UFO SIGHTINGS: MUFON Cases - 2 UFOs Photographed Over McAlester, Oklahoma

[ArMaP]

I took one photo, but it was latter than I thought (or the camera clock is not correct), at 21h and a few (less than 5, if I'm not mistaken) minutes, with the closest settings I could use to the original, but as I didn't had the time to see how the photo turned out, I didn't see that it was too out of focus, but one thing is sure, it was too bright when compared with the photo from the opening post.

That means that the photo from the opening post was either taken at that hour but a different time of the year, that the photo was taken at that time of the year but the clock was not correct or that there was some change in the photo, either of the time/date or of the image itself or both.

(I still have my test the photo, if anyone wants to see it just ask for it. I will try to take a better photo tomorrow.)

As for the moths, I couldn't find a photo of a moth with motion blur, but I found a YouTube video (Miller moths swarm yard) from which I took these two images.





I will try to make a good photo of a moving object appearing translucent tomorrow.

[deuem]

No, I just thought that the way you presented the altered photo was implying that that version was the real one.

There ya go thinking again. I very clearly said it was a miricle photo. I even said I altered it with Auto levels. How in any way is that implying that my version was the real one. What I was implying is that it looks to me that the fella darkenen the photo and all I did was release it back to normal. I have never been able to get such results like this before. See even the Giraffe photo above. If the original Pixels are dark in color, I could work on it for a year to restore them. If someone just changed the contrast then one could just bump it back. If you or anyone else can preform this miricle then I would like to see it.

[deuem]

If the sender thought that it was a moth close to the camera when he sent the photo then yes, it was hoaxing MUFON and everyone else reading the report.

I did try my best to add a note that would cover this but no one read it.  If you have a photo that covers a lot of ground, say out to infinity from your feet. If anything is close to the lens it has a problem with focus. In this case it might be 2.3 meters compared to hundreds of meters in the rear. To focus the entire shoot is impossible. Focus means that every pixel is in focus, not some big blobs that look like things. My understanding of focus and your are very different and I don't want to get into it here, I have the camera thread for that.

But, as if by magic if you add a little blur to the photo, everything in tight or close to the camera will go away. Maybe you should try it a few hundred times and get back to me.

[deuem]

If the moths were in the shade then it would look solid to me.

If a moth or a bug that has semi transparent wings if in the shade of a shadow then the translucent values go away for my process and it looks solid. Take that same bug out intot the sunlight and the wings will turn clear or clearer.

Before I go bug happy, I have never seen a bug that looks like this. It might be an Alien Bug. lol

Most moths have white or brown wings that are covered in pixie dust. They never show clear. Only bugs like dragon flies or bees show clear wings.

If this is a bug or a leaf pod, then someone need to identify it. I already wrote it could be 2.3 meters from the lens and how the photo could work. It needs to be identified. Anyone know what kind of tree that is?

No matter what I still don't like the fact that no one, including myself is picking up any movement. Moths flap their wings very fast and this photo should have looked like the Rod photos Zorgon posted. If you use an extreamly fast shutter speed you can catch them and freeze the flight path. I would have to run the math on a known moth to figure the shutter speed. But it has to be fast. A very fast shutter speed would also darken the photo. The faster the shutter, the more light you need.  What was his shutter speed?

[zorgon]

I like comedy. 

[deuem]

LMAF But I think you need a bigger truck..lol

[ArMaP]

LMAF But I think you need a bigger truck..lol

Is this one big enough (for now)? 



PS: I will comment the other posts when I get home at the end of the day.

[rdunk]

Terex 33-19 "Titan" - If you want to know more about ArMaP's "family truck"  , you can get it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terex_Titan

And here is another interesting photo of it, with several people around and under it!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14799288@N02/2729315354/

[1Worldwatcher]

So, it would be safe too say that the Deuem process is picking up the natural lighting of the Sun but when this photo 'Could Have Been' photo-shopped or layered, the Deuem process is filtering through the garbage still picking up the illumination ring's of the Ambient Sunlight available during the original image started with?

This would definitely explain the lack of signature or ring's for the anomalies being discussed, and there are a few other thing's I ran across that may be a possible answer for what these might be, but, for ArMaps and Zorgon''s sake, I will keep them too myself for now.

Nice work up 'Z', a sign of true sarcasm and stereo typing, appreciate that.

1WW

[ArMaP]

If a moth or a bug that has semi transparent wings if in the shade of a shadow then the translucent values go away for my process and it looks solid. Take that same bug out intot the sunlight and the wings will turn clear or clearer.

OK, I understand it now, thanks.

But I wasn't saying that the moths had translucent wings, what I meant is that, because of the movement, they appear translucent.

Anyone know what kind of tree that is?

I don't have the slightest idea, my knowledge of trees is very limited, having been a city dweller all my life.

What was his shutter speed?

1/30 of a second.

[stealthyaroura]

Well I know the scale/size is all wrong but this is an example of an insect called a lacewing.
there around an inch long at most. just putting this example out there for you.
The "UFO things" I have NO idea. Bloody hoax'rs i'm sick to death of them IF this is another

[ArMaP]

But, as if by magic if you add a little blur to the photo, everything in tight or close to the camera will go away. Maybe you should try it a few hundred times and get back to me.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that.

[zorgon]

So, it would be safe too say that the Deuem process is picking up the natural lighting of the Sun but when this photo 'Could Have Been' photo-shopped or layered, the Deuem process is filtering through the garbage still picking up the illumination ring's of the Ambient Sunlight available during the original image started with?

Yes that seems to be the gist of it. Photo editting leaves traces unless you are very very good. Not sure how cloning from one real image to another would show on Deuem process. I will have to clone one and see what Deuem shows...

This would definitely explain the lack of signature or ring's for the anomalies being discussed, and there are a few other thing's I ran across that may be a possible answer for what these might be, but, for ArMaps and Zorgon''s sake, I will keep them too myself for now.

Go on spit it out Get it out of your system Just remember a lot of you bitched about people being stomped on on ATS   So one must be careful which boots one wears

Nice work up 'Z', a sign of true sarcasm and stereo typing, appreciate that.

Lol image based on a) Thors real truck and B) an email I got   What was odd was how fast I found that on the web LOL

[zorgon]

I have NO idea. Bloody hoax'rs i'm sick to death of them IF this is another

Was about to make a thread on that....

[ArMaP]

Here are some test photos.

1 - A photo taken close to the supposed time the photo from the opening post was taken (four minutes after). Different camera, different settings, too much zoom, but we can see that a photo as dark as the one from the opening post could not have been taken just after sunset.

Photo 1

2 - A photo taken pointing to where the sun had just set. If we try to use auto levels on Photoshop or GIMP (I only used GIMP) it cannot show any detail, because the photo was taken pointing to the light source, so there's too much contrast.

Photo 2

3 - A photo taken some 20º south of the point where the sun had set. Still to close to the light source, too much contrast between brighter and darker areas, auto levels doesn't show much detail.

Photo 3

4 - A photo taken 90º to the left of where the sun had set. Although still not that good, auto levels does a better work, because the contrast is not as strong as on the other photos.

Photo 4

PS: taking the brighter photo and darkening it, we can see that it's relatively easy to make it look like it was taken with less light, but the histogram shows signs of manipulation. Truth be told, the histogram of the photo from the OP, although not showing clear signs of manipulation, it's a little too "compressed", but I don't know if that's normal or suspicious.

Edited to change the photos to links, so it wouldn't slow down the page load.