Particularly poor UFO photoshopping

[Bikewer]

From Fark.com...

http://seekers.100megs6.com//UFOManTR-3B.htm

[Goshawk]

Gosh. I've seen better graphics from kindergartners fooling around with KidPix.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What is it about the first two photos that make you think they are bad Photoshopping?

The remaining photos are not supposed to be real, of course. Er, right?

~~ Paul

[jmercer]

I sure hope the rest aren't supposed to be real... the fourth one literally has a screw showing at the bottom-right. :)

[Bikewer]

Remember the guy down in Florida that was doing all the UFO photos a few years back? Got a bit of national press, anyway. When the guy moved out of his house, the new residents found the UFO models he'd been using.

I remember the CSICOP movie they did, with an analysis of one of his "videos". The fellow from the lab had a great line, "This video is 95% authentic. Only the UFO is faked."

[Kilted_Canuck]

Originally posted by Goshawk
Gosh. I've seen better graphics from kindergartners fooling around with KidPix.


Students still have kidpix? Thats like all we wanted to do on computers in elementary school. :)

[El_Spectre]

Could be worse... at least the guy busted out a nice 3D render...

My favorite "fake" UFO appeared about a year ago, it was Ms. Jackson's (if you're nasty) nipple shield on a "I want to believe" poster.

[JMA]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
What is it about the first two photos that make you think they are bad Photoshopping?

The funny thing is...

The first two photos are in fact exactly the same one!!! :D

It's the Petit-Rechain picture, the only picture of a ufo taken during the Belgian UFO Wave (1989-1992)...

Belgian skeptics thinks it's a fake, but not a photoshopping fake ;)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What do Belgian skeptics think it is, JMA?

~~ Paul

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by JMA
TBelgian skeptics thinks it's a fake, but not a photoshopping fake ;)

I mention it briefly in my Belgian UFO myth webpage (http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/Belg.html) . I think a better discussion of it is produced by Marc Hallet (http://membres.lycos.fr/marchallet/BelgianUFO.htm). There are a lot of issues associated with the photograph that indicate it was a fake. The fact that somebody was able to hold a camera with a 150-200mm telephoto lens relatively still for 1-2 seconds to take this image is hard to believe even if he propped himself against a wall. Having attempted to such photographs with a 50mm lens, I can state that it isn't easy to keep the camera still. Just pressing the shutter button down induces a vibration that one can not readily compensate for.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Remember the guy down in Florida that was doing all the UFO photos a few years back? Got a bit of national press, anyway. When the guy moved out of his house, the new residents found the UFO models he'd been using.

I remember the CSICOP movie they did, with an analysis of one of his "videos". The fellow from the lab had a great line, "This video is 95% authentic. Only the UFO is faked."


That would have been Ed Walters (http://members.aol.com/timprinty/myhomepage/Ed01.html) . My webpage has a bunch of information that suggests that Ed was a hoaxer despite claims by proponents that claim he was abducted by aliens and took dozens of photographs of UFOs.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
What is it about the first two photos that make you think they are bad Photoshopping?

The remaining photos are not supposed to be real, of course. Er, right?

~~ Paul

That's what I thought. It's obvious they are "artist depictions" etc.

[Vikram]

I'm going to buy me one of those flying triangles as soon as they are offered on sale to civilians. Maybe next Christmas. :xsmiley


I added the mention of Christmas only because I was desperately looking for an excuse to use the Santa smiley. :D

[LTC8K6]

It's clear that the first two photos are the same, so why are they presented as 2 different "triangles"?

[Vikram]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
It's clear that the first two photos are the same, so why are they presented as 2 different "triangles"?
Waitaminute! You're asking for logic and reason? Tsk Tsk. You skeptics...:p

[CurtC]

Originally posted by Kilted_Canuck
Students still have kidpix? Thats like all we wanted to do on computers in elementary school. :)My second-grader uses KidPix 3 occasionally at his school.

Boy, this makes me feel old - the only exposure to computers I had in my entire formal education was programming in Fortran on punch-cards.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
What is it about the first two photos that make you think they are bad Photoshopping?

The remaining photos are not supposed to be real, of course. Er, right?

~~ Paul

The first two photos have a lot of "walk" in the pixel colors; something an amateur photoshop user would probably have overlooked.

I'm pretty sure the remaining pictures aren't supposed to be real, but in any case, the triangle has been correctly anti-aliased to the various backgrounds; there a re no "jaggies" as found in cheap cut-and-paste images.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by phildonnia
The first two photos have a lot of "walk" in the pixel colors; something an amateur photoshop user would probably have overlooked.

I'm pretty sure the remaining pictures aren't supposed to be real, but in any case, the triangle has been correctly anti-aliased to the various backgrounds; there a re no "jaggies" as found in cheap cut-and-paste images.
I'm not sure about that. The first 2 images could easily be real photos of something (well, within the lunatic parameters of this discussion anyway).
The first two may just possibly (:) ) be fakes, but I don't see why they would be considered Photoshop fakes.

The later images look much worse because the lighting is all wrong and whoever did them obviously didn't know how to do reflections or even shadow.
Or remove the screws properly.

I think it is a smoke alarm or humidifier. Something like that.

[JMA]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
What do Belgian skeptics think it is, JMA?

We think that it was made with a "mechanical device", if I can call it like that:

You do 3 holes in a big sheet of paper (you need some hard paper), and then you put behind it 3 lightballs for a "triangle"... Then you turn off the light of the room you are in and you turn on the 3 lightballs behind the big sheet of paper. You move slightly the sheet of paper during the time you take the photo and that's it... At the end, you'll have something like the Petit-Rechain pictures.

I never tried it, but a skeptic did it: Wim Van Utrecht. He knows a lot more than me about the Petit-Rechain picture, I must say...

If the guy who took the picture during the Belgian UFO Wave did it like that, it explaines why is testimony doesn't match his picture, as it was said before by someone else on this topic...