Landed flying saucers from earlier today

I'm not a photographer or a photography expert but it just looks like light refractions or reflections to me.
Possibly even a shiny car with high beams on with 30' streetlights over the ridge behind it?

Get closer next time ;D

There is an oddity with the ground on the three pictures. The first shows a fairly flat ground far to the right of the objects. All objects appear perfectly horizontal. The second picture shows a slight incline, starting some feet away from the rightmost object. The third picture shows a decidedly marked incline, where both objects appear to be resting. They both are still perfectly horizontal.

The branches from the trees are not hanging the same in each. The first picture gives the appearance of one branch resting on the left side of the right object, one resting on the right side and one hanging over same. Two on the right side of left object and one between them both.

The second picture has at least three branches hanging directly over the rightmost object. In the first picture counting the low hanging loose branches to the left of the clump one the right, you see three. In the second picture there are five. The two branches that were between the two objects in the first picture are not in the second.

Woodsyboy, what made you choose this site to post these pictures, as the day of your post is also the day of your registration?

Man you guys are too much, I wouldmt be suprised if he didnt even post again, for petes sake hes only 16 and obviously excited and honest, who else would admit somoking pot if they were trying to hoax something!!!
Its only been a couple of days and there is a "SUPER MODERATOR" allready beating the kid down as well WTF is this.
Makes Me wunder anymore what this forum is all about!! sure is drifting from the theme in its own URL

He does'nt live in the f'n park you dont even give him time to upload and your slamming him, shame on you

Hi, I really like these pics they could be promising

and they doo look like flying saucers.
however,
I think It could also be a carpark.
as pictured below.




P.s. the one I labled UFO now lookes to me as a convertable look at the front window



[edit on 16-11-2004 by TrentReznor]

Originally posted by Iwunder
Makes Me wunder anymore what this forum is all about!! sure is drifting from the theme in its own URL

This forum is about people making their own conclusions from any and all available evidence. To me, these pictures are very intriguing, but others negativity toward them probably comes from the fact that a lot of people post complete bullshine on the www (not necessarily on ATS) and pass it off as proof of a ufo or something unexplainable. These pictures don't look like hoaxes to me because I used to have an old cheap digital camera that took pics of a similar quality to these.

I visit ATS for about 2 years, didn't feel the need to register until today so I could post my findings about the issue.

As far as I can tell these are genuine;

First to re-visualize the photos and name the elements in it, I made two composite images;


photo 1 & 2 combined


photo 1 & 2 combined and visible outlines emphasized and the objects named through A to D


Now the first possible question is familiar;

Question Are these photos computer generated, or edited photos? Are these made in Photoshop?

Answer No, they are not CG and they are not edited in Photoshop, explanation follows. JPEG format is not just a raw image format, it has a header. Even if the file does not has a metadata attached to it, there is still information about the program which the image is saved through. You can take exactly the same image and save it by using various programs such as PhotoShop, ACDsee, etc. and the header of each output will differ. As in programs, digital cameras have their own signature in the header (not metadata) of their formats too. For example in many cameras when you took a picture and transfer it to the computer, you can view it on computer, but when you save the same image through another program and transfer it back to the camera with the same filename and same location you can not view the image from the LCD display, the camera does not recognize the file, the reason is when you save the image the saving program changes the images header. In this case the photos sent by the woodsyboy has this header (which is fixed in both images)

Header code follows:

���� JFIF



�� C   #,%!*!&4'*./121%6:60:,010�� C
 
0  00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000�� 
��
! 

�� 








�� � 

]
 !1AQa"q2���#B��R��$3br�
%&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 











�� � 

w
!1AQaq"2�B���� #3R�br�
$4�%�&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 
 ?

To view it just open the jpeg file in a text editor. Now I compared this header with PS and ACDsee outputs (of the same image) and those are obviously different.

Therefore the images are direct outputs of another program or hardware, in this case the the specific phone which woodsyboy mentioned. However I do not have any other image that is saved by that specific phone model, I can not tell %100 that this images are directly outputted from a phone, in the other hand I am absolutely sure these are not edited and outputted from PS or any other image editing software.

If someone has the same model cellphone, it is very easy to check just take two separate shots from the phone and open them in a text editor, there should be a common header exactly same with each other in the beginning of the file. If those match with the header above than we can be sure that these photos are outputted from that specific phone model.

Of course this finding does not state that every JPEG that has photoshops header on it, is fake, but it means that in its history it is edited in some manner. (size, compression etc.)

Fact 1. The images are not edited in Photoshop, and are direct outputs of a digital camera( or cameraphone)
Fact 2. There are 4 saucer like objects visible in these shots.
Fact 3. The object A and B are alike, actually when outlining them I just copied and pasted the outline of B to A and it fitted.
Fact 4. The two lights seen on A is between the viewer and the object or directly on (or in) the object, as we consider A is opaque as B.
Fact 5. These two light sources are not naked against the camera, they are reflected or either filtered. As all the other light sources in the image streak or glow these do not. They have a look like the softbox (the apparatus used in the photography studios, whitebox) effect. So what we see are not the light sources but are illuminated by the light source. Otherwise they would streak and glow in the nightmode. Or they are very dim.
Fact 6. The bright areas on A are rectangular, but They are not rectangular shaped spots otherwise they would streak like crazy.
Fact 7. The camera had (considerably) moved to the right between shot 1 and 2. So woodsyboy actually moved right in between two shots.

Another interesting point is that woodsyboy is not really defending these images harshly and does not insist that these are real in a unnatural reaction. However there is something in creation that the creator person loves its creation (a rule) like the mother and child. Even if s/he wants it or not s/he will defend it to the last point ( a general idea) and I can not see this in woodsyboys posts. He is like "man, I'm not the king, I am just telling you the rules" as if he just encountered an event and passing it over. Also I am convinced he is young, 16 or so. Also imagine that this thing happened to you instead of woodsyboy, and you came to post these so on so fort, it is always useful to think about things the other way around. In fact we all know such a scene is a possibility as anything is possible.

With these facts on sight, can this event can be hoaxed. Well there are two ways: images must be edited before they have been received by the camera, such as setting up the whole scene in reality. The other way is having a grand knowledge of the header issue and edit it to match a digital camera or phone. But I believe the second one is not a big possibility, I also believe that most of you didn't even know about JPEG headers anyway. A hoaxer would think "so who would look to the header" or he wouldn't think about it at all.

So I perceive these images as real. However the question is;

"So WHAT?"

Is this the first fascinating thing that occurred? What can you do. Such unexplained things are as you can guess from its name are the things which has no definition therefore they can be anything and therefore nothing. Everybody will forget, there will be something new. Even if thousand people witnessed such an event. nothing. They will still be a thousand people in some other place on earth who witnessed something, in the eyes of the rest 6 billion people. Unbelievable things always happen. people got killed without reason. whole world witnesses it. So what. Things will be forgotten. so on so forth.

Did anyone else notice this was taken through a pain of glass, the lights could be from behind the camera.





xu
Excellent job on putting the pictures together. The only question I have is what is the bright light in picture D? That looks like the setting sun to me, and if the sun was just setting, it should not have been dark enough to use a Night mode on the camera.

XU is my new hero! (Well at least close to)
Great input to this thread and I'm looking forward to seeing more posts from you some day

I'm not going to say I think these are fake (and there were ways to fake photos before photoshop was invented, people seem to forget), but I am going to say they don't look like a whole lot of anything. Could be the Zeta Reticulans, could be a few objects placed in such a way that their outlines look like saucer. Not a whole lot to go on, but my logical sid eis telling me there's something fishy aobut this. I mean, why are UFO's landing in a park?

One more question/observation if that is not the setting sun, where is the shadow below the objects being cast from. It looks like it was purposely silhouetted, to me, at dusk and night vision was used to make it less clear.

Originally posted by Esoterica
...I mean, why are UFO's landing in a park?

Because the nearby parkinglot was horribly expensive at almost 3�/hour!

Originally posted by phlake
Because the nearby parkinglot was horribly expensive at almost 3�/hour!

Well, I'm convinced.

*Dons tinfoil hat, stockpiles Aquafina*

Question for XU ; What is to the far rt in the image to the rt of what looks like may be an "E" vessel looks as if something is standing upright to the rt of it ...

I dont want to repost it to help save bandwith

i think you are right. there does seem to be a 5th vessel and it is very clear compared to the other ones, i dont think we can make any conclutions until we see what is there during the day though. But i cant realy think of anything that would cause those outlines

Yes best way to convince the cynic is to offer a flaw. A lapse in character, let's say smoking pot while taking said photos may make some people think �hey why would he mention this if it was not a genuine sighting? Easy to give a degree of believable personality. To form a character for a novel the first goal is, give your protagonist a foible. Give crease in his make up to make him believable. I'm not espousing that this is a deliberate and thought-out hoax but we must consider all aspects.
Also people may say well he is young do not deter him from posting on here.
Well guess what, if I had witnessed such a phenomenon and collected hard evidence I would not be posting it on a internet forum but trying my best to deliver it to the mass media.
Even a small local channel would run this story if it looked into it and found no immediate traces of falsehood.
Do I believe he THINKS he saw UFO's, maybe. Do I think they could look like fat people with small heads holding their arms out, well yes. Whatever they are, if you have true faith in your sighting and collected proof, flood it on to the wider media as soon as possible.

yall should quit criticizing the boy, at least until he comes through with a few more photo's for us.

Yes I do agree with what you say but dont you think its a good idea to let him finish laying out his casebefore launching the scuds?

Originally posted by Iwunder
Yes I do agree with what you say but don�t you think its a good idea to let him finish laying out his case before launching the scuds?

Absolutely no idea what any of that means.
BTYW invisiblekey what if I posted photos of my dog in a Grey costume would that satisfy you. Let us have some perspective and balance. No wonder non-believers think UFO enthusiast are all nut cases, no regard for truth as long as they are fed some blurry pics of something that may or may not be something odd.

What Im saying is Woodsyboy stated he has much more to share, So, dont you think the debunking is a little out fo line at least until he has completed presenting all of his evidence?

No I don't because I am not debunking. I am saying that if he has this great new and undeniable proof, take it to a higher source. Take it the worlds attention. Let us see the evidence and examine it.