• 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!

June 24 episode - Venezuela photo

Forums New posts
B

BrandonD

Skilled Investigator
The Venezuela photo David is referencing and the Venezuela photo Maccabee is referencing are indeed the same photo. Go to amazon and type in the book title. Apparently David does not know the difference between a lake and a cloud cover after all, haha.

Actually, it does look pretty much like a lake.
 
Indeed, Bruce was right and I was wrong.

The only version of the image I had seen was on ufoevidence.org, here. Tell me it doesn't look like a body of water. I tracked down a used copy of the UFOs are Real book that Maccabee wrote with Ed Walters, the color version of the photo on the cover looks like water as well. As I said on the show, I always reserve the right to be wrong. ;)

dB
 
that is one horrible picture! I was picturing something much clearer in my mind when you were talking about this. Who could blame you for getting that wrong? That could be anything.
 
I agree, I always thought it was water too.

But then again, I thought the object was an attic vent...so what do I know. :)

The book cover image:
51GM6K0G7YL._SS500_.jpg
UFO1.gif


I don't think it is color though, just did some effect on all of the images on the cover.
 
Hey David, in regards to your laments about the lack of visual sophistication in the general public, I gotta say it's pretty unrealistic to expect us to be on par with your level of expertise. Maybe it's never occured to you but one of the reasons you're so good at what you do is probably because it's an innate talent you have that most people lack and could never obtain even with proper training.

That said, I think it should be taken as a sign of encouragement that more and more people are able to at least spot CGI even if it's not work you personally find impressive. As for the rest, well they're the Meirites of our day, people who desperatley want to believe that hubcap is a UFO, so there's not alot we can do for them (especially if it's a digital hubcap!)...

As for the show, it was a bit bland. I was really hoping you guys would probe Bruce for dirt on more interesting cases he's handled, how he feels about the direction of UFOlogy, the "aging of the guard" for guys like himself and Stanton, etc. Most of the time it just felt like you guys were talking shop about image processing.
 
CapnG said:
Hey David, in regards to your laments about the lack of visual sophistication in the general public, I gotta say it's pretty unrealistic to expect us to be on par with your level of expertise.
Click to expand...

See, now, I thought David was right about this. I think the "Chad" photos should throw up red flags to even the untrained eye. There is, in fact,a lack of visual sophistication from people who bought into those pictures hook, line and sinker. I thought this was what David was talking about.
 
I've seen video from Gulf Breeze I think, where water is being sucked up by some sort of craft. Hard vid to come by. I've only seen it a handful of times. Anyway, if any of you know what I'm talking about and have a link to the vid, please post. Thanks.

I haven't listened to all of BM interview, finishing it up now. While I'm thinking of it, I just wanted to mention that he took a polygraph test awhile back, due to some Jerry Black and Kenny Young criticism that occurred during a thread I made on Gulf Breeze at UFOupdates. They were trying to show that he sold out (took money for his work on a particular Gulf Breeze book) etc. I can't recall Bruce's claim. Whether he said he took NO money, or only something like 10 percent etc. Anyway, Bruce told me the results were "Positively inconclusive". That was the examiner's term, not Bruce's if I remember correctly. This happened a few years ago. I haven't heard anyone deal with it is why I mention it. Maybe ask next time he's on, if you ever have him back.
 
David, I was wondering if you could briefly explain why you think this photo is so compelling. Does it remind you of the object you and multiple witnesses saw in Venezuela, or is it the quality of the image (technical/optical-wise), or both?

I'm intrigued because when I see this image, it looks far from genuine (of course, I have only seen the one you linked to, so if this is a poor reproduction, apologies in advance). In no way am I questioning your professional visuel skills, I'm genuinely curious as to why you feel how you do about this photo.
Thanks.

It looks like water to me too, btw.
 
Rob,

To briefly answer your question, there are some things about this image that immediately strike me as highly compelling. The atmospheric density around the craft indicates to me that it's indeed up in the air, at a distance from the camera, and is not a miniature. The beam of light emitting from the bottom of it is really bright, even though there is a very good amount of actual sunlight in the image, and the opacity of the light beam varies along it's length, which would be really tough to replicate with practical effects. It was reportedly taken in a region of Venezuela, Canaima, which is highly remote, and where there has been a ton of UFO activity over many years. It looks strikingly like the images reported from Gulf Breeze. All of these things, and more, make it a very convincing image, IMO.

dB
 
Ok, thanks David, I get what you mean. That short explanation definately helps to better "see" these kind of images. The thing that sticks out as odd is the scale of the object, how high it is in the air and how long that light beam would have been (I don't know if the person who shot it has given any indication of this). It was descibed as becoming "orange and luminous and shot upwards in the sky", but what was its appearance before this? Was it orange and luminous when the photo was shot?
 
I have pursued photography as a hobby for many years and have lightly dabbled in PhotoShop. With that being said and despite taking and processing thousands of film and digital snaps, I am little more than a rank amateur. Despite that, there is something on the gut level that oftentimes accurately allows an ordinary snapshooter like me and people with even less experience to gauge the veracity of a still or video clip.

The same voice that screamed out Fake! from my mind's eye when it encountered the hanging Chad whispered "Gee, that's creepy." when first confronted with the Venezuela shot.

The difference between the amateur and the pro is sometimes the ability to quantify. I could have studied the Venezuela photo all day and not been able to tell you why I found it intriguing. Upon reading David's interpretation, it was immediately obvious.
 
Miah said:
I agree, I always thought it was water too.

But then again, I thought the object was an attic vent...so what do I know. :)

The book cover image:
51GM6K0G7YL._SS500_.jpg
UFO1.gif


I don't think it is color though, just did some effect on all of the images on the cover.
Click to expand...

I have the book in my lap atm. It is color, and toward the bottom, the "water" is orangish. The photos within the book are all B/W. They didn't print color versions.
 
Paranormal Packrat, do you have a scanner? If you do, could you scan the cover and post the image so we could all get a look at the colour image... ?
 
Back
Top