Particularly poor UFO photoshopping

Bikewer · 5th March 2005, 05:09 PM

From Fark.com...

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

Goshawk · 5th March 2005, 05:28 PM

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

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 5th March 2005, 06:26 PM

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 · 5th March 2005, 06:58 PM

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

Bikewer · 5th March 2005, 07:59 PM

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 · 5th March 2005, 08:05 PM

Quote:

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 · 5th March 2005, 11:35 PM

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 · 6th March 2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

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!!!

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 · 6th March 2005, 04:41 PM

What do Belgian skeptics think it is, JMA?

~~ Paul

Astrophotographer · 6th March 2005, 05:35 PM

Quote:

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 . I think a better discussion of it is produced by Marc Hallet. 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 · 6th March 2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

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 . 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 · 6th March 2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

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 · 6th March 2005, 06:21 PM

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

[confession]
I added the mention of Christmas only because I was desperately looking for an excuse to use the Santa smiley.

[/confession]

LTC8K6 · 7th March 2005, 06:10 AM

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

Vikram · 7th March 2005, 06:20 AM

Quote:

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...

CurtC · 7th March 2005, 07:28 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 09:20 AM

Quote:

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 · 7th March 2005, 09:36 AM

Quote:

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 · 9th March 2005, 04:29 AM

Quote:

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...

5th March 2005, 05:09 PM	#1
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,519	Particularly poor UFO photoshopping From Fark.com... http://seekers.100megs6.com//UFOManTR-3B.htm

5th March 2005, 06:26 PM	#3
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,589	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
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

5th March 2005, 06:58 PM	#4
jmercer Question Everything Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Facing the unfaceable Posts: 12,259	I sure hope the rest aren't supposed to be real... the fourth one literally has a screw showing at the bottom-right.
	__________________ "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke, British Statesman and Philosopher, 1729-1797 "Cheeky Monkey!" - Chillzero "Daft Sausage!" - Tkingdoll "Context is everything, and sophistry will not protect you." - chillzero

5th March 2005, 11:35 PM	#7
El_Spectre Lizard Scum Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Arizona Bay Posts: 1,206	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.
	__________________ Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. - Ambrose Bierce Question your argument if you must mock your opponent to make it... Step 1 in helping spread the skeptical way of thinking: Don't be a jerk.

6th March 2005, 04:41 PM	#9
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,589	What do Belgian skeptics think it is, JMA? ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

5th March 2005, 05:28 PM	#2
Goshawk Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA Posts: 1,453	Gosh. I've seen better graphics from kindergartners fooling around with KidPix.

5th March 2005, 07:59 PM	#5
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,519	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."

5th March 2005, 08:05 PM	#6
Kilted_Canuck MaterialistPatriotic AgnosticSocialistNaieve Saskatchewanian RadicalCanuckistani Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Manitoba, Canada Posts: 1,377	Quote: 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.

6th March 2005, 04:11 PM	#8
JMA Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Location: Close to Brussels Posts: 276	Quote: 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!!! 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

6th March 2005, 05:35 PM	#10
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,890	Quote: 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 . I think a better discussion of it is produced by Marc Hallet. 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.

6th March 2005, 05:40 PM	#11
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,890	Quote: 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 . 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.

6th March 2005, 06:01 PM	#12
turtle Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 342	Quote: 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.
turtle Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 342	__________________ <a href="http://ufobits.blogspot.com/">U.F.O. Bits Blog</a> <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Forteans_and_Skeptics/">Join us at Forteans and Skeptics!</a>

6th March 2005, 06:21 PM	#13
Vikram Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 520	I'm going to buy me one of those flying triangles as soon as they are offered on sale to civilians. Maybe next Christmas. [confession] I added the mention of Christmas only because I was desperately looking for an excuse to use the Santa smiley. [/confession]
Vikram Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 520	__________________ "Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." - Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller

7th March 2005, 06:10 AM	#14
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,616	It's clear that the first two photos are the same, so why are they presented as 2 different "triangles"?

7th March 2005, 06:20 AM	#15
Vikram Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 520	Quote: 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...
Vikram Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 520	__________________ "Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." - Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller

7th March 2005, 07:28 AM	#16
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Quote: 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.

7th March 2005, 09:20 AM	#17
phildonnia Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Sac'to CA Posts: 2,339	Quote: 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.

7th March 2005, 09:36 AM	#18
Ashles Pith Artist Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The '80s Posts: 8,711	Quote: 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.
	__________________ With extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. - Jeffrey Burton Russell No one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate - Ivars Peterson

9th March 2005, 04:29 AM	#19
JMA Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Location: Close to Brussels Posts: 276	Quote: 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...