE colours keep that number in mind for later.

I then took the foo close up boosted the hue,saturation & contrast JUST ONCE this is the result as you can see we now have some colour in the picture.

It now has 7995 UNIQUE colours up from 6849.

I did the same with the model GTR pic boosted the hue,saturation & contrast ONCE this is the result.

Now has 98 UNIQUE colours down from 256 can you see DOWN not UP!!!

Your process on a COLOUR image (of a B&W picture) adds colour, then when you use your process repeatedly what happens well lets see lets look at one of your foo close up pictures.


WOW 199732 UNIQUE colours up from 6849 !!!!!!! and almost the same as a full colour picture from my camera above !!!!!.

Can you now see the issue, your process DOESN'T REVEAL hidden data it CREATES NEW DATA.
Do that repeatedly and the problem compounds , I did not even use the sharpening tool on the images you said you also did that , used to much it creates halos and can change colours as well.

I hope you see that we are only trying to help, we pointed out the problems with your process and what you assumed you managed to find.

reply to post by Odin2305


Can you do some more enhancements to the photo? I'm starting to see cartoon characters now. Bart Simpson? Anyone?

reply to post by Odin2305

I'm only interested in progress, so I wont reply to you again or argue on this post. This and everything you said isnt progress.. just your two cents.. gee thanks. If you have evidence to contribute (good or bad) please do, otherwise take your little forum words of wisdom and get out.

Your only interested in progress you say,

I think your a comedian

Originally posted by wmd_2008
This is a long post but hopefully it will show the issue with the images after your process.

10 out of 10 for trying Odin2305 and just to let you know the reason I joined here was from a post on another site I was told to look here to see real proof.

Well out there somewhere there is bound to be life that's 100% certain but does it visit here I don't think so BUT if I saw something I thought was real on here I would back it 100% no problem at all.

When someone makes quotes like this it's obvious they don't really know/understand FULLY what they are doing .

Originally posted by Odin2305
No. The process took like 2+hours. I said fancy filters b/c it seem like my process was being trash talked by a free program with some contrast features. There were no 'fancy filters' used. All I did was increase saturations, adjusted hues, and contrast, I also sharpened the image. But it was a mix of all those, going back and fourth, I cant really give instructions, but I'm willing to try if you guys want to look for it yourselves.

Originally posted by Odin2305
I re-sampled and re-sized, enhanced, re-sampled and enhanced.

You are claiming your process was being trash talked by a free program yet you said this.

I have used everything from GIMP to Serif Photoplus to photoshop. I assure you I have quite a lot of experience and many years working with photos in these programs... I know my way around.

G.I.M.P is a free program it's a great program not as good as Photoshop but almost and it's free!! Lets look at your first image link you took a screen grab from youtube in COLOUR of a picture that was originally B&W so lets look at some data from your first Image.

Using Irfanview another great FREE program lets get some info on your picture.

As you can see it has 29008 UNIQUE colours.

Lets crop round the so called foo fighter and use same program again

As you can see now 6849 UNIQUE colours.

Here is the info from a quick B&W snap from my 16 MP Sony SLT (DSLR) camera.

ONLY 256 UNIQUE colours (black to white) AND as you can see less colours but way more detail than the foo image but that's to be expected!

Now if I adjust the hue saturation or contrast on my B&W image do colours appear NO
I would have to alter the red,green,or blue channel levels to do that.

If I load a typical colour shot from my camera I get this using the same program

202911 UNIQUE colours keep that number in mind for later.

I then took the foo close up boosted the hue,saturation & contrast JUST ONCE this is the result as you can see we now have some colour in the picture.

It now has 7995 UNIQUE colours up from 6849.

I did the same with the model GTR pic boosted the hue,saturation & contrast ONCE this is the result.

Now has 98 UNIQUE colours down from 256 can you see DOWN not UP!!!

Your process on a COLOUR image (of a B&W picture) adds colour, then when you use your process repeatedly what happens well lets see lets look at one of your foo close up pictures.

WOW 199732 UNIQUE colours up from 6849 !!!!!!! and almost the same as a full colour picture from my camera above !!!!!.

Can you now see the issue, your process DOESN'T REVEAL hidden data it CREATES NEW DATA.
Do that repeatedly and the problem compounds , I did not even use the sharpening tool on the images you said you also did that , used to much it creates halos and can change colours as well.

I hope you see that we are only trying to help, we pointed out the problems with your process and what you assumed you managed to find.

edit on 25-4-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

My point exactly.. your camera didn't take a photo of a brilliant glowing object of unimaginable energy. I wouldn't be surprised if the foo contained every single color in the known spectrum and then some!

I started from scratch and used similar process in other places on the photo. it did not create colors anywhere else like it does on the foo. your camera cant get anymore out of what you shoot because of what ur shooting is regular objects shining or reflecting light from a common or low number of colors in the spectrum.. thats why I get more colors and you get less... your detailed analysis is exactly what I was tryin to explain but u delivered it from your point of view. all the light and all the data was burned into that film that took the shot, i was able to reveal some of it.

This is somewhat like what happens with xraying a photo in photoshop you are revealing, altering and exaggerating color to see behind the clothing.. the light punching through the shirt did not stop at the surface of the cloths but went through it.. however without the proper adjustments.. this effect goes unseen.

reply to post by Odin2305

My point exactly.. your camera didn't take a photo of a brilliant glowing object of unimaginable energy. I wouldn't be surprised if the foo contained every single color in the known spectrum and then some!

I'm pretty sure the GTR would beat your light blob in a race. You do realize that it's a black and white photo, don't you? That means the colors were added by the processing.

Originally posted by Odin2305
My point exactly.. your camera didn't take a photo of a brilliant glowing object of unimaginable energy. I wouldn't be surprised if the foo contained every single color in the known spectrum and then some!
I started from scratch and used similar process in other places on the photo. it did not create colors anywhere else like it does on the foo. your camera cant get anymore out of what you shoot because of what ur shooting is regular objects shining or reflecting light from a common or low number of colors in the spectrum.. thats why I get more colors and you get less... your detailed analysis is exactly what I was tryin to explain but u delivered it from your point of view. all the light and all the data was burned into that film that took the shot, i was able to reveal some of it.
This is somewhat like what happens with xraying a photo in photoshop you are revealing, altering and exaggerating color to see behind the clothing.. the light punching through the shirt did not stop at the surface of the cloths but went through it.. however without the proper adjustments.. this effect goes unseen.

Well Odin2305 thanks for my first on Friday, now either you are not that old and have never used a film camera or you just don't have a clue I will let others decide that.

The original picture YOU took the screen capture from was on B&W film now looking at your statement above YOU don't know how film records the image

How does film work?
Let's make it simple and first consider black-and-white film. When you take a picture here's what happens.
Light...reflected off a subject...passes through a lens...onto film
Snap! The shutter opened and closed for only a fraction of a second. But that was enough time for light to burst through and strike the emulsion. And an important change has occurred -- the silver halide crystals that were struck by light have been rearranged. Later, when the film is placed in a developer solution, the light-struck silver halide crystals react chemically with the developer to form black grains of silver which remain in the film.
After the developer is removed and the film is rinsed, a chemical fixer is added. The fixer removes the crystals which were not exposed to light. What is left of your original film is now called a developed negative, just the ones you receive when you get your prints back.

Now thats from KODAKS website they know about the process.

B&W film records the light as blacks various shades of grey to transparent areas it's negative so when photographic paper is exposed by light through the negative we end up with a positive print.

So YOU undestand what YOU did the screen capture was in COLOUR showing a B&W picture thats were YOUR colours are generated.If you had the original negative to make a print or a print itself it would be like any other B&W picture black -shades of grey-white ( 8 bit greyscale 256 shades from black to white)

Now as for your comment that that first screen shot does not generate colours elsewhere I already know it does I had a look at the images when you first posted them remember lets recap.


As you can see it has 29008 UNIQUE colours.

A B&W print wont have 29008 UNIQUE colours!!!! (8 bit greyscale 256 shades)
So lets look at an area of that image well away from your so called foo fighter.

Area of your screen grab before process


Now after

That was boosting hue,sat,contrast/brightness just once.

Now although you won't admit it because you don't have an idea of what your doing anyone else will understand!!!

As for the photoshop xray trick well the clothes have to be thin enough to let some of the reflected light through to be recorded or it doesn't work!!!

Four pages and no Dave Grohl jokes/refs yet? You're slippin', ATS.

Originally posted by RadarOReilly
Four pages and no Dave Grohl jokes/refs yet? You're slippin', ATS.

Hey, we all know Dave Grohl is some kind of superbeing. No human can be that talented.

That means the colors were added by the processing.

Yeah that's nice.. very nice.. you realize they are talking about common photos receiving reasonably common lights under common condition... you guys are calling me slow? yeh, you fail to realize this photo is very far from common and the light crashing into the film must be highly charged with all kinds of energies and at all the frequencies. This is probably why adjusting hues allows and reveal other unseen details. Maybe the better word is accentuate.

When a silver halide crystal is exposed to light, a sensitivity speck on the surface of the crystal is turned into a small speck of metallic silver (these comprise the invisible or latent image). If the speck of silver contains approximately four or more atoms, it is rendered developable - meaning that it can undergo development which turns the entire crystal into metallic silver. Areas of the emulsion receiving larger amounts of light (reflected from a subject being photographed, for example) undergo the greatest development and therefore results in the highest optical density. >wiki

I wonder how the brilliant FooFighter (that radiates unknown light spectrum frequencies, energies and radiations) might effect the Silver halide or other compounds that make up the film.....

Im working right now in 8 bits B+W and I turned down all the saturation just to be sure.. the object and its basic trapezoidal shape.. still shows up.. (even, the now infamous, window) and I have yet to rezize or resample. I wanted to make that any kind of shape was there originally before resizing, I'll post all the results in all sizes in a few.