PDA

View Full Version : OT: Strange flying thing



topct
05-08-2007, 05:44 AM
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2022.html?theme=light

Timleech
05-08-2007, 05:51 AM
A bit of some fancy textile machinery, photoshopped onto a sky scene, perhaps?

Tim

thistle
05-08-2007, 06:26 AM
I would take it apart and put in on ebay as Atlas lathe parts .

NickH
05-08-2007, 06:58 AM
We're going where?
And what's with this handcart?

Evan
05-08-2007, 08:06 AM
Art Bell strikes again! Get him to explain this!

http://vts.bc.ca/pics2/fcar2.jpg

madman
05-08-2007, 08:10 PM
Had a chat with some Bros up North. Seems one of em saw a UFO leaving Lake at 4 in the Morning while communicating with a New Girl Friend way out in the bush. He was so freaked out he refused to ever go back. I was designing a improvized ufo device. I had 12 sticks of Tovex In a shape charge mounted on a high powered air projectile launcher. Shoot into the UFO Hull and POW direct energy transfer hole in hull they gotta land and then the boys open up with the .300 magnum BAR S Moose Guns (all are good shots) Alien fiasco. Dont mess with planet Earth, LOL. Whaddyah think is this belieavable. ??? But Seriously we all hope they like drinkin Beer.

darryl
05-08-2007, 08:41 PM
I don't understand the mystery. It's obviously a frypan handle/lazy suzan bearing/lampshade frame/swizel stick. Complete with what appear to be ginormous philips head screws.

wierdscience
05-08-2007, 09:08 PM
What?The vistiors are slipping.Neato ship like that traveled half way across the galaxy and no one was probed?

TGTool
05-08-2007, 09:13 PM
What?The vistiors are slipping.Neato ship like that traveled half way across the galaxy and no one was probed?

Oh,yes. They did the usual sampling and probing. But the probees agreed not to talk in return for the insights that were given them (and maybe that ticket off the planet when the **** hits the fan.)

wierdscience
05-08-2007, 09:34 PM
Oh,yes. They did the usual sampling and probing. But the probees agreed not to talk in return for the insights that were given them (and maybe that ticket off the planet when the **** hits the fan.)

Amazing what some people will do to get a break on thier colonoscopy:D

Mad Scientist
05-09-2007, 12:14 AM
Lets see if I understand this. If we have a fuzzy picture of a UFO in bouncing around the sky we are told that it doesn’t prove anything because there is not enough “detail” to see just what it is.

However when we are shown a nice clear picture we then told it must be a fake because it is too “detailed”.

Yep I can clearly see what is going on here. :rolleyes:

Evan
05-09-2007, 01:19 AM
Yep I can clearly see what is going on here.

What is going on is a perfect example of why most photographic evidence isn't admissable in court unless there is an unbroken chain of custody by a reputable person (cop for instance) from the time the photo was taken to when it is entered into evidence.

Photographic evidence isn't worth the paper it's no longer printed on.

John Stevenson
05-09-2007, 03:37 AM
Hope we don't have to repair it.

Bound to have special threads....................



.

Swarf&Sparks
05-09-2007, 03:51 AM
Metric fine <arrrrrrrrgh>

thistle
05-09-2007, 06:18 AM
lucas ignition.

Milacron of PM
05-09-2007, 06:36 AM
Obviously Klingon...just read the hailing port info on the underside !

A.K. Boomer
05-09-2007, 09:18 AM
lucas ignition.


If it was Lucas ignition the thing would be a pile of rubble on the ground...


What till "Chad" finds out who the father of his wifes baby really is, then the fumits are going to hit the windmill, times have changed, used to be that you could just blame it on the milkman.

IOWOLF
05-09-2007, 09:19 AM
I think the guy that submited the pics is a Cling On.:)

Evan
05-09-2007, 10:30 AM
I decided to take a real close look at those pics.

Very interesting.

http://vts.bc.ca/pics2/ufo1.jpg

Here is an enhanced closeup of the right lower "wing" panel. I have placed an arrow pointing to the area of interest.

http://vts.bc.ca/pics2/ufo3.jpg

lynnl
05-09-2007, 10:35 AM
Oh My God! You mean to say the Chinese are now exporting throughout the entire universe?

I knew it. There's no end in sight!

Swarf&Sparks
05-09-2007, 10:36 AM
Even the Klingons are getting their parts made in China now? :eek:

A.K. Boomer
05-09-2007, 11:40 AM
LMAO Evan!!!

Ken_Shea
05-09-2007, 12:41 PM
Good one Evan, that is good for a laugh all day.

Ken

Mad Scientist
05-09-2007, 03:35 PM
Out of curiosity I just went to the C2C web site and took a look at original picture, enlarged it, and damn wouldn’t you know it “someone” must have slipped in there and erased the “made in China” label. :confused: :confused:
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i17/mscientist/C2C.jpg

Evan
05-09-2007, 03:52 PM
Wrong panel. Mine says made in China. Do you get my drift?

rohart
05-11-2007, 07:38 PM
Referring to the images from the top of the page on the original CtoC site :

Image 1 : Vertical shake or processing error produces blue top edge to trees, which is scarcely there on the flyer;

Image 2 : Strong sunlight from somewhere on right (behind viewer ?), but flyer shows no directional lighting at all;

Image 3 : Good - he's learning, but the flyer is lit from the right, whereas I'd say the trees are lit from the left;

Images 4 & 5 : It does look as if MadS is right and one of the panels shows an area where Evan's MiC logo was erased - oversharpen it and it looks smoother than the rest, so was probably reprocessed after an earlier JPEG compression;

Image 6 : Another doo-doo with the lighting - none on flyer, nice sunny day on the trees;

Image 7 : If the sun was really where the flyer says it is - over away from us on the right - then none of these flowers would catch any sun.

Not bad work, otherwise. I was impressed with how he's stamped the bushes on top of the flyer's wings in the last photo.

My money would be on it being an accessory for a knitting machine for knitting socks with, in which case the thread isn't OT at all.

Please, no one tell me to get a life. I know it !

Evan
05-11-2007, 10:29 PM
Images 4 & 5 : It does look as if MadS is right and one of the panels shows an area where Evan's MiC logo was erased - oversharpen it and it looks smoother than the rest, so was probably reprocessed after an earlier JPEG compression;
I added the 'MADE IN CHINA' lettering. The point is that image manipulation is trivial for somebody experienced in the process. I have done a lot of such work professionally.

For example:

Original pic:
http://vts.bc.ca/pics2/plane1.jpg

The customer wanted the people removed. The hardest part of this job was figuring out the lighting on the inner tube. I did make one error though. Can you see what it is?
http://vts.bc.ca/pics2/plane2.jpg

Todd Tolhurst
05-11-2007, 10:33 PM
You didn't remove the shadow of the fella on the right.

Evan
05-11-2007, 10:37 PM
You got it.

dp
05-11-2007, 10:43 PM
You got it.

Not only that - you added it where it didn't exist (visually) under his boots :) I'm betting it wasn't a mistake, but a time saving short cut. There's nothing about it that looks out of place - it could be a wet spot on the dock for all we know.

BadDog
05-11-2007, 10:45 PM
You also missed his boot heal.

Edit: Never mind, on closer look at the original, it's not his boot heal.

Evan
05-11-2007, 11:00 PM
I did that some years ago and don't remember why I took that approach. Probably lazy.

Here's a different example. This was a restoration, something I did a lot.

http://vts.bc.ca/pics2/baby1.jpg

dp
05-11-2007, 11:07 PM
Very nice job of matching the blanket - not a lot to work with there. Looks like you painted the wall while you were in there. That kind of work sure does bring a lot of smiles from the customer. My wife's mum and dad were photographed on their wedding day standing in front of a very busy flowering shrub. As luck would have it one flower looks to be growing out of her dad's ear. I've no particular talent for this but I did manage to pluck that flower out of his ear. In one version I put the flower on his lapel so it could remain part of the picture :)

Evan
05-12-2007, 12:55 AM
I have many more I have done but most involve identifiable people and I can't show them here without a model release. I've been fiddling with graphics ever since I got my Commodore PET in 1979. The most interesting thing that is going on is the routine manipulation of the images of famous people, especially models. They tweak the bust and butt a bit, slim the waist and clean up the complexion. Most people never actually meet any of these celebrities and almost anyone looks ok on low res TV so nobody's the wiser.

Joel
05-12-2007, 01:04 AM
The original picture:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v186/JoelinTX/plane2mod.jpg

Evan
05-12-2007, 08:38 AM
Nice job but you forgot my Beardog...:D

A.K. Boomer
05-12-2007, 08:55 AM
Now im going to have to spend half the morning dragging out one of my old manipulated kayaking pics!

A.K. Boomer
05-12-2007, 09:16 AM
I call this one "issue's" and while lacking the quality of the work that you guys have just shown please try to realize two things, one; im a hack, and two; i was strickly going for the "shock effect"... the actual picture was taken in pine creek on the upper arkansas, I was squirting out of a keeper hydraulic (its one that has claimed a few lives and actually has a name plate of a person who kacked-out which always adds a little adventure to the float...)


http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r249/AK_Boomer/issues.jpg

Alistair Hosie
05-12-2007, 02:57 PM
I must say those are the sharpest photo's I have ever seen taken with a cell phone however it does not look like a flying device more like an comercial onion peeler :DAlistair

Joel
05-12-2007, 03:25 PM
..........

BadDog
05-12-2007, 06:08 PM
As someone already said, the main part looks amazingly like part of one of those "continuous tube" knitting machines. The ones that knit sock/hose tubes, and t-shirt trunks. But there are not nearly enough spines, unless the final knit diameter is very small.

rantbot
05-13-2007, 01:25 AM
unless there is an unbroken chain of custody by a reputable person (cop for instance)
A man of faith, I see.

Evan
05-13-2007, 08:13 AM
Huh? That is the requirement of the courts, not me. I don't trust any photographic "evidence".

Swarf&Sparks
05-13-2007, 08:22 AM
As a "film" photographer, I always had a giggle at those old movies where blackmail was involved.
"Here's a print, for another $1000 you get the neg" :rolleyes:

Evan
05-13-2007, 08:44 AM
Film is dead. They just haven't quite yet held the official funeral. My daughter is a professional photographer and uses exclusively digital. Film is gone from news gathering, astronomy, most medical applications and is now rapidly disappearing from the consumer market. I haven't used film in several years. I still have several rolls of Fuji Superia 1600 in my freezer but the lab where I had it developed has closed. I used it for astrophotography as it isn't kneecapped at the blue and red end of the spectrum but it can't hold a candle to my digital Rebel. I can't think of a single application where film is still superior to digital.

dp
05-13-2007, 11:43 AM
I work for a large, well, the world's largest, stock photo and film company and we recently modified our web site to say 'Footage' rather than film. Somehow footage still doesn't accurately describe a digital stream but does show how silly we can be with words. Film is definitely dead.

One of our brands, iStockPhoto.com, is in Calgary, not too far from you.

Evan
05-13-2007, 04:05 PM
is in Calgary, not too far from you.

:D

We generally consider anything within a few hundred miles to be "not too far". Anything within a hundred is "just down the road". Calgary, however, is on the other side of the Rocky Mountains and is a 12 to 13 hour drive in good conditions.

dp
05-13-2007, 09:52 PM
I've always been on my Harley when I've been in that area so to me those are pretty nice miles. Never got further east than Hinton, though. Some places in Canada that look very close on the map are hours and hours apart, that's for sure.

It's a day's ride from my home in Oroville, WA to Penticton, BC but then not everyone goes the way I go :)

BillH
05-13-2007, 10:07 PM
I did this one for an FAA Air Traffic Control Forum, I'm sure Marion doesn't like it!
http://home.comcast.net/~billh308/MarionRetard.jpg

Frank Ford
05-13-2007, 11:00 PM
Well, that surely brings this whole inane thread to a tasteless low point.

JRouche
05-13-2007, 11:04 PM
I can't think of a single application where film is still superior to digital.

Security...

If you want a photographic image and only ONE instance of that image it is "easier" to accomplish this with film. JRouche

DryCreek
05-14-2007, 12:19 AM
Thanks be that I can still buy film almost anywhere. Reason being, I have a high end Canon camera with "L" series lenses. To get an equivilent digital body that retains the lens focal lengths, I am looking at about $3,500, which is a bit steep right now. Hopefully film will be available for some time for those of us stuck in the stone age.

dp
05-14-2007, 12:27 AM
Developing the film is pretty cheap and rather commoditized - printing to photo paper is probably going to become very rare with the quality of photo printers. Now if they could get the images to last more than a few years. Not that photo paper has very long legs. All the pics of my kids are pink with age. Most places offer very inexpensive replication to CD - the quality exceeds my aging eyes' ability to see any loss of resolution.

Evan
05-14-2007, 01:00 AM
Security...

If you want a photographic image and only ONE instance of that image it is "easier" to accomplish this with film. JRouche

I don't understand your point. I can capture a digital image and print it on the spot. It's faster and much cheaper as well as being entirely automated. I used to do that with suspicious people casing my computer store after closing. I would give the pic to the cops so they would know who was in town.

http://vts.bc.ca/pics/case1.jpg

Duct Taper
05-14-2007, 01:47 PM
Suspicious? Who's suspicious?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/dvonborn/Catman3.jpg

JRouche
05-20-2007, 11:45 AM
I don't understand your point. [/img]

Right...



Security...

If you want a photographic image and only ONE instance of that image it is "easier" to accomplish this with film. JRouche

Security as in document control, not peepin Toms, or in yer case, peepin Annie..

I was think more along the lines of document control. For example, if I needed an image of an item and I only wanted one instance of that image.

No negatives remaining, no camera memory cards, no computer hard drives, no computer manipulation.

You well know, computer magnetic media can be recovered.

If you are dealing with sensitive media that requires computers and electronic devices to be in a "hardened space" document control becomes a managing nightmare.

That type of security, JRouche

Your Old Dog
05-20-2007, 12:27 PM
The new firmware loaded into my Nikon D200 makes it easy for lawenforcement to know if an image has been manipulated. I decided to install it after I had my ankle injury and was using the camera to photograph the ankles problems. If anyone wants to, they can purchase nikons software that is used for this express purpose.

The following picture could not be done on my camera now.

http://www.raymondswan.com/dp/me2also.jpg

http://www.raymondswan.com/dp/redeye%20flight.jpg

Evan
05-21-2007, 01:58 AM
It's relatively easy to manipulate a digital image in a way that will pass even expert visual scrutiny. However, it's very difficult to manipulate an image in a way that will escape sophisticated mathematical and statistical analysis. Image tools such as the clone brush leave identical repeating patterns of pixels, something that never happens in an unaltered image. Also, if the original image is a jpeg then altering it will necessitate resaving it. This will alter the jpeg compression artifacts so they differ from what the camera produces.

Your Old Dog
05-21-2007, 05:33 AM
Nikon's new firmware was to developed to address the manipulated image problem for reliable documentation. The problem is, at this point for a lot of Nikons downloading the new firmware upgrade is purely optional. But then again, a court of law doesn't have to accept your pictures as gospel truth unless the firmware is installed now that it's readily available and free. It's a great idea as now images can't be so easily discredited and become more useful.

(Although no one was disputing the Rodney King video of him being all wired up and being beaten and kicked? That video didn't seem to hurt the perpetrators too much?)