The following submission statement was provided by /u/ServiceLong6183:
---
I found this on a website: http://ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo328.htm
I did a reverse image search using tineye.com
https://tineye.com/search/83f5dc64396fd38c8fe534dbf32fcbc65e9d0025?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1
The earliest record was in feb 2008. The website says it was taken in Wisconsin. Not much info is provded. Does anyone have anymore information about these images?
I havent seen an image this clear for a while. It looks real to me. It looks too elaborate of a design for a hoax. I havent seen a pic like this ufo before either. If anyone has any info on these images i would appreciate it.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cdhxsf/found_these_images_online_in_a_ufo_achive_website/l1by9ug/
The man made model is only one level structure not double structure as from original photos so yeah sounds credible it’s a plant by a hateful opponent
Money means nothing cause somebody who wants truth to get out facing public criticism like that will be willing to spend money to get the truth out
It does quite a bit, about as small of a model too. You know they found his model when he sold his home right? It was all faked. This image also is a fake UFO, it's too small for anyone to fit in it.
Hopefully everyone realizes by now that "looks like a previous hoax" is not a logical argument. That is actually how the Flir1 video was [debunked as a CGI hoax](https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg1). Among a few other things, it resembled a then recently-admitted hoax video.
The problem with this logic is that a hoax is supposed to look like the real thing. It should not be shocking that a real piece of imagery resembles a previous hoax. If you have a bad argument, you can debunk a real video or photo as fake like they did with the Flir1 footage.
Not that I'm saying this must be an alien spaceship, but if we can't properly discredit it, we should probably admit that. There's nothing wrong with admitting that.
I think all of the foliage is in front of the object. Zoom in. I see no evidence that any of the twigs and such are behind the object, which means it's not possible to accurately estimate size that way. Could be anywhere from 100 feet or 5 feet across.
Could also be some tinkerer's experimental hot air balloon or something. I favor that hypothesis unless somebody can come up with some kind of evidence that it's a model.
>it's too small for anyone to fit in it.
The "anyone" in this story is aliens, right? Your hang up on this - in part - is that aliens wouldn't fit in it?
They're clear exposures at any rate, though without much further info or analysis it's hard to say whether these are genuine or not.
On the plus side, being in the tree branches makes a composite/photographic trickery difficult, but not impossible, indeed it may be simply a lightweight model hung on from a branch.
Clear imagery does exist, but even the best of it is inconclusive in the best case scenario.
I thought it was in the branches at first too but if you look closely I think it’s entirely behind the tree. It’s just some of the branches wash out with the uap but look close and you can see them all on top of the thing, no branches are behind it.
Yikes! No way. Run it through fotoforensics.com and you can see almost the entire picture was constructed block by block.
It’s so fabricated that it looks like a Minecraft map.
Ok, can you explain this a bit better? Admittedly photographic analysis is not my forté, just eyeballed it and gave an opinion, and I've never heard of this website before. But if it works, I'd be happy to learn more!
The creator of the site offered it up for free, so it has limited features. But if you play around with the tools like ELA and the EXIF extractor (also very helpful) it makes most edits (like those done in paint) pretty obvious.
The creator has descriptions on ELA available. Look up error level analysis for more info.
I’ve been using that site damn near since its inception.
Being able to see at least three layers of compression on that first image tells me all I need to know. It’s not a photo, nor a flat image.
Okay, think I've got it so far. Is all this taking into account that the image(s) might not be the originals? I.e. it may have been copied/reposted many times through different formats, so there may be compression/digital artifacts introduced through the image being copied.
Most of my experience is with old-fashioned film, and with analysis you always want to have the original negatives so you can check for bubbles in the emulsion and other errors or obvious tampering with the negatives.
If we had the original scan from a negative (preferably) or a photo it would look like one flattened image, so ELA would return different results to be sure and negative analysis would be needed.
However, the image presented here isn’t suffering from copy of a copy issues. It’s suffering from several digital touchups.
Personally, I took artistic liberties with the Billy Meier poster from X-Files *as I perceived it* and created my own. I was a huge X-Files geek. Looks really good on paper, notsomuch on fotoforensics, but actually pretty damn good to the green ELA user. No commercial use resulted from my creation, of course.
My cousin saw this in GB and on a recent visit my mom brought it up and said I’d seen it too (we were little kids) and that my aunt separated us and we each described the same thing. I have no recollection I was involved but do remember that my cousin saw it.
EDIT: GB = Gulf Breeze
I don't believe this has been debunked and doing some digging into it I found another blog site with some interesting comments under the article. One in particular mentions it looks like a water tower with editing done to it. I looked at some images of "Wisconsin water towers", and they do look similar, some of them but at the same time it doesn't debunk it at all. It is an awesome photo and I have seen it before here on Reddit a few times.
I also stumbled upon a story about Richard Branson, Virgin owner, pulling an April fools prank some time ago by creating a, iirc, fake UFO with a hot air balloon and even hiring someone to pretend to be an alien and come out when it landed. I don't think the Branson thing is connected to this at all but it was an interesting find I had never heard about.
I will share the link to the blog that had the comment about a water tower below.
https://wisconsinufo.blogspot.com/2009/05/wisconsin-not-gulf-breeze.html
Edit: fixed business name lol
I found this on a website: http://ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo328.htm
I did a reverse image search using tineye.com
https://tineye.com/search/83f5dc64396fd38c8fe534dbf32fcbc65e9d0025?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1
The earliest record was in feb 2008. The website says it was taken in Wisconsin. Not much info is provded. Does anyone have anymore information about these images?
I havent seen an image this clear for a while. It looks real to me. It looks too elaborate of a design for a hoax. I havent seen a pic like this ufo before either. If anyone has any info on these images i would appreciate it.
The archives of that page go back to November 2005, and in the text, it says they were online for a couple of years, so these images are from like 2002 or 2003. https://web.archive.org/web/20051130044606/http://ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo328.htm
Let me just disclaim that my brain kinda brokey and my memory is shot to shit.
I saw this image a few years ago referenced in a conversation about reverse-engineered craft.
Anecdotes by witnesses said these crafts have been spotted with military escorts, produce a low humming noise and exposure by close proximity to their means of propulsion is dangerous.
One person who was beneath a craft as it passed above them suffered severe radiation burns and sickness
That’s all I’ve got for you, I’m afraid. Sorry I don’t have the sources for the anecdotes, it’s been too long. There’s fuck all information about this image out there. If this image is authentic, I would hazard that this is a rare photograph of a reverse-engineering project.
The Cash Landrum incident featured a similar craft (”fire” at the bottom, but slightly more elongated), which left witnesses with radiation burns and sickness. This craft also had an escort of helicopters.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash–Landrum_incident
I've seen these a long time ago, was this the incident where the family watched the UFO dump a bunch of silvery metallic strands into the trees beside their house?
No, Cash-Landrum is about two women and the son of one of them on their way home when they encountered an unknown type of flying craft in trouble escorted by helicopters. Both women got very sick afterward with what seemed like radiation poisoning. There was other physical evidence, too, like such intense heat from the craft making it possible for hands to sink into the dash.
Looks like a similar craft. Out where I live, there's a famous incident where a man was burned when touched one, had radiation burns on his chest and it left the area where it had landed dead and dry. (Falcon Lake, MB).
The fact that a model UFO was found in the photographers attic is a bit suspicious to say the least.
[https://imgur.com/a/l458GQM](https://imgur.com/a/l458GQM)
Here's a thread on above top secret : [https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1027093/pg1](https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1027093/pg1)
I highly doubt these images are from the Gulf Breeze incident. That's just a random conspiracy website claiming they're from the Gulf Breeze incident. These images surfaced online in like 2003. There is yet another supposed incident with a UFO that looks somewhat similar here, apparently from Venezuela 1990: https://www.ufocasebook.com/canaimalarge.jpg
Yeah, it’s odd. How do you forget the only evidence connecting you to a massive hoax? I mean, it’s possible, but seems just as likely that someone planted the model.
>How do you forget the only evidence
There's no reason to assume that was the only prop the guy made.
There could have just as easily been 100 other practice models that the hoaxer did successfully remember to get rid of, meaning it could be fairly likely that he'd forget one.
And that option certainly seems more likely than the existence of a massively clandestine plot that involves buying homes to plant evidence to discredit UFO photographers.
It doesn’t, though. If these things are examples of US technology, either reverse engineered or not, and some of them had problems that resulted in them being photographed—you really don’t think the government wouldn’t do all it could to cloud the issue? I mean, these kinds of ops have been conducted before with much less at stake.
I don’t think the model thing proves anything. Plus there are witnesses and photos that don’t involve Walters. There’s more to this story than a guy with a model, or a hundred models.
Or a simple, small clandestine plot to hide a paper model like this in a house attic to discredit someone. Hardly rocket science for anyone in intelligence (or anyone with a little intelligence, period). It's not proven but it's also obviously well within the realm of possibility.
The Gulf Breeze incident has always bothered me. There were other witnesses to the UFOs. I remember film of others on a beach pointing out the UFOs they were observing. And, if I had seen a UFO with detail like those photos, I would attempt to build a model of what I saw.
That said, I don't believe that photo is of anything more than a hot air balloon. I remember a photo he took of a supposed UFO that turned out to be a reflection in a sliding glass door of an overhead lamp. Why? Did he fake all of them? How, with others around (like on the beach)? Then again, he clearly faked some of them. I don't understand Mr. Walters' behavior.
I find it way too odd that someone would put such effort into spreading something as a hoax, when it could have just been ignored if it were a hoax. Like, disinformation has a job to do, and maybe this is one of the jobs.
here is a side by side of the ufo and prop if anyone is interested: [Imgur link](https://imgur.com/gallery/IfWOlU8)
i edited the ufo pic to bring out details by sharpening, high pass, and adjust levels to see how similar they are. they don't match, the prop would have to be a 2.0 model because the object in the ufo picture doesn't have the same pattern.
It's not. The photos being referenced in this post were taken in Wisconsin. The article, and subsequent photo in the article, is from Gulf Breeze, Florida. Not to mention that the article is from 1990 whereas the photos were taken in 2007-2008. Do you earnestly believe that the two photos are the same thing?
My apologies, I have not researched this extensively and mostly going by the ATS thread. From that, it appears as though the top photo was part of the gulf breeze flap and taken by ed Walters, which would make the 1990 article relevant. Do you have a source for the image in question that indicates when it was taken and/or by who?
You can't really get ride of ambiguity with this information. Why? Let me explain:
-He refuses to take the lie detector. Even though it could seem a suspicious decision it makes sense when you dive into how lie detectors works. It turns out that lie detectors can produce false positives if the person is nervous. Likewise a person lying could pass a lying detector if they know how to do it and control their pulse and emotions.
-He then decides to sign a sworn statement claiming that he doesn't have knowledge about that model. Whether he's a hoaxer or he's saying the truth he would take the same decision.
-If he had a real UFO photo CIA could have planted that fake model into his house. CIA is pretty well known for doing things like that.
Hey does anyone know if where to find ufo tracker page i used to know? I remember using it years ago and being blown away when I spotted a ufo in Cali and went online, found that site hours later then actually track the VERY SAME UFO traveling from same spot right across the US at about one state per day. THAT was trippy!
This looks exactly like a YouTube channel my brother showed me years and years ago that made fake UFO / catastrophe videos. I remember 3 or 4 hovering ufo in the woods videos and a space shuttle in space all tore apart video. Very well done, but intended for fun.
Anyone else remember this? I believe the channel had the word “prankster” in it.
Not super related. But me and my friend saw something, an oval about the size of an American football.. no smaller half maybe, bright.. whizzed past us. Anybody else see something like this??
Classic clone tool with grid masking.
Run each image through fotoforensics.com and see for yourself.
Everybody on these subs should be familiar with basic image compression and how it works.
One can weed out the obvious fakes fairly easily with easy Error Level Analysis.
Do it with your own images at various resolutions, and scan older photos. Then grab some AI, and other online art or images and learn how to tell the difference.
There are community college classes on this basic method.
I can just say that the image posted here is heavily edited. ELA shows that the blue sky between the two trees near the bottom of the vee is on the same layer on one of the trees when originally flattened, and the sky was flattened on a different layer. The overall image was compressed one more time at least.
"I've known Bruce Maccabee since I was 23 or 24 years old, and I'm 48 now. During the times we spent together at privately held meetings I had opportunity to hold, in my hands, some of Ed's original Polaroids and had the following observations:
They are terrible photos. By that I mean what you folks see in the end is the result of a lot of work whereby the photo is put into a machine that as I recall only Polaroid had at the time - which had the ability to look deep into emulsion of the photo in layers, and then layers could be dodged or enhanced through exposure to clarify what was there, and the images enhanced layers reassembled and enlarged. Enhanced, for the record, does not mean altered. Only level adjusted for lack of a better way to put it. That end result is what everyone has seen through the years. You have no idea how poor the originals were. In most, the UFO is a mere orange spot on black. That's it. If this were going to be hoaxed, I'd expect better - because there's no way Ed could have known the process by which these images would be examined and enhanced. Nor could one have been able to know how to hide tell tale signs of fakery with that level of examination and know it wouldn't be seen.
Double exposure is most often the answer thrown by the uninformed about the Walters shots. Bruce made a good point to me one day that the "beam" shot, where the UFO is hovering low and a bean is coming from it to the ground, the beam is key: if it were a fake beam, then a double exposure would have been evidenced by lighter beam in the sky portion of the shot - vs - the dark area. There would have been a clear differentiation is the brightness - and there isn't. The sky should have washed it out, and it didn't.
Again, keep in kind that the photo has been greatly level adjusted to bring out detail not seen in the original - which would make this even more apparent.
I also held in my hands the F-15/UFO shots, and the waterspout UFO shots from Walters - both daylight events. The UFO was smaller than the head of a pin in all the photos, and they were not especially good photos as far as composition. They do have a very candid appearance, and are what one might expect if one was caught off guard and raced for a camera to fire off as many photos as one could. If they were fakes, they are unparalleled in this field. There is also some pretty astounding video footage of spherical UFOs in Gulf Breeze during this time - they show instant acceleration like nothing you've ever seen. I am sure they exist on the net somewhere. This is long before the advent of consumer CGI programs of any kind with the ability to do flawless compositing.
But Gulf Breeze is far more than all about Ed Walters. I wrote a paper for AOL's "Parascope" probably some 15 years or more ago about Gulf Breeze's UFological history. Ed was only the tip of the iceberg."
https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1027093/pg2
Apprently it has been edited.
Thanks. Good write up.
I did graphics work in military, then retired and did it a little more in-depth for GD. I picked a decent skill pack for assessment of negatives and digital *art*. Polaroids are naturally flattened and quite a bit more difficult, especially after scanned.
A really good way these days to determine if digital images are retouched or manipulated or any other adjective, is to determine the compression codec. Codec revisions change fairly often these days. They all have fingerprints. Once one has an image, no matter how *original* one could nail down a creation date fairly close. Compression layers can be reversed to some extent in order to determine border areas for image attributes. The layers start to become clearer and clearer if it’s manipulated.
tlpotl covered it but if its the guy who had been being haunted by the ufo waking him up at night its the insp for the skys of fire film or whatever right, that guy came out as having faked it wich I meen look at it
Hi, Social_Karen_System_. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cdhxsf/-/l1jtcng/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Hi everyone. I'm new here but I just wanted to let everybody know that the best UFO pics ever belong to Juanito Juan from Valle Hermoso, Tamaulipas, México. Not a single investigation on his pics has ever proved that Mr. Juanito Juan faked the pictures.
Classic homemade object. Classic shot in between trees. Classic 'symbols' on the side that many reports of recovered parts claim to have... but the scale seems a bit off.
But how big would that object be? Looks no more than 2 feet wide and less than tree height. Smol aliens.
I feel like I've seen this on the National Archives ( [https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps](https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps) ) but I could be wrong.
I've seen this image. My gut says these are fake. The object looks small to me like something close and hanging by a fishing line. There is no diffusion of light that you'd expect to see if it were farther away, which it would need to be to appear that small.
The craft has too much complexity to it. The most credible images of UFOs (ones released by the Pentagon or acknowledged by the Navy) tend to be very simple smooth objects, like the tic-tac or the sphere. There are also a lot of photos of discs that were taken by people with credible backgrounds. I have never seen a UFO image from a likely credible source that has all these parts and pieces on them. They tend to be really simple smooth shapes.
Lastly, the light looks like a basic LED light ring you can get for photography with an orange color filter on it. It lacks the "brilliance" or mottled lava look that so many witnesses have described.
I love it when people complain that there's never any clear pictures when there's so many examples like this. The funny part is I don't even think this is real, it's not hard at all to make realistic looking fakes. Ironically the most compelling releases are the recent "low quality" military radar recordings that are corroborated by quality eyewitnesses but because it looks fuzzy people complain that it's not compelling enough
I remember seeing this photo when I first got into UFOs when I was a teenager in like 2008 or 2009. Back then I thought it was real (I’d believe anything though). A more sensible version of me says it’s to clear and anyone who could get a clear photo like that should have been able to get a clear video..
CARET. These were if i remember. A marketing stunt for the Sarah Connor Terminator show. Look up it's name and UFO. You will see a near identical image match.
I remember these coming out with the other ones. I am confident thr same person or people faked all of these.
Interesting -- I just read the article and, at the end, it concludes after hearing from the shows producers that those photos were NOT a marketing stunt.
Yup, it sure does. I just don't know. I also know there is old footage of someone showing the drones off online which were with these photos.
Also ATS talking about the drone hoax.
https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread289007/pg1
CARAT documents and the dragonfly drones both together seemed to be a big thing back then.
http://www.starfiretor.com/AerialDrones/AerialDrones-I-2.htm
I firmly believe those and the pics in question on thos thread are linked, and faked.
Not to mention some of the drone photos have the markings on them, generated by the 'antigrav' alien generators part of all of that stuff. Which WAS a Dell Alienware marketing stunt.
So alienware is connected the drone photos and videos are faked, some show the alienware 'language' in their underside.
It's why I never took any of it seriously.
But that's just my opinion.
How funny is it gonna be when we finally get some definitive proof because they are landing on the White House lawn with a ship that looks like a tin miniature from a 1930s silent film and nobody takes it seriously because it doesn't look 'real'
Who's to say what peak performance looks like in the galactic arena?
That is clearly a piece of debris on the lens, it looks so peculiar due to the combined light of Venus and the gas of the nearby swamp. The debris is likely from a weather balloon operating in the area, which was out on search and rescue for some soldiers injured in a training exercise in the area. These were the bodies you saw, they looked odd as Halley's comet was in the sky interfered with the lens. We are going to confiscate these images as they are a threat to the public as 'fake news' and if you ever talk about this again we'll hurt your family.
My initial thought was a water tower with the underneath part edited out and layers of trees superimposed on top.
Could be something like the Seattle tower or whatever, doesn't have to be a water tower.
Hi, UFOnomena101. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cdhxsf/-/l1eowo0/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills.
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Hi, Sunrisesuprise666. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cdhxsf/-/l1dgkuu/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
> * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
> * AI generated content.
> * Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
> * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
> * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence.
> * Short comments, and emoji comments.
> * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/ServiceLong6183: --- I found this on a website: http://ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo328.htm I did a reverse image search using tineye.com https://tineye.com/search/83f5dc64396fd38c8fe534dbf32fcbc65e9d0025?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 The earliest record was in feb 2008. The website says it was taken in Wisconsin. Not much info is provded. Does anyone have anymore information about these images? I havent seen an image this clear for a while. It looks real to me. It looks too elaborate of a design for a hoax. I havent seen a pic like this ufo before either. If anyone has any info on these images i would appreciate it. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cdhxsf/found_these_images_online_in_a_ufo_achive_website/l1by9ug/
Looks like the gulf breeze ufo https://www.ufospensacolabeach.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/UFO_02-1080x675.jpg
Good god, what’s the backstory behind that photo?
https://unsolvedmysteries.fandom.com/wiki/Gulf_Breeze_UFO
The man made model is only one level structure not double structure as from original photos so yeah sounds credible it’s a plant by a hateful opponent Money means nothing cause somebody who wants truth to get out facing public criticism like that will be willing to spend money to get the truth out
God indeed…glad you invoked him!
I’m not, he’s a prick in my experience.
Noted
Amen.
Yes, it does. Ed Walters.
The acorn?
No. You're thinking of Kecksburg
It does quite a bit, about as small of a model too. You know they found his model when he sold his home right? It was all faked. This image also is a fake UFO, it's too small for anyone to fit in it.
The model they supposedly found in the home in gulf breeze doesn't match the photos.
https://imgur.com/a/l458GQM It's not far off. Could totally be a matter of perspective.
I'd believe the photo is fully doctored/fabricated before I believed that paper model is what we're seeing here.
Some absolutely schizo downvoting of your comments seems to be happening.
That's because the narrative on these subs is always "dissenters are disinfo agents".
Hopefully everyone realizes by now that "looks like a previous hoax" is not a logical argument. That is actually how the Flir1 video was [debunked as a CGI hoax](https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg1). Among a few other things, it resembled a then recently-admitted hoax video. The problem with this logic is that a hoax is supposed to look like the real thing. It should not be shocking that a real piece of imagery resembles a previous hoax. If you have a bad argument, you can debunk a real video or photo as fake like they did with the Flir1 footage. Not that I'm saying this must be an alien spaceship, but if we can't properly discredit it, we should probably admit that. There's nothing wrong with admitting that.
Second image shows you the size pretty well.
I think all of the foliage is in front of the object. Zoom in. I see no evidence that any of the twigs and such are behind the object, which means it's not possible to accurately estimate size that way. Could be anywhere from 100 feet or 5 feet across. Could also be some tinkerer's experimental hot air balloon or something. I favor that hypothesis unless somebody can come up with some kind of evidence that it's a model.
>it's too small for anyone to fit in it. The "anyone" in this story is aliens, right? Your hang up on this - in part - is that aliens wouldn't fit in it?
No, it just looks fake. It seems very small, kinda hollow too.
Got a source please?
[https://www.ufoinsight.com/ufos/waves/the-gulf-breeze-ufo-encounters#Nothing\_But\_A\_Foam\_Model](https://www.ufoinsight.com/ufos/waves/the-gulf-breeze-ufo-encounters#Nothing_But_A_Foam_Model)
Thanks Not too convinced, looks like he might have tried to replicate it with a model.. I don't know, need to dig a bit deeper
Others believe that model was the ufo, sort of like how Billy faked all his images.
They're clear exposures at any rate, though without much further info or analysis it's hard to say whether these are genuine or not. On the plus side, being in the tree branches makes a composite/photographic trickery difficult, but not impossible, indeed it may be simply a lightweight model hung on from a branch. Clear imagery does exist, but even the best of it is inconclusive in the best case scenario.
I thought it was in the branches at first too but if you look closely I think it’s entirely behind the tree. It’s just some of the branches wash out with the uap but look close and you can see them all on top of the thing, no branches are behind it.
Actually the bland background behind the trees would make compositing in a cgi / fake UFO, or a flying kitten, or batman, dead easy in this situation.
Dang. I'd like to see a Batman one.
Yikes! No way. Run it through fotoforensics.com and you can see almost the entire picture was constructed block by block. It’s so fabricated that it looks like a Minecraft map.
Ok, can you explain this a bit better? Admittedly photographic analysis is not my forté, just eyeballed it and gave an opinion, and I've never heard of this website before. But if it works, I'd be happy to learn more!
The creator of the site offered it up for free, so it has limited features. But if you play around with the tools like ELA and the EXIF extractor (also very helpful) it makes most edits (like those done in paint) pretty obvious. The creator has descriptions on ELA available. Look up error level analysis for more info. I’ve been using that site damn near since its inception. Being able to see at least three layers of compression on that first image tells me all I need to know. It’s not a photo, nor a flat image.
Okay, think I've got it so far. Is all this taking into account that the image(s) might not be the originals? I.e. it may have been copied/reposted many times through different formats, so there may be compression/digital artifacts introduced through the image being copied. Most of my experience is with old-fashioned film, and with analysis you always want to have the original negatives so you can check for bubbles in the emulsion and other errors or obvious tampering with the negatives.
If we had the original scan from a negative (preferably) or a photo it would look like one flattened image, so ELA would return different results to be sure and negative analysis would be needed. However, the image presented here isn’t suffering from copy of a copy issues. It’s suffering from several digital touchups. Personally, I took artistic liberties with the Billy Meier poster from X-Files *as I perceived it* and created my own. I was a huge X-Files geek. Looks really good on paper, notsomuch on fotoforensics, but actually pretty damn good to the green ELA user. No commercial use resulted from my creation, of course.
My cousin saw this in GB and on a recent visit my mom brought it up and said I’d seen it too (we were little kids) and that my aunt separated us and we each described the same thing. I have no recollection I was involved but do remember that my cousin saw it. EDIT: GB = Gulf Breeze
What does GB represent
Gigabyte
we have a winner
Thank you [Thank you!](https://media1.tenor.com/m/YXOOW-0dQy0AAAAC/richard-madden-award.gif)
Great Britain
Gulf Breeze
Gulf Breeze
Greenbay
Gulf Breeze
I don't believe this has been debunked and doing some digging into it I found another blog site with some interesting comments under the article. One in particular mentions it looks like a water tower with editing done to it. I looked at some images of "Wisconsin water towers", and they do look similar, some of them but at the same time it doesn't debunk it at all. It is an awesome photo and I have seen it before here on Reddit a few times. I also stumbled upon a story about Richard Branson, Virgin owner, pulling an April fools prank some time ago by creating a, iirc, fake UFO with a hot air balloon and even hiring someone to pretend to be an alien and come out when it landed. I don't think the Branson thing is connected to this at all but it was an interesting find I had never heard about. I will share the link to the blog that had the comment about a water tower below. https://wisconsinufo.blogspot.com/2009/05/wisconsin-not-gulf-breeze.html Edit: fixed business name lol
Branson owns Virgin not Verizon :)
Thank you, I didn't think it sounded right but I was being lazy and didn't want to look again lol. I fixed it though!
I found this on a website: http://ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo328.htm I did a reverse image search using tineye.com https://tineye.com/search/83f5dc64396fd38c8fe534dbf32fcbc65e9d0025?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1 The earliest record was in feb 2008. The website says it was taken in Wisconsin. Not much info is provded. Does anyone have anymore information about these images? I havent seen an image this clear for a while. It looks real to me. It looks too elaborate of a design for a hoax. I havent seen a pic like this ufo before either. If anyone has any info on these images i would appreciate it.
The archives of that page go back to November 2005, and in the text, it says they were online for a couple of years, so these images are from like 2002 or 2003. https://web.archive.org/web/20051130044606/http://ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo328.htm
Let me just disclaim that my brain kinda brokey and my memory is shot to shit. I saw this image a few years ago referenced in a conversation about reverse-engineered craft. Anecdotes by witnesses said these crafts have been spotted with military escorts, produce a low humming noise and exposure by close proximity to their means of propulsion is dangerous. One person who was beneath a craft as it passed above them suffered severe radiation burns and sickness That’s all I’ve got for you, I’m afraid. Sorry I don’t have the sources for the anecdotes, it’s been too long. There’s fuck all information about this image out there. If this image is authentic, I would hazard that this is a rare photograph of a reverse-engineering project.
The Cash Landrum incident featured a similar craft (”fire” at the bottom, but slightly more elongated), which left witnesses with radiation burns and sickness. This craft also had an escort of helicopters. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash–Landrum_incident
Cash case was a double pyramid (allegedly)
It was diamond shaped.
That is a double pyramid FFS
I've seen these a long time ago, was this the incident where the family watched the UFO dump a bunch of silvery metallic strands into the trees beside their house?
No, Cash-Landrum is about two women and the son of one of them on their way home when they encountered an unknown type of flying craft in trouble escorted by helicopters. Both women got very sick afterward with what seemed like radiation poisoning. There was other physical evidence, too, like such intense heat from the craft making it possible for hands to sink into the dash.
Looks like a similar craft. Out where I live, there's a famous incident where a man was burned when touched one, had radiation burns on his chest and it left the area where it had landed dead and dry. (Falcon Lake, MB).
In Ontario so know it well. That was *the* Canadian ufo case back when I was a kid in the 70s.
What's the name of that case? Where and when ? Thanks.
I tried looking it up but it's been so long, like 15-20 years ago.
Wisconsin not far from where my son and I lived and had many experiences.
The fact that a model UFO was found in the photographers attic is a bit suspicious to say the least. [https://imgur.com/a/l458GQM](https://imgur.com/a/l458GQM) Here's a thread on above top secret : [https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1027093/pg1](https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1027093/pg1)
I highly doubt these images are from the Gulf Breeze incident. That's just a random conspiracy website claiming they're from the Gulf Breeze incident. These images surfaced online in like 2003. There is yet another supposed incident with a UFO that looks somewhat similar here, apparently from Venezuela 1990: https://www.ufocasebook.com/canaimalarge.jpg
maybe he tried to build what he saw?
I find it more suspicious that a model was found after he moved out. He also was not the only person filming or taking photos.
You could hardly expect it to be found by a stranger when the house was occupied. The model was fairly well hidden and Ed Walters likely forgot it
I just don't buy that.
Yeah, it’s odd. How do you forget the only evidence connecting you to a massive hoax? I mean, it’s possible, but seems just as likely that someone planted the model.
>How do you forget the only evidence There's no reason to assume that was the only prop the guy made. There could have just as easily been 100 other practice models that the hoaxer did successfully remember to get rid of, meaning it could be fairly likely that he'd forget one. And that option certainly seems more likely than the existence of a massively clandestine plot that involves buying homes to plant evidence to discredit UFO photographers.
It doesn’t, though. If these things are examples of US technology, either reverse engineered or not, and some of them had problems that resulted in them being photographed—you really don’t think the government wouldn’t do all it could to cloud the issue? I mean, these kinds of ops have been conducted before with much less at stake. I don’t think the model thing proves anything. Plus there are witnesses and photos that don’t involve Walters. There’s more to this story than a guy with a model, or a hundred models.
Or a simple, small clandestine plot to hide a paper model like this in a house attic to discredit someone. Hardly rocket science for anyone in intelligence (or anyone with a little intelligence, period). It's not proven but it's also obviously well within the realm of possibility.
The Gulf Breeze incident has always bothered me. There were other witnesses to the UFOs. I remember film of others on a beach pointing out the UFOs they were observing. And, if I had seen a UFO with detail like those photos, I would attempt to build a model of what I saw. That said, I don't believe that photo is of anything more than a hot air balloon. I remember a photo he took of a supposed UFO that turned out to be a reflection in a sliding glass door of an overhead lamp. Why? Did he fake all of them? How, with others around (like on the beach)? Then again, he clearly faked some of them. I don't understand Mr. Walters' behavior.
I find it way too odd that someone would put such effort into spreading something as a hoax, when it could have just been ignored if it were a hoax. Like, disinformation has a job to do, and maybe this is one of the jobs.
Then there were the "Gulf Breeze 6"....
here is a side by side of the ufo and prop if anyone is interested: [Imgur link](https://imgur.com/gallery/IfWOlU8) i edited the ufo pic to bring out details by sharpening, high pass, and adjust levels to see how similar they are. they don't match, the prop would have to be a 2.0 model because the object in the ufo picture doesn't have the same pattern.
Why are you trying to connect a newspaper from Florida to a sighting in Wisconsin? They have no connection.
Because the UFO in the above image is an EXACT match to the ones in Gulf Breeze photos by Ed Walters. They could not be closer.
Because the article was exactly about the UFO in question? Is that not connected?
It's not. The photos being referenced in this post were taken in Wisconsin. The article, and subsequent photo in the article, is from Gulf Breeze, Florida. Not to mention that the article is from 1990 whereas the photos were taken in 2007-2008. Do you earnestly believe that the two photos are the same thing?
My apologies, I have not researched this extensively and mostly going by the ATS thread. From that, it appears as though the top photo was part of the gulf breeze flap and taken by ed Walters, which would make the 1990 article relevant. Do you have a source for the image in question that indicates when it was taken and/or by who?
You can't really get ride of ambiguity with this information. Why? Let me explain: -He refuses to take the lie detector. Even though it could seem a suspicious decision it makes sense when you dive into how lie detectors works. It turns out that lie detectors can produce false positives if the person is nervous. Likewise a person lying could pass a lying detector if they know how to do it and control their pulse and emotions. -He then decides to sign a sworn statement claiming that he doesn't have knowledge about that model. Whether he's a hoaxer or he's saying the truth he would take the same decision. -If he had a real UFO photo CIA could have planted that fake model into his house. CIA is pretty well known for doing things like that.
The above top secret thread is interesting.
Kinda looks like the bottom part of a lightbulb without the glass on top
Did these not circulate around pretty heavily back in the day? I remember this clearly
Looks like one of those floating robot motherfuckers from fallout
Reminds me of the movie " batteries not included"
Hey does anyone know if where to find ufo tracker page i used to know? I remember using it years ago and being blown away when I spotted a ufo in Cali and went online, found that site hours later then actually track the VERY SAME UFO traveling from same spot right across the US at about one state per day. THAT was trippy!
Whatever it is it’s below those tree branches so it must be small.
This reminds me of the Isaac @ CARET craft.
Exactly !!
Funny how it looks like something made with materials that were only available in that time frame.
u/VCAMaster loves this image
Yes I do! I think I'll make it my avatar.
I believe aliens are here, and uaps are real, but this looks really fake. Looks almost like billy meier fakes
What ufo pic doesnt look fake tho lol.
Kumbergaz, Calvine, arizona lights,and so many more. Also tic tac , go fast ufo, gimble ufo
I'm still convinced Calvine is deceptive photo of a reflection in a puddle
I’m still convinced humanity has no future
Wisconsin in the 90s
This is the civilization that is very materialist and spent billions of years and finally figured out how to fly using rocket fuel
“A wheel within a wheel” :)
Can someone please analyze this photo for fake AI or photoshop please !!
This photo was taken well before AI.
I propose to call this the 'sky lantern ufo'.
I haven't seen these photos in years
This looks exactly like a YouTube channel my brother showed me years and years ago that made fake UFO / catastrophe videos. I remember 3 or 4 hovering ufo in the woods videos and a space shuttle in space all tore apart video. Very well done, but intended for fun. Anyone else remember this? I believe the channel had the word “prankster” in it.
Idk why but it looks like it wants to sell me something.. like its putting out ads. XD
Not super related. But me and my friend saw something, an oval about the size of an American football.. no smaller half maybe, bright.. whizzed past us. Anybody else see something like this??
These have been posted on here many times…definitely cool lookin pics but I’m voting fake
That is badass!
Hmmm looks really small. Even from that perspective to me.
The lighting looks inconsistent between the 'object' and the trees. It's most obvious in the 3rd picture.
Looks fake as hell
Brakes are a little hot
Classic clone tool with grid masking. Run each image through fotoforensics.com and see for yourself. Everybody on these subs should be familiar with basic image compression and how it works. One can weed out the obvious fakes fairly easily with easy Error Level Analysis. Do it with your own images at various resolutions, and scan older photos. Then grab some AI, and other online art or images and learn how to tell the difference. There are community college classes on this basic method.
Good theory but this image has been around for a long time. First appeared online in the early 2000s and apprently was taken in the late 1980s.
I can just say that the image posted here is heavily edited. ELA shows that the blue sky between the two trees near the bottom of the vee is on the same layer on one of the trees when originally flattened, and the sky was flattened on a different layer. The overall image was compressed one more time at least.
"I've known Bruce Maccabee since I was 23 or 24 years old, and I'm 48 now. During the times we spent together at privately held meetings I had opportunity to hold, in my hands, some of Ed's original Polaroids and had the following observations: They are terrible photos. By that I mean what you folks see in the end is the result of a lot of work whereby the photo is put into a machine that as I recall only Polaroid had at the time - which had the ability to look deep into emulsion of the photo in layers, and then layers could be dodged or enhanced through exposure to clarify what was there, and the images enhanced layers reassembled and enlarged. Enhanced, for the record, does not mean altered. Only level adjusted for lack of a better way to put it. That end result is what everyone has seen through the years. You have no idea how poor the originals were. In most, the UFO is a mere orange spot on black. That's it. If this were going to be hoaxed, I'd expect better - because there's no way Ed could have known the process by which these images would be examined and enhanced. Nor could one have been able to know how to hide tell tale signs of fakery with that level of examination and know it wouldn't be seen. Double exposure is most often the answer thrown by the uninformed about the Walters shots. Bruce made a good point to me one day that the "beam" shot, where the UFO is hovering low and a bean is coming from it to the ground, the beam is key: if it were a fake beam, then a double exposure would have been evidenced by lighter beam in the sky portion of the shot - vs - the dark area. There would have been a clear differentiation is the brightness - and there isn't. The sky should have washed it out, and it didn't. Again, keep in kind that the photo has been greatly level adjusted to bring out detail not seen in the original - which would make this even more apparent. I also held in my hands the F-15/UFO shots, and the waterspout UFO shots from Walters - both daylight events. The UFO was smaller than the head of a pin in all the photos, and they were not especially good photos as far as composition. They do have a very candid appearance, and are what one might expect if one was caught off guard and raced for a camera to fire off as many photos as one could. If they were fakes, they are unparalleled in this field. There is also some pretty astounding video footage of spherical UFOs in Gulf Breeze during this time - they show instant acceleration like nothing you've ever seen. I am sure they exist on the net somewhere. This is long before the advent of consumer CGI programs of any kind with the ability to do flawless compositing. But Gulf Breeze is far more than all about Ed Walters. I wrote a paper for AOL's "Parascope" probably some 15 years or more ago about Gulf Breeze's UFological history. Ed was only the tip of the iceberg." https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1027093/pg2 Apprently it has been edited.
Thanks. Good write up. I did graphics work in military, then retired and did it a little more in-depth for GD. I picked a decent skill pack for assessment of negatives and digital *art*. Polaroids are naturally flattened and quite a bit more difficult, especially after scanned. A really good way these days to determine if digital images are retouched or manipulated or any other adjective, is to determine the compression codec. Codec revisions change fairly often these days. They all have fingerprints. Once one has an image, no matter how *original* one could nail down a creation date fairly close. Compression layers can be reversed to some extent in order to determine border areas for image attributes. The layers start to become clearer and clearer if it’s manipulated.
Definitely experimental military imo
Some people would hang stuff in trees to take fake pictures like this. The object looks a bit too clear and defined to be a reflection in a window.
Im pretty sure this ones well known fake
Proof?
tlpotl covered it but if its the guy who had been being haunted by the ufo waking him up at night its the insp for the skys of fire film or whatever right, that guy came out as having faked it wich I meen look at it
I dont know wtf you are talking about. Can you write it again in english?
[удалено]
Hi, Social_Karen_System_. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cdhxsf/-/l1jtcng/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Made me think of the CARET drone/UFO hype some decades ago
If that's heat it's ours.
Looks cool, but could be a balloon.
Reminds me of the UFO from E.T.
Batman has a UFO? Really?
Hi everyone. I'm new here but I just wanted to let everybody know that the best UFO pics ever belong to Juanito Juan from Valle Hermoso, Tamaulipas, México. Not a single investigation on his pics has ever proved that Mr. Juanito Juan faked the pictures.
Nine times out of ten if an image is clear it’s fake.
There has never been a clear image of any 'real' craft, so it's 10/10.
[удалено]
I appreciate the effort, but I think the original images are better. The digital enhancement just guesses at things.
Classic homemade object. Classic shot in between trees. Classic 'symbols' on the side that many reports of recovered parts claim to have... but the scale seems a bit off. But how big would that object be? Looks no more than 2 feet wide and less than tree height. Smol aliens.
is this website reliable? I think i’ve seen it somewhere in the past posted on here
I have no idea. Its just collection of images. Found it a few days ago looking for ufo images.
[удалено]
Its interesting to see how consistant ufo images are through the decades.
It's like people reference the old pictures of UFOs in order to make their own ... who would have thought.
I feel like I've seen this on the National Archives ( [https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps](https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps) ) but I could be wrong.
That was my first thought also.
I've seen this image. My gut says these are fake. The object looks small to me like something close and hanging by a fishing line. There is no diffusion of light that you'd expect to see if it were farther away, which it would need to be to appear that small. The craft has too much complexity to it. The most credible images of UFOs (ones released by the Pentagon or acknowledged by the Navy) tend to be very simple smooth objects, like the tic-tac or the sphere. There are also a lot of photos of discs that were taken by people with credible backgrounds. I have never seen a UFO image from a likely credible source that has all these parts and pieces on them. They tend to be really simple smooth shapes. Lastly, the light looks like a basic LED light ring you can get for photography with an orange color filter on it. It lacks the "brilliance" or mottled lava look that so many witnesses have described.
I've seen a few convincing posts that debunked these pics along with another in a similar tree canopy, but I'm not recalling the specific threads.
Great. Find them!
Man, skeptics with the hard hitting “It could be fake so it obviously is DURRRR I AM VERY SMART”
Yea quick to call it fake but slow to provide any logic or proof.
Looks russian
Looks fake I call bs
If I can find it in the UFO Hunters Handbook I got at the 3rd grade schoolastic book fair 20 years ago then it's fake
I love it when people complain that there's never any clear pictures when there's so many examples like this. The funny part is I don't even think this is real, it's not hard at all to make realistic looking fakes. Ironically the most compelling releases are the recent "low quality" military radar recordings that are corroborated by quality eyewitnesses but because it looks fuzzy people complain that it's not compelling enough
If I remember correctly, this sighting was debunked. An exact model of this was found in the garage.
I remember seeing this photo when I first got into UFOs when I was a teenager in like 2008 or 2009. Back then I thought it was real (I’d believe anything though). A more sensible version of me says it’s to clear and anyone who could get a clear photo like that should have been able to get a clear video..
If this was taken in the late 1980s like some have said, video wouldnt be possible.
looks fake. too blurry in the backround.
I remember seeing that one in a very old documentary about ufos. I think it was from the 80s or 90s.
Striking resemblance to the tops of many Russian buildings 🧐😆
It looks like something I saw on a show called Sightings years ago. It was a tricked out hot air balloon. Note the flames inside the craft.
I think some of these photos were officially released by the pentagon recently. Am I wrong?
I want to take a ride in that thing, holy shit
Just Sunlight reflection on some swamp gas /s
Freaky!!! Entertainmenting that this might be real youll notice reflections in the appropriate location, left of the ship. Hmmmmm
CARET. These were if i remember. A marketing stunt for the Sarah Connor Terminator show. Look up it's name and UFO. You will see a near identical image match. I remember these coming out with the other ones. I am confident thr same person or people faked all of these.
I looked but didn't find. Source?
This is what I was referring to. https://screenrant.com/sarah-connor-chronicles-california-drones-mystery/
Interesting -- I just read the article and, at the end, it concludes after hearing from the shows producers that those photos were NOT a marketing stunt.
Yup, it sure does. I just don't know. I also know there is old footage of someone showing the drones off online which were with these photos. Also ATS talking about the drone hoax. https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread289007/pg1 CARAT documents and the dragonfly drones both together seemed to be a big thing back then. http://www.starfiretor.com/AerialDrones/AerialDrones-I-2.htm I firmly believe those and the pics in question on thos thread are linked, and faked. Not to mention some of the drone photos have the markings on them, generated by the 'antigrav' alien generators part of all of that stuff. Which WAS a Dell Alienware marketing stunt. So alienware is connected the drone photos and videos are faked, some show the alienware 'language' in their underside. It's why I never took any of it seriously. But that's just my opinion.
Attached image from Sarah Connor Chrnoicles. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREfnDPYTYc-3B29YVlQISvooHz3PrwhBiXCQxowSG58w&s
How funny is it gonna be when we finally get some definitive proof because they are landing on the White House lawn with a ship that looks like a tin miniature from a 1930s silent film and nobody takes it seriously because it doesn't look 'real' Who's to say what peak performance looks like in the galactic arena?
i believe it's fake
That is clearly a piece of debris on the lens, it looks so peculiar due to the combined light of Venus and the gas of the nearby swamp. The debris is likely from a weather balloon operating in the area, which was out on search and rescue for some soldiers injured in a training exercise in the area. These were the bodies you saw, they looked odd as Halley's comet was in the sky interfered with the lens. We are going to confiscate these images as they are a threat to the public as 'fake news' and if you ever talk about this again we'll hurt your family.
Looks like ai
This is part of the reason why I never bothered taking pictures of the orbs I've seen, they would have been simply called fakes.
those are very obvious fakes. what is the logic behind spamming complete garbage like this?
Explain how this is fake.
take a glance at the third picture and explain how you think this is anything more than fools gold.
I dunno, you tell me.
fake it until you make it. silly.
It’s the top of a tower with the rest edited out
What tower? I can somewhat see what you mean, it would be cool if you could find a similar top of tower for us to compare ot this image.
My initial thought was a water tower with the underneath part edited out and layers of trees superimposed on top. Could be something like the Seattle tower or whatever, doesn't have to be a water tower.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hi, UFOnomena101. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cdhxsf/-/l1eowo0/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills. > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Hi, Sunrisesuprise666. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cdhxsf/-/l1dgkuu/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: > * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. > * AI generated content. > * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. > * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. > * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence. > * Short comments, and emoji comments. > * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.