<iframe title = “Proof one of USS Trepang {113} Photos was Photoshopped? (Spelling errors due to translation error)” width=”580” height=”385” src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/QHHvBJB9scU?autoplay=1&modestbranding=1” frameborder=”0” allowfullscreen>iframe>
<br>This {78} shows a striking similarity between two parts of the photo, indicating that someone manipulated the photo. Scott Brando, Twitter user @UFOOFINTEREST, submitted the following {84} (please note: the spelling error is due to a translation error – and although is noted – the {84} is included here.)
For the full case file: <a href=”http://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-{113}-photographs–uss–trepang–ssn–674–march–1971/” target=”_blank“>http://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-{113}-photographs–uss–trepang–ssn–674–march–1971/a>
<br><a href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHvBJB9scU“>sourcea>
Naval target and observation balloons of WW1 era…
Black Vault has a corresponding webpage to this video, where they added photos they found on the Library of Congress site, of navy 'balloon carrier' ships with target balloons of WW1 era. The stubby cigar "UFO" looks just like a type of target balloon the Royal Navy used. The long skinny UFO with the center bottom bulge largely resembles some pics I found of manned naval observation balloons. Most balloons are not nearly as long and skinny, but I came across a few that were, and the bottom bulge on the "UFO" coincides with where the manned compartment would be. The smoke in some pics would be from an HE shells exploding on contact with a balloon. being non-rigid balloons, the non-cigar shaped UFOs would be damaged, partially deflated, folding on themselves. For the stubby cigar UFO sticking out of the water, the part that you would assume is sticking in the water is probably deflated and pushed down just under the surface, sorta neutrally buoyant. Someone in the Navy, in 1971 or likely later, familiar with USS Trepang operations, probably happened across these pics from WW1 era, thought they looked like UFOs, and purposely omitted photos of the ships doing the shooting in order to more easily "sell" the UFO story. The same person may have also added the classification stamps as they are not WW1 era .
Color photos are rare for WW1 era, but they did have it, and the quality of the color in the few color "UFO" pics looks about right for the era. The photo edit pointed out in the video is an obvious use of the Photoshop clone tool (no earlier than 1990).
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/arctic-ufo-photographs-uss-trepang-ssn-674-march-1971/
Back to weather balloons and YourAnus, really, why would they bother faking, and that doesn't prove dip shit
I am a graphic/photographic artist and that does not qualify me to be right, but these images always seemed artificial to me, the scales, the gray tones, there are things in each photo that make me doubt… they wish they were true, but they are not I believe this to be the case…and if they were real I'd bet on target practice balloons. // Soy artista grafico/fotográfico y eso no me califica para tener la razón, pero estas imagenes siempre me parecieron artificiales, las escalas, los tonos de grises, hay cosas en cada foto que me hacen dudar… quisieran que fueran ciertas, pero no creo que este sea el caso… y si fueran reales apostaría por globos de practica de tiro.
what is the point of photoshop, lie after lie
Get over it guys. If just one of the photos is fake how can you trust the others or their source. Unless someone can provide a copy of the original French magazine then I don't see how this one can be taken seriously.
Effectively that particular pic looks different respect all the others. But what about the others, even assuming that that one was faked?
When were these photos first revealed? There was no such thing as "Photoshop" in the '70s, or any computer available to the public to process images. I am a pro graphic artist with experience in image production going back to the '70s, which was all done on film and by hand..we had no photoshop, it didn't exist. Just showing a similar shape between the upper and lower cloud samples is not enough, show us a zoom-in and match exactly the two images or you're simply debunking with a weak visual.
Im a Photoshop expert. And those samples do not match at all.
It maybe doctored but there is no evidence to prove that these UFO pics are fake. Nice try but it does not convince me.
The pics look VERY similar to The Hindenburg disaster. Flipped & reversed in some cases.
There are three things that tell me these photos are bogus.
1) The analyses supporting the photo shopping.
2) The Periscope Reticle ("Crosshair") is not correct.
3) I was one of the three OODs on Trepang's 1971 Ice Trip. No way UFO's were spotted, much less photographed, without my being aware of it. Absolutely none!
good catch but it only means it was doctored , remember every lie usually contains truths , I`m not saying anyone is right or wrong but , Trust nothing and no one ever gets to the truth , and that is what they want for us to stay dumb .
Good catch.
That one in question never looked "real" to me for a number of reasons the clouds being 1st obvious one, the detail and sharpness, along with the colors/comp don't even look like he same reel or set as the others. I don't see anything in the rest of the sequence that looks wrong. The truth is always best hidden in plain sight surrounded by lies.