Hi there, question for photographers..

Tallon

tonybodhran wrote: »

Any insinuation that you were childish is based on the fact that you dont appear to be able to read and answer a simple question with civility.

Pot kettle black mate... You said you can prove it's a car, I asked you to do so.. and you said I was a child :rolleyes:

I think that tinfoil hat you're wearing is causing you to be narrow minded

Edit: Also, your question was answered in the FIRST REPLY to the thread!!!

DaireQuinlan

Tallon wrote: »

I think that tinfoil hat you're wearing is causing you to be narrow minded

It's not tinfoil :rolleyes: It's a special Plejaren alloy hat :cool:

Splinters

I love how UFO sightings in the 70's and 80's always show the ships to all dodgy and retro looking. You'd imagine an alien race so advanced that they could travel unimaginable distances to reach earth would be a bit above the primative design trends we've seen in the last 30 - 40 or so years. Its...its almost as if....its just nonsense fuelled by people with too much time on their hands.

A friend of mine tried to convince me last year that some footage he found on youtube was absolute concrete proof that some UFO incident occurred, mostly because it was taken from 3 or 4 angles/cameras at the same time (the fact it had been neatly edited together along with some nice stylish captions and title page didnt set off any alarms for him). He had reached a point where he accepted photo evidence was far too easy to manipulate but this video footage....no this was the real deal.

And then I showed him what I could do with 3DS Max, Boujou and After Effects

EyeBlinks

The Cottingly Fairy's, now them were real photos, no messing

tonybodhran

Tallon wrote: »

tonybodhran wrote: »

Any insinuation that you were childish is based on the fact that you dont appear to be able to read and answer a simple question with civility.

Pot kettle black mate... You said you can prove it's a car, I asked you to do so.. and you said I was a child :rolleyes:

I think that tinfoil hat you're wearing is causing you to be narrow minded

Edit: Also, your question was answered in the FIRST REPLY to the thread!!!

I asked another question after that. And im happy with the answer that was finally given as I presume they know what they are talking about.

It's been a real pleasure guys.
I'll leave you alone now.

Tallon

tonybodhran wrote: »

I'll leave you alone now.

Cya dude....

ScumLord

OldGoat wrote: »

Photo-challange to re-create the image perhaps?

Oh no, I told mammy it was a bad idea to throw out all my toys.

Splinters wrote: »

I love how UFO sightings in the 70's and 80's always show the ships to all dodgy and retro looking. You'd imagine an alien race so advanced that they could travel unimaginable distances to reach earth would be a bit above the primative design trends we've seen in the last 30 - 40 or so years. Its...its almost as if....its just nonsense fuelled by people with too much time on their hands.

They don't even seem to understand the benefits of aerodynamics.

tonybodhran

ScumLord wrote: »

OldGoat wrote: »

Photo-challange to re-create the image perhaps?

Oh no, I told mammy it was a bad idea to throw out all my toys.

Splinters wrote: »

I love how UFO sightings in the 70's and 80's always show the ships to all dodgy and retro looking. You'd imagine an alien race so advanced that they could travel unimaginable distances to reach earth would be a bit above the primative design trends we've seen in the last 30 - 40 or so years. Its...its almost as if....its just nonsense fuelled by people with too much time on their hands.

They don't even seem to understand the benefits of aerodynamics.

Yes I imagine the drag from wind resistance in space is terrible on those things..

Gregor Samsa

OldGoat wrote: »

Photo-challange to re-create the image perhaps?

tonybodhran

phutyle wrote: »

OldGoat wrote: »

Photo-challange to re-create the image perhaps?

Very good. how about this, how was it done?

http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/w/images/f/f3/F_0174_rgb.jpg

I wasn't arguing that it couldn't be done like that, all I wanted to know if it was impossible for a full size car to be out of focus like it is in the shot, if you guys say it is then that's fine, I accept that. No where on the thread did I say that these things are real, all I was suggesting was that the car is real, if it's impossible then yes that shot is faked. I have no problem with that. Thanks for doing that. I don't know about photography, that's why I thought it would be a good idea to ask photographers. I don't see why other people have to be smart arses about it though when some one is asking a simple question.

humberklog

wonderful

Fionn

the future of mankind as it is !
is all right! eh?

let it go! theres more stuff to worry about

take care

tonybodhran

Cool..thanks.. I'll let you all back to the more important stuff so, there must be people lost without someone telling them nether portals will spawn zombie pigmen in minecraft.

Good night and Shazbat to one and all.

ScumLord

tonybodhran wrote: »

Yes I imagine the drag from wind resistance in space is terrible on those things..

It's not in space.

FoxyVixen

lmao, well this thread has certainly woken up the photography forum a bit

tonybodhran

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not in space.

I can tell you don't moderate the physics forum??? Are they coming here all the way from Monaghan?
By definition spaceships probably travel through space...ergo..aerodynamics would be irrelevant.
Voyager 2 isn't exactly a ferrari, it looks like a crane that's crashed into a satellite dish. Anything coming from another world would have even less need for aerodynamics.Any shape a spacecraft has would be purely due to the way it functions.
If you are going to ignore the request to make technical comments about the pictures at least refrain from talking nonsense.

DaireQuinlan

tonybodhran wrote: »

If you are going to ignore the request to make technical comments about the pictures at least refrain from talking nonsense.

Wait, you're saying that that's why they've flown into all those trees ? Bad aerodynamics ? THAT PROVES THEY'RE REAL !

tonybodhran

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Wait, you're saying that that's why they've flown into all those trees ? Bad aerodynamics ? THAT PROVES THEY'RE REAL !

You guys are hillaaaaaarious....some of them are supposedly beside trees so you can see some sense of scale.

Explain to me in simple terms how this was done using an Olympus ECR rangefinder in 1976.
Don't answer if you don't own a camera or if you only specialise in topics regarding zombies.
Actually I'll tell you what...what's the point, there don't actually seem to be anyone with any real knowledge of photography on this forum.
Mods please delete the thread, it's keeping valuable members of society from their important work.
I'll try an actual photographic forum elsewhere with people who can answer questions.

humberklog

Ah come off it Tony. A fairly good description of what was going on in was given in a few posts but you bit on posts that were tongue in cheek.

The first pic is of a toy car. That is fact. I use such cameras.

The next pic you put up? Janey I don't know.

Ziggy Stardust said the aliens kept themselves a secret because they'd only blow our minds.
By these photos I think they're keeping themselves to themselves because they know we'd think their spacecrafts were ludricous.

Tony the first pic is a mock up.

The 2nd pic is daft.

humberklog

Ok, the 2nd pic.

The pic is fake.

The flying saucer is tilted away from the tree and towrds the photographers right shoulder but the reflection of the tree is showing on the flyingsaucer's right side.

It's a daft error by a daft person in a daft photograph.

Tony, the tree would not be reflected on the flyingsaucer. It's akin to doing your make up by looking into a shoe box with you back to the wardrobe mirror.

Tallon

They're all daft, they're all stupid, it's pathetic and childish that people still believe this crap in 2012!

And I don't believe he is a troll as his other posts are just as daft and ignorant of common sense

Splinters

humberklog wrote: »

By these photos I think they're keeping themselves to themselves because they know we'd think their spacecrafts were ludricous.

Thats my issue with all these photos (well one of many issues). All the ships are retro designs, almost straight out of some dodgy 70 b-movie. Surely an advanced alien civilisation's engineering and design trends would have absolutely nothing in common with our own....unless of course it was all absolute utter childish nonsense.

ScumLord

tonybodhran wrote: »

I can tell you don't moderate the physics forum??? Are they coming here all the way from Monaghan?
By definition spaceships probably travel through space...ergo..aerodynamics would be irrelevant. Voyager 2 isn't exactly a ferrari,

Yes but it also doesn't go near an atmosphere and wouldn't be able to fly through earth's atmosphere. Any ship we see flying through a planets atmosphere like earths needs to be much hardier and will need to have a design that compensates for the dangers of increased resistance and pressure.

it looks like a crane that's crashed into a satellite dish. Anything coming from another world would have even less need for aerodynamics.Any shape a spacecraft has would be purely due to the way it functions.

I would say it's shape depends much more on the environment it's travelling through. Off road cars look different from road cars to deal with the terrain they're travelling through not because their engine is diesel.


Based on our own methods of transport it's likely any intergalactic ship would be just that, a ship for travelling long distances between planets and it more than likely wouldn't enter a planets atmosphere because it costs a lot of energy getting back out of that planets gravity field.

They're going to have a smaller shuttle for going down to planets and if that's pretty much all the shuttles for it's going to be aerodynamic because it would be a bit foolish not to make use of the energy saving advantages of using aerodynamics.

tonybodhran

ScumLord wrote: »

Based on our own methods of transport it's likely any intergalactic ship would be just that, a ship for travelling long distances between planets and it more than likely wouldn't enter a planets atmosphere because it costs a lot of energy getting back out of that planets gravity field.

They're going to have a smaller shuttle for going down to planets and if that's pretty much all the shuttles for it's going to be aerodynamic because it would be a bit foolish not to make use of the energy saving advantages of using aerodynamics.

This is not a discussion for a photographic forum, but you are making assumptions based on technology we currently have which is not nor will it ever be capable of travelling to other solar systems on a regular basis. It will have to be something much different. Gravity will not matter because that is the first thing that will have to be overcome for travel to other systems to become feasible. If you can negate gravity then wind is most likely not going to bother you either, the amount of power you would need to travel between the vast distances of other systems would also make what you are talking about irrelevant.
Also just because you see it in star trek doesn't mean that's the way it's going to be.

Tallon

tonybodhran wrote: »

This is not a discussion for a photographic forum, but you are making assumptions based on technology we currently have which is not nor will it ever be capable of travelling to other solar systems on a regular basis. It will have to be something much different. Gravity will not matter because that is the first thing that will have to be overcome for travel to other systems to become feasible. If you can negate gravity then wind is most likely not going to bother you either, the amount of power you would need to travel between the vast distances of other systems would also make what you are talking about irrelevant.
Also just because you see it in star trek doesn't mean that's the way it's going to be.

Star Trek is more real than your photo's above

humberklog

tonybodhran wrote: »

This is not a discussion for a photographic forum, but you are making assumptions based on technology we currently have which is not nor will it ever be capable of travelling to other solar systems on a regular basis. It will have to be something much different. Gravity will not matter because that is the first thing that will have to be overcome for travel to other systems to become feasible. If you can negate gravity then wind is most likely not going to bother you either, the amount of power you would need to travel between the vast distances of other systems would also make what you are talking about irrelevant.
Also just because you see it in star trek doesn't mean that's the way it's going to be.

Why are you de-railing your own thread?


The 2nd pic is fake. Did you believe it to be real?

gloobag

So, apparently the secret to inter galactic travel has been staring us in the face for years. All you need to do is put a hub-cap on the end of a fishing rod and the space/time continuum spreads its legs wide open for ya.

Mind. Blown... :eek:

trooney

I had a strange experience recently - I was chased by a well known character from a well known teevee show. To this day I'm still not sure if they were real or not. Maybe somebody out there can enlighten me... ?

(these are not faked - I was there maaan)

Gregor Samsa

tonybodhran wrote: »

Very good. how about this, how was it done?

http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/w/images/f/f3/F_0174_rgb.jpg

The most reasonable explanation, from a purely photographic perspective, for this and indeed all the other photos you've linked to and posted, is that they're photos of relatively small static models hung or placed in the scene to attempt to give the appearance of a larger object, self propelled in the sky. Why so? Because what we see here is exactly what a small static model placed in a scene would and does look like, and not really what a large, independently moving object would look like. I wouldn't rule out the possibility for some darkroom manipulation (paleo-photoshoping) in some of them either.

Tallon

I cannot believe I never checked this before...

The photo you posted in the OP... Did you read the URL?

www.thebiggestsecret.org/home/images/stories/ufo/meier-hoax/weddingcake_in_front_of_car_szx4.jpg

Hahahahaah

tonybodhran

Tallon wrote: »

I cannot believe I never checked this before...

The photo you posted in the OP... Did you read the URL?

www.thebiggestsecret.org/home/images/stories/ufo/meier-hoax/weddingcake_in_front_of_car_szx4.jpg

Hahahahaah

of course I read it that's why I posted it up, it says the wedding cake ufo is in front of the car, it's clearly not as everyone here agreed. these so called experts on analysis have claimed this for years, they obviously know nothing about photography. what exactly is your point ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....ha...rolling eyes..shrugging shoulders , coughing loudly etc..

Gregor Samsa

tonybodhran wrote: »

what exactly is your point

I'd say it's the word "hoax" in the URL. And the reference to "wedding cake".

Of course, the fact that it also says that the cake is in front of the car might remove all credibility from the claim that it's a hoax or a cake. Or it might not.

jpb1974

rolling eyes..shrugging shoulders , coughing loudly etc..

All at the same time? Crap... someone call an ambulance quick!

tonybodhran

phutyle wrote: »

tonybodhran wrote: »

what exactly is your point

I'd say it's the word "hoax" in the URL. And the reference to "wedding cake".

Of course, the fact that it also says that the cake is in front of the car might remove all credibility from the claim that it's a hoax or a cake. Or it might not.

What Einstein obviously missed is exactly that, it calls into question the credentials of these so called experts on photo analysis. That's all I was interested in proving in the original post. Im fine now no need for an ambulance.. Thanks for caring though.

ScumLord

That's no cake!

frozenfrozen

Op is angry the UFO wasn't real hahaha *shrug shoulders*

DaireQuinlan

tonybodhran wrote: »

What Einstein obviously missed is exactly that, it calls into question the credentials of these so called experts on photo analysis. That's all I was interested in proving in the original post.

*cough* CONFIRMATION BIAS *cough*

tonybodhran

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Op is angry the UFO wasn't real hahaha *shrug shoulders*

OP is not angry, just disappointed that the photographic forum is full of trolls who can't read...

Tallon

tonybodhran wrote: »

OP is not angry, just disappointed that the photographic forum is full of trolls who can't read...

Do you mean Internet Trolls... Or like, Actual Trolls?

magicbastarder

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

*cough* CONFIRMATION BIAS *cough*

bull. einstein wasn't catholic, so wouldn't have been confirmed.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

bull. einstein wasn't catholic, so wouldn't have been confirmed.

But wait ! He converted on his deathbed ! It's a well known fact ! (runs off to find forum full of people who will agree with my pre-conceived notions)

tonybodhran

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

magicbastarder wrote: »

bull. einstein wasn't catholic, so wouldn't have been confirmed.

But wait ! He converted on his deathbed ! It's a well known fact ! (runs off to find forum full of people who will agree with my pre-conceived notions)

Hi I was asking a question about a photograph to photographers, I was not asking for a discussion about ufos or my character with a bunch of arrogant pricks. But please carry on with your informed analysis of me, im dying to hear what else you know about me.
Great job mods on keeping the topic on subject...dont let me keep you from your real work.

magicbastarder

tonybodhran wrote: »

I was not asking for a discussion about ufos or my character with a bunch of arrogant pricks. But please carry on with your informed analysis of me, im dying to hear what else you know about me.

what the what?

DaireQuinlan

tonybodhran wrote: »

Hi I was asking a question about a photograph to photographers, I was not asking for a discussion about ufos or my character with a bunch of arrogant pricks. But please carry on with your informed analysis of me, im dying to hear what else you know about me.
Great job mods on keeping the topic on subject...dont let me keep you from your real work.

persecution complex ... Check !

Tallon

tonybodhran wrote: »

Great job mods on keeping the topic on subject...

Don't blame the mods... Did you at any stage report any posts that were off topic?

Also, lost what little respect I had for you after you decided to be a dick and attack people here

Mountainsandh

Please ignore the nature of the subject matter in the photo, I just want to know your opinions on one thing.

in OP.



this forum is full of people I respect but I really don't get how this thread has become a ganging up/picking on the ufo guy thread.
no harm in a bit of fun about funny looking pics, but really what's with the narky attitude ?

I'm a bit shocked I have to say.

Tallon

Mountainsandh wrote: »

in OP.



this forum is full of people I respect but I really don't get how this thread has become a ganging up/picking on the ufo guy thread.
no harm in a bit of fun about funny looking pics, but really what's with the narky attitude ?

I'm a bit shocked I have to say.

It was about the time he started being a dick about it!

Mountainsandh

Tallon really I think you might want to re-read the thread as far as post #30. Every single previous post from OP was courteous without a hint of dickiness in it.

In contrast, replies to OP up to that point were... just starting to cross the line between funny banter and mocking, imho.

Tallon

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Tallon really I think you might want to re-read the thread as far as post #30. Every single previous post from OP was courteous without a hint of dickiness in it.

In contrast, replies to OP up to that point were... just starting to cross the line between funny banter and mocking, imho.

I'm speaking from my own perspective here, I was having a laugh until he started being a dick about it, then kept making statements and refusing to back them up while calling me childish

Did you report any of those posts?

jpb1974

I agree with Mountainsandh - thread is just getting ridiculous now... it's gone beyond the point of reasonable or heated debate.