One for the image analysis folks

[Ron Collins]

3 images atually.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo416.htm

What are your thoughts.

 

[BrandonD]

3 images atually.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo416.htm

What are your thoughts.

"new session failed"... this is the message when you click on that link.

 

[Ron Collins]

I went to the site http://www.ufoevidence.org

Then click on the link at the top called "UFO PHOTOGRAPHS".

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.asp

on the left towards the middle of the page there is orange text that says, "View by decade" clik on the "2000 to present" link.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decade/post2000.htm

middle photo top row. "Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA" January 2007.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

This image reminds me a great deal of the set of images here. http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo9.htm

 

[Astroboy]

These are very interesting pictures. If it is a fake it is a very good one.

1. Blurring matches general camera blur.
2. Atmospheric distortion looks correct.
3. Subtle motion blur of lights and glare looks right.
4. Overexposure of lights bleeding over foreground element looks authentic.
5. One of few photos with foreground element superimposed on top.

Only way to tell is to get a hold of the original negatives or raw digital files and look for unmatched grain or pixelation.

This would be a tougher one to pull off as a hoax but not impossible. The real trick is to mask out the tree branches so you can lay this on top of the UFO image. Photoshop masking tools can certainly do this as well a number of other top notch dedicated matting tools. Again you really need to look at the raw film or files.

Definitely one of the more remarkable pictures out there. I can't see any defects off the bat. I would call these probable authentic photos.

 

[schticknz]

Ummm ... quick question ... hope someone can answer it for me:

If its daylight (and i'm assuming it is from the photos) ... why does the UFO need its landing lights on? ... or indeed any lights at all???

[This question can be extended to all similar daylight UFO images]

Just a thought ... thats been bothering me for a while.

(just seen the word "evening" but the question still holds for similar incidents ...)

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Ummm ... quick question ... hope someone can answer it for me:

If its daylight (and i'm assuming it is from the photos) ... why does the UFO need its landing lights on? ... or indeed any lights at all???

[This question can be extended to all similar daylight UFO images]

Just a thought ... thats been bothering me for a while.

(just seen the word "evening" but the question still holds for similar incidents ...)

Might not be landing lights. In some cases, (not necessarily this one) the lights seem to be it's means of propulsion, or related. Some theories of field propulsion indicate the air around the craft is ionized and this leads to a glow you see with some ufos at night. This may be interpreted as lights by some, but it's actually not. The photos don't appear to have been taken during a bright sunny day. Seems cloudy, or perhaps dusk or dawn. I didn't read when the pics were took as far as time. Another reason for lights is it may let the other beings know what kinds of craft, or operation is being under taken. Also, for safety reasons. Easier to see. Sometimes ufos are seen flying together. Who knows....

 

[Michael L.]

If its daylight (and i'm assuming it is from the photos) ... why does the UFO need its landing lights on? ... or indeed any lights at all???

I don't know... why does my mother in law always drive with her lights on? There are so many things we just don't understand...

 

[David Biedny]

Those images are interesting, but they'd be even more compelling if there were a shot or two of the object much further away from the camera. As it stands, that could indeed be a miniature hoisted above the trees (doing away with the need for Photoshop masking of any sort), which would also explain the motion blur match.

Here's what you have to ask yourself: if you were the one shooting those pictures, would you try to snap off as many shots as possible? Would you keep shooting it as it flew away (given that there was enough film/memory left in the camera)? I now I would, and I have to assume that anyone in that situation would react the same way. The lack of such shots makes me a little suspicious, more background info would be needed from the actual photographer to properly evaluate the potential of these being legit UFO pictures.

As to the idea of lights and their functionality, the bottom line is that we have no idea of what any kind of non-human tech is or how it works, so the assumption that lights on UFOs would be "landing lights" is, IMO, erroneous. Who knows what function they could serve?

dB

 

[David Biedny]

Packrat,

The images you linked are more interesting to me, given that there seems to be much more atmospheric density between the camera and object, potentially indicating a greater distance from the camera. This would be harder to fake with a miniature, IMO.

dB

 

[Astroboy]

...that could indeed be a miniature hoisted above the trees (doing away with the need for Photoshop masking of any sort), which would also explain the motion blur match.
dB

You're right David. But these days most hoaxers are too lazy to spend the time to build miniatures and just resort to some 3D/compositing software to create fakes. Lot's of guys out there with basic skills can do this.

With the fragmentation of the CG FX industry and the hire/fire en masse nature of projects they'll come a time when some real pros have a little too much time will pull off a spectacular hoax.

Aah, the days before computers when you actually had to make things with your hands. Does anyone remember when you could actually buy liquid dope for model airplanes without being 18?

 

[schticknz]

As to the idea of lights and their functionality, the bottom line is that we have no idea of what any kind of non-human tech is or how it works, so the assumption that lights on UFOs would be "landing lights" is, IMO, erroneous. Who knows what function they could serve?

Ummm i was being a little bit facetious when i asked that question ... but thats cool :-D.

However, there is a level of seriousness to why i asked it ... why would such a technically advance race need lights on the outside of their ship?. I understand the propulsion thing ... but still wouldn't a sufficiently advanced civilisation be beyond that sort of (ionic, possibly) propulsion.

Of course, the answer to that could be "they're alien ... so how could we possibly know what they're intentions are" ... or maybe they're not as advanced as we give them credit for???

 

[Ron Collins]

This image reminds me a great deal of the set of images here. http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo9.htm

I had originally posted, in this spot, that these images were taken by the same people. I was wrong. There doesnt seem to be any evidence to support that other than the theory of a friend. so I changed that post.

They looked real to me, but i'm new at this and could probably be fooled easily.

So what can a layperson like myself use as a barometer to spot fake photos? Is there a top 10 list of attributes to look for?

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Packrat,

The images you linked are more interesting to me, given that there seems to be much more atmospheric density between the camera and object, potentially indicating a greater distance from the camera. This would be harder to fake with a miniature, IMO.

dB

Yeah, all the comments I read on those photos have been positive. At first glance of the photos this thread is about, I actually thought someone just modified the photos I linked. But after reviewing them, I'm less convinced.

 

[devan]

Here's a link to two photos recently sent to LMH. It would be interesting to get David's take on these...

http://www.earthfiles.com/news-print.php?ID=1349&category=Environment

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Devan. Last I checked, Jeff R. had a forum where you can post pics for him to analyze. If David doesn't respond, maybe try over at Jeff's forum at ATS.

 

[theavenger]

Very interesting pictures. Thanks for posting them here.