http://www.coasttocoastam...heme=light

I can't stop looking at these pics

And the first one to scream photoshop, please point out the seams to me in each pic, 'cause believe me I've looked, and I aint seenin' 'em

the focus is strange when compared to the leaves, as if it's really small...

Star Trek.

ufoclub said:

That's all ya got?!

That's just perspective...

I am no expert in either photography nor photoshop but, while these photographs are interesting to look at, I definitely do not believe them to be of a "real" UFO (and I am a believer in extraterrestrial life).

The last photograph in particular looks suspicious to me. The focus of the trees is much less crisp and sharp than is the craft itself.

Also the writing on the underside of the craft looks like something from Star Trek.

Fake.

couldn't the "UFO" simply be superimposed against the nature shots?

some of the pics also have part of the "UFO" cropped out of the picture. heck, for all we know, someone could be holding the "UFO" or it could be propped up with a stick.

these aren't very convincing pics at all, i don't think. cool model, though.

I don't know what that is? Looks like someones science project. Anyone have pics of the one spotted over Ohare. Alotta people saw that one.

You guys aren't convincing me.

If it's a model, explain how the lighting is perfect.

FruitToAttractBears said:

many earthling photographers and graphic designers are well versed in matters of lighting theory.

july said:

It could be us in the future. Sending a craft to look around.

My vote.

It's a time travel experiment.

Supposed to be in a remote area but was witnessed, by a current time being. æ "Chad".

All I'm saying is, if you're claiming its fake, at least back it up with something you didn't pull out of your ass.

FruitToAttractBears said:

what's wrong with the things in my ass? they're very persuasive.

Anxiety said:

They clearly aren't.

Well. I've heard about something similar, but from the description of the craft, I'm suprised those guys surivived if, it if that what this was. That's why you always carry aluminum or tin foil, you might have to put it over your crown chakra.
[Edited 5/21/07 19:41pm]

I don't think, it's fake. Just, misunderstood.

lilgish said:

What happened with the "something similar" thing?
[Edited 5/21/07 19:40pm]

i think it is Oprah's missing IUD

SlamGlam said:

FruitToAttractBears said:

I don't think the lighting is that perfect.

The object in these photographs appears almost uniformly lit which, to me, doesn't make sense. Judging from the photographs, the sun appears to be at a rather high point in the sky which, unless there was some reason that the light was being reflected back up from the ground, should cause the underside of the object to be darker than those surfaces closer to the light source.

FruitToAttractBears said:

The ufo is fake looking because the trees show depth of field/blur while the ufo presumably, supposedly bigger than the trees is in sharp focus with no motion blur... this would look fake in motion.

The lighting being perfect is another indicator that it is fake. No blur, no motion...

why do you think it's real? Does it look like pictures you've seen of similar but known objects in the sky?

Well, this craft, like the one in the link, only appears in rural, forest areas. These are supposedly being enginerred to track certain things. What I dunno? One interesting thing about these crafts is that they seemingly operate under perpetual motion. Coast to Coast is good, you have to be a member to read their board, I'm a member, but the dialogue is limited. You Can find decent UFO discussion on ATS. AbovetOPsECRET

2nd, 3rd and last one all look a little dodgy. The sharpness of the pictures isn't natural or consistent at all.

See this one in particular:



See how overexposed the picture is to bottom left of the picture. How is that having no effect on the craft? The trees on the right are nicely exposed, as they would be, while to the left the direct sunlight has left the clouds and sky well over-exposed. However, the lighting across the craft is uniform, despite covering much of the picture left to right. There's no fringing on the left side of the craft and no areas of contrasting dark and light. The craft has been evenly lit from all sides somewhere else.

That doesn't even mention the focus. In the original tree and sky picture the focus (though it's not brilliantly in focus) is around the branches closest to us, to the right middle of the picture. As such, the branches further away, say just under where the craft is, are less in focus. However, the craft has been put behind these out of focus branches and yet is the most in focus part of the picture. There can't be two focal points. For the craft to be there and be as sharp as it is, those relatively focused branches to the middle right would have to be less in focus and the ones further away, closer to the craft, more in focus.

Clearly fake, with no detail really needed. Your eyes should automatically sense that this picture is 'wrong' and impossible to achieve naturally.

.
[Edited 5/21/07 19:55pm]

Anxiety said:

Dude, it's real.




I believe

Imago said:

lilgish said:

So I got the perspective wrong and shit, but 5 minutes with Photoshop and no inclination to make something obviously fake look more real will do that.



I do love how elegant those pics are though. Much better than the old hubcap in the air trick.

Fauxie said:

The craft isn't in the bottom left of the picture.

You can see the shadow on the left side of that beam jutting into the trees, and the shadow under the upper rim and casting over the inside of the back rim...


Are you even looking at it?



I really don't see what everyone else is complaining about with the focus, the only thing I see in clear focus is the craft. Why must everything else be an amorphous blur? Anyway, that doesn't even matter because the lighting is too accurate.

Yeah, the second and seventh ones are off on lighting and focus. And in photos this low-res, it's not tough to hide "seams".

Honestly, this kind of Photoshop work is just not that difficult. Given the model to photograph, I could fake these photos, and my skill level isn't that high.

Imago said:

they are making a giant bannan ... why not a

Imago said: