• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Interesting case with picture

Forums New posts
M

mike

Paranormal Adept
I know LMH didnt cover herself with glory re the drones, and she may be getting had again for all i know, but if not its an interesting case in that it has a picture

UtahPhoto.jpg

Interview

http://www.unknowncountry.com/streaming/012712.mp3

Earthfiles.com Headline News
 
Angel of Ioren said:
There might as well be no picture at all - that could be anything. It looks like someone took a picture of a DJ's lights in a club.
Click to expand...

According to the metadata from the camera (T-mobile mytouch 3g) which has GPS it was taken at the time and location reported.

Interesting enough the witness says what shows up in the picture isnt quite the same as what she could see with the naked eye
 
And the third picture is a rocking horse

aHR0cDovL2VjeC5pbWFnZXMtYW1hem9uLmNvbS9pbWFnZXMvSS8zMUk1WkZ5UGZNTC5qcGc===.jpg


Whats your point ?

I dont see a single visual element apart from the colour blue that links the photo presented and a tanning machine
 
mike said:
Whats your point ?

I dont see a single visual element apart from the colour blue that links the photo presented and a tanning machine
Click to expand...




I don't see a single visual element that links the photo presented and anything at all. The photo has no perspective and could just as possibly be a close-up of a tanning bed as that of a craft. The subsequent story accompanying the photos is rubbish IMHO as well, but hopefully my trepidation will be alleviated in part 2, since we're going to devote it to our anonymous source's dreams.

I'm not going to waste my time with a through linguistic analysis of C.A.'s testimony, but I will note that sometimes our witness GIVES ACCOUNTS IN ALL CAPS JUST LIKE LMH LOVES TO DO.

I am no skeptic as to unexplained aerial phenomena. I have presented video evidence of such on this very forum myself. But I believe all accounts should be treated with rigor, and this particular line of investigation fails the smell test for me.
 
As i originally stated LMH has imbibed the cool aid more than one, so this story could well be a fake.
But posting a picture of a tanning bed in relation to the picture is like saying it was a blue weather ballon, seen through cerulean swamp gas.
Burying it in BS is no way to properly disect a case imo.
Show me a picture of a mundade item (like a tanning bed)with a clear correlation to the one presented, one where the visual elements are clearly the same and i will personally see that the relevant parties are advised. Thats how to investigate and if necessary expose the fakers.
I get that LMH has trodden eyes open ,in her fair share of the steaming stuff, but its not a good reason to chuck the baby out with the bathwater imo

Pixel i cant find Camera Software:Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh in the metadata pics, which one says that and whereabouts. Please point me to this data.
I cant see anything here
T-Mobile MyTouch 3G Specs (white) - Smartphones - CNET Reviews
Either that refers to software.

No doubt ive missed it so if you could point me to the pic that says so i would appreciate it

I'm all for debunking this case, but with proper rationale, not just i dont like LMH or i dont see anything i recognise so its not a UFO, or heres something with blue lights its one of these.
Using that logic we can debunk the Trent photos with a pie tin, actually that logic can debunk every UFO pic, even especially a genuine one.

If and its an IF, the witness is telling the truth then its a great picture even if we dont recognise anything in it.

But posting pictures of a tanning bed in such a way as to suggest thats what it is, when in reality you have no idea what it is, is in itself disinformation

could just as possibly be
Click to expand...

Is true

The second picture is a tanning bed
Click to expand...
Is not
The second statement is deliberately misleading, and imo is no way to properly disect and debunk a case

Part two doesnt hold much interest for me either, dreams do not a witness testimony make, i would rather hear the transcript of a hypnotic regression to be honest

I still cant find the adobe photoshop reference in the metadata pics posted at earthfiles, can anyone else ?
 
the picture is certainly either a long exposure or a very fast moving array of whatever, from top to bottom in this photo. in bruce maccabee's site there is that great new zealand tv reporter sighting/film/phots and in one, a light makes a squiggle in the sky in one frame, meaning that whatever emitted the light, was moving way faster than anything we could even hope to have. that's not even going into the obvious negation of inertia, if indeed it was a physical object.
 
Well, ive gone over all 5 metadata pics at earthfiles with a fine tooth comb, and i cant find pixels reference to adobe photoshop............
Now its possible ive missed it, but i cant find it.

If its not there then all of you who liked this

meta data also says: Camera Software:Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Click to expand...

Have done the same thing LMH is often accused of, taking disinfo at face value without checking for yourselves.

If i'm wrong i'll apoligise, but it looks to me like you drank the cool aide.

As far as i can see the Meta data does not say Camera Software:Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh

But since this statement "works" from a skeptic pov, you bought it hook line and sinker, no need to check the veracity of the claim, it must be true, since it supports my premise.

Very sloppy folks.

Again i'm happy to see this case debunked, my own gut feeling is the pic is too good to be true, Of course if it were true i would expect the same reaction.
But lies and disinfo isnt the way to debunk it

Granted LMH has reported on fakes in the past, but that doesnt then mean that her involvement in a case in and of itself makes a given case a fake. Hypothetically if someone were to photograph a genuine UFO, and LMH reported it, her reputation doesnt by default mean the case is a fake
 
My first impulse was that it looks like an operating room light or a dentists light with a bit of editing.

stock-photo-dentist-light-684919.jpg

or even better search "blue dental curing light" and you'll get something like this:
light-blue_1.jpg


I'm not saying that the particular image is fake, but association with LMH makes me scream "hoax" first and look for prosaic explanations immediately.
 
I completely agree, where LMH is concerned and considering the history, in depth scrutiny is a must.

The witness is a "medical technician" and ive had the same ideas re equipment.
But the GPS data supports the claim of where and when it was taken.
The equipment would, if the data is correct, need to have been photographed at that location and at that time, ie 2:30ish am.

As with every single UFO photo on record, ive yet to see anything in this pic that "proves" its a UFO.
But then ive yet to see anything that conclusively proves its a fake, or a snapshot of something earthly either, thus i am keeping an open mind on this one.

If the witness is telling the truth, and i'm not insisting she is, but if she is, then this is imo a fantasic picture, it doesnt tell us anymore than any of the other UFO pics out there, granted.
But if its a genuine witness picture of the object truthfully reported, then for me at least there is a chance i may be looking at an object of nonterrestrial manufacture and function.

I find that possibility exciting
 
Thabtos said:
I'm not going to waste my time with a through linguistic analysis of C.A.'s testimony, but I will note that sometimes our witness GIVES ACCOUNTS IN ALL CAPS JUST LIKE LMH LOVES TO DO.
Click to expand...

This i thought was worth a mention.

We have two possible scenarios here, either LMH opened up her own website and allowed the witness to type up her own account, which then suspiciously contained the same formating that LMH loves to do.

Or more likely imo, LMH typed up the account in her own style including familiar format on her own website.

Personally i dont see anything suspicious in seeing the same format from the same person.

And again i agree LMH has reported well debunked hoax's in the past, and not had the guts to say the evidence is compelling ive been had, sorry.

But that doesnt by default mean anything she reports must be a hoax, shes not the first nor will she be the last reporter to have been fooled.

But the premise everything she may report on must be a hoax is akin to the following

Eskimo1.jpg


The man above is human
The man above is an Eskimo

Ergo all humans are Eskimo men...........


Ive seen nothing so far that shows this witness is bogus, or that her alleged photo is a fake.
To dismiss the case without proof of such seems shortsighted to me.
 
mike said:
This i thought was worth a mention.


Ive seen nothing so far that shows this witness is bogus, or that her alleged photo is a fake.
To dismiss the case without proof of such seems shortsighted to me.
Click to expand...

I've seen nothing so far that shows this witness even exists.

As for the photo, I was attempting to show an example of something relatively commonplace you could photograph with near-same results. Han has done the same with more rigor.


Of course we could be wrong, and if so, we'll go down as history's biggest fools. But if we're not and it's not true, then LMH's reputation doesn't change.

What does that say to you?
 
mike said:
Pixel i cant find Camera Software:Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh in the metadata pics, which one says that and whereabouts. Please point me to this data.
I cant see anything here
T-Mobile MyTouch 3G Specs (white) - Smartphones - CNET Reviews
Click to expand...

File name:UtahPhoto.jpg
File size:182029 bytes (432x576, 5.9bpp, 4x)
EXIF Summary:3.72mm

Camera-Specific Properties:

Equipment Make:Tmobile
Camera Model:T-Mobile myTouch 3G
Camera Software:Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh

Image-Specific Properties:

Image Orientation:Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution:72 dpi
Vertical Resolution:72 dpi
Image Created:2012:01:26 11:34:46
Focal Length:3.72 mm
Color Space Information:sRGB
Image Width:432
Image Height:576
Latitude:N 40° 53' 44.90
Longitude:W 111° 55' 54.80
Altitude:1269.00 m
Time (UTC):09:37:30
Geodetic Survey Data:WGS-84
GPS Processing Method:GPS
Date (UTC):2011:12:13

Other Properties:

Resolution Unit:i
Chrominance Comp Positioning:Centered
Exif IFD Pointer:2336
Compression Scheme:JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Horizontal Resolution:72 dpi
Vertical Resolution:72 dpi
Resolution Unit:i
Offset to JPEG SOI:4946
Bytes of JPEG Data:3067
Exif Version:2.20
Image Generated:2011:12:13 02:37:31
Image Digitized:2011:12:13 02:37:31
Meaning of Each Comp:Unknown
Latitude Reference:N
Longitude Reference:W
Altitude Reference:0
 
i guess my EXIF reader is altering the META Data in order to create disinformation... :rolleyes:
 
pixelsmith said:
i guess my EXIF reader is altering the META Data in order to create disinformation... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Thanks,
So this data is taken from the pic as posted, not any of the actal metadata snapshots shown at earthfiles.
Going by the name, it looks like you used the photo i posted here.
That photo was taken from Unknowncountry, is it possible that the software data is a result of that copy being resized at UC for posting on their site ?

I cant find any reference to adobe in the original metadata as posted at earthfiles.
Nor can i find any reference to adobe photoshop being the software for this type of camera.

But its clearly an avenue worth exploring, if it can be shown that earthfiles has deliberately removed that data from the metadata they have posted, thats pretty damning imo
 
Thabtos said:
I've seen nothing so far that shows this witness even exists.

As for the photo, I was attempting to show an example of something relatively commonplace you could photograph with near-same results. Han has done the same with more rigor.


Of course we could be wrong, and if so, we'll go down as history's biggest fools. But if we're not and it's not true, then LMH's reputation doesn't change.

What does that say to you?
Click to expand...

Ive seen nothing so far that shows you exist either, conversely you have "seen" nothing so far that shows i exist.
Its not unusual for witness to want to remain anonymous either.

As i said i have my own gut feeling about the photo being fake, but it needs to be debunked with more than the tenous arguments youve presented thus far imo
 
Back
Top