423 replies to this topic

[bee]

synchronomy, on 05 October 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

Would a drone be at a much higher altitude?

maybe, I don't really know...but they would have to come down to lower altitudes at some point to land?

I'm not going...'I think it's a drone'.....just a suggestion of a possibility...

Quote

It would be a strange drone in that shape.

I thought the Chinese one in the link I put looked broadly the same shape..bulbous bit with a sticky out bit.

Quote

Here's and enlargement of the goat's leg shadow.  It does look strange, but I think it's because there's a depression in the road there that the shadow disappears into.
I still think the photo and everything in it are real, but identifying the "UFO" is impossible.

lol thanks for the close up...the shadow could be going into a depression but it does look strange...a minor detail anyway with the pic.. but cheers for that.

As I said before there's something about the photo that doesn't 'feel right' to me....like it could be a tease, dunno.

[DONTEATUS]

THe shadows are all very correct !

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

Abramelin, on 05 October 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Point is: we know about bugs, we know how they can accidentally show up on photos, and so on. I have worked in an Eastman- Kodak lab for 10 years, and although I was only busy analyzing the chemicals used, I have seen zillions of photos with the most unbelievable images (and how many photographed noses by people who had no idea what was front or back of their camera, you won't believe it, lol). That was before the time of digital cameras, btw.

But all we see here is an 'UNidentified object' in the sky. We don't even know if it was flying..

If you say that it could be an ET spacecraft or something, then I can say it is a very rare and cryptoid kind of silver skinned elephant having severe gas problems.

That's a possibility too, right?

.

Yes it is a possibility, but I have seen no such elephant, so I would say it's improbable. However, I have seen UFO, so it's not as improbable as your silver skinned elephant. I guess you could say I am a skeptic regarding your elephant the same way you are a skeptic regarding UFO.

[Chrlzs]

I'm pretty much over this and have already posted a fairly lengthy set of comments over at ATS, but a couple of points:

1. The distance to the 'thing' is NOT possible to accurately determine.  About all that can be said is that judging by the level of blurring it could be either moderately distant (eg same sort of range as the rock pile), or moderately close, eg within a few feet of the camera.  It is unlikely to be at the plane of focus, but that cannot be stated with any certainty - there could motion blur issues or other factors that make it appear blurred.  I'm happy to back that up with a more 'numeric' analysis, but frankly it would be a waste of time.

2. Ritzmann's 'analysis' is not good at all, and he has made some GLARING errors.  The one about working out distance from the lightness/colour of the object is just silly - and this was pointed out in detail by me here and then backed up by an accurate (if rather lengthy and complicated!) analysis by eleven august here and then here.  In simple terms, the lightness and colour of an object is primarily determined by the ACTUAL lightness and colour of the object!  like.. duuh!  The ONLY way you can make some (cautious) guesses about possible distance ranges is when the object is DARKER and/or MORE CONTRASTY than it could possibly be at a distance that would make it affected by haze.  THINK about it.  In this case the object is BRIGHT, and that brightness may have absolutely nothing to do with haze and everything to do with it's actual lightness and colour and reflectivity..

Given that misinformation, I find it very hard to take Ritzmann seriously.  Note that he has completely ignored my comments over there - yet ironically one of the site owners specifically 'applauded' my post on that topic (it's a way they give out extra points and 'trophies' and is quite rare).  Go figure.

[synchronomy]

Chrlzs, on 06 October 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

Given that misinformation, I find it very hard to take Ritzmann seriously.  Note that he has completely ignored my comments over there - yet ironically one of the site owners specifically 'applauded' my post on that topic (it's a way they give out extra points and 'trophies' and is quite rare).  Go figure.

Totally agree.  90% of Ritzmann's analysis is common sense to the average layman.  If you handed this guy a pretzel he would be performing integral calculus on Bernoulli equations to describe the shape.  God's know what he'd come up with for the taste.
I'd just say its a salty twisty thing.
Same with this picture.  It's a tourist's snapshot.  Something's in the sky, can't make out what it is.  Could be many things.  End of story.

[TheMacGuffin]

Chrlzs, on 06 October 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

I'm pretty much over this and have already posted a fairly lengthy set of comments over at ATS, but a couple of points:


Given that misinformation, I find it very hard to take Ritzmann seriously.  Note that he has completely ignored my comments over there - yet ironically one of the site owners specifically 'applauded' my post on that topic (it's a way they give out extra points and 'trophies' and is quite rare).  Go figure.

I regard you as extremely biased in the other direction, so if this picture were to be analyzed by someone, I'd prefer it to be genuinely neutral and objective researchers who didn't have your particular "skeptical" ax to grind.  

That's just how I see it.

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 05 October 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

Boon, may I ask what you mean here exactly? Are you stating that motion blur and atmospheric haze are very similar and can easily be confused with each other?

Also yes I think many of us go with what the 'expert' has said, to be honest all I have seen to date is people attacking him and not any of his points. Euphorbia keeps asking McG why does he trust him and that he should even prove him 'right' huh? Surely the experts can pick apart his points? that is the way it works isnt it?

One other quick point, If we use both pictures and 'pretend' that what we see is the UFO 30 seconds earlier. Surely some mathematics can be used to calculate approx speed or size??? Of course this is working of the premise that its the same object but it would be interesting.

Boon, I know you said it looks like a bug to you, BUT do you think that is what it is?

I was more asking questions than providing answers.  I would assume that motion blur and atmospheric haze could have much in common depending on the direction or nature of the motion blur, but I don't claim to know one way or the other.

As for what it is, I don't know.  My best guess is that it is some kind of insect close to the camera, probably a beetle like the one I previously provided video for.  Admittedly that's a guess and nothing more.

Cheers.

1963, on 05 October 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

Hi Boony!

I have to say that your comment of..."How could a terrestrial explanation be less likely than an extraterrestrial one? "...is a perfectly valid one. ...Only if used by a person that is not convinced that extraterrestrial visitation is a likely reality! [Because surely to someone that believes in the reality of ETV, if the anomaly has the appearance of 'what is perceived as an ETV', then to that person, an ETV must logically be the primary-impression!]
Lack of tangible proof aside,as you know, we differ in that opinion.And if you are leaning toward 'the bug explanation' for this particular photographic-anomaly, then I have to say that we are of differing opinions on this one too.Because although I do not completely dismiss that option out of hand,..I find it a very unlikely one, for the reasons that I have seen nothing so far to indicate that the photographic-analysis expert over at ATS is 'unreliable', and in his report he makes it clear that he thinks that the object in the picture is of a considerable 'distance' from the photographer, and therefore logically the  'size' of the 'Bug' is not commensurate with any known bug here on earth!
[unless of course , someone can show that the expert's analysis is irrevocably-flawed?]
And also,..as scientifically sound as ever,.. I would like to add the codicil that though I have seen plenty of pictures that contain out of focus birds,insects and bugs etc, that have been touted as exotic-craft....this one is not in that class![call it a gut-feeling if you like]....For me, this anomalous photograph is something entirely different to those ones.
It is my opinion that the options for identifying the object in the photo are , either a 'semi-deflated balloon', in which case, if the analyst's distances are correct, then it must have been 'a whopper'.lol.
...or some kind of 'secret test craft, or experimental Drone'...which begs the question..."why would it be jaunting around the Mediterranean Islands?", and "is the shape of that thing viable for conventional technology?".
And the third option for myself personally,[as a proponent of the ETH] is that the photographer has unwittingly caught a ETV on her holiday snaps !...But by no means do I suggest that this thing [or the other speculations] is a definitive conclusion!...Merely the most exciting possibility!

And then of course...as always in these cases, there is the very-real possibility that the whole thing is a dirty heinous scam!...that has been so expertly executed by the perpetrator that it has completely hoodwinked even the 'expert analyst at ATS!

There may be other options that I have overlooked ,but in my honest opinion, this photograph, ...just like so many others throughout the years, will remain 'up in the air' ,unless a confession of 'fakery' eventually turns up!...Because that is how the extraterrestrial debate between the 'believers' and the 'non-believers works'!

....if it's fake...then it's a good one though!


Cheers buddy.

Hiya 1963.

I think that Chrlzs has provided enough for us to reasonably conclude that Ritzmann isn't as much of an expert as is being suggested.  The technical points alone should prove that.  Couple that with the information provided by Euphorbia regarding Ritzmann's historically questionable motives should raise an eyebrow for anyone seriously considering this image and the veracity of the analysis provided on ATS.

As for what it actually is?  I don't know, and I don't plan to spend any more time looking into it.  It will just become another UFO photo that gets posted around for a while and then occasionally looked at by future generations who will wonder what it might have been.  In the end it proves nothing, and that's too bad.  This phenomena could use something substantial one of these days.

Cheers.

[Chrlzs]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 October 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

I regard you as extremely biased in the other direction, so if this picture were to be analyzed by someone, I'd prefer it to be genuinely neutral and objective researchers who didn't have your particular "skeptical" ax to grind.  

That's just how I see it.

And why should we care unless you bring some knowledge to the table?

You have already admitted (and demonstrated, by posting that non-raw image and making baseless comments about how distant you think the object is) you have little knowledge of digital imaging and the science of photogrammetry.  I (immodestly, perhaps!) claim to have a LOT of knowledge of both these fields .. but more importantly I've posted information for all to see and criticise, both here and at ATS.  It is notable that no-one other than you has criticised, indeed others who know the topic have been very supportive.

Now, IF you have some argument with my information then bring it here instead of alleging bias.  I find such ad hominems quite insulting, especially when it comes from someone who has already admitted and proven their lack of knowledge of the topic in question.

[TheMacGuffin]

Chrlzs, on 06 October 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

And why should we care unless you bring some knowledge to the table?

Now, IF you have some argument with my information then bring it here instead of alleging bias.  I find such ad hominems quite insulting, especially when it comes from someone who has already admitted and proven their lack of knowledge of the topic in question.

Who's "we"?

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 06 October 2012 - 09:29 AM.

[Chrlzs]

quillius, on 05 October 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

Quote

{Boony}

What are you talking about?  He said this:
***
Without the ability to travel to the location and do specific measurements of stationary objects to compare with focal lengths and other triangulation points, I cannot determine the distance of the object. However, it's level of atmospheric haze indicates to me it is of some distance away and of substantial size (perhaps even the legendary 40ft diameter is not out of the question)
***
What does that mean exactly?
By the way, how different from motion blur is atmospheric haze?

You're hanging your hat on this guy's supposed qualifications without knowing anything about him unless I'm mistaken.  I haven't spent any time looking into him or his qualifications.  I don't really care that much about this picture to bother with such things.  I just find it fascinating that you seem to be jumping all over the 'defense' of this picture when nobody knows what it is.  Are you incapable of understanding what I mean when I say "this is what it looks like to me, but I don't claim to know whether this is actually what it is." ?

Boon, may I ask what you mean here exactly? Are you stating that motion blur and atmospheric haze are very similar and can easily be confused with each other?

I ain't Boony, so forgive me for jumping in here to clarify a couple of issues..
No, they aren't exactly similar, but... nothing is simple in imaging!  Atmospheric haze essentially does the following, in roughly this order of importance:
- reduces contrast, mainly by adding to the brightness of darker areas by light scattering
- adds a bluish or purplish (usually) colour
- reduces sharpness by both light scattering and the small turbulences in the air - the further away, the more atmospheric variations to reduce detail.

Now, motion blur is usually directional across the image frame so you get a streaking effect in the direction of motion as it traverses the image while the shutter is open.  However.. if the motion is erratic, or towards/away from the camera instead of across, or if the object itself is changing shape (as in the case of a plastic bag being blown by the wind or an insect flapping wings/legs/body parts) then it can be VERY difficult to determine the difference between motion blur and out-of-focus blur.  There are other issues like interlacing in videos, etc, but let's try to keep this simple!!  BTW, did you see much of that brought up by Ritzmann?

Finally, if the amount of blur is in the region of one or two pixels, it is not accurately measurable - there's this thing called the Nyquist theorem - it's the same thing that means if you enlarge an image beyond 1:1, you will see artefacts that are not, not, I repeat NOT real.

So, in summary, atmospheric haze and motion blur don't have a lot in common other than a slight loss of sharpness.

Quote

Also yes I think many of us go with what the 'expert' has said, to be honest all I have seen to date is people attacking him and not any of his points.

I have very specifically pointed out the error he made when trying to determine distance from alleged haze-lightening effects.  I repeat that such a determination cannot possibly be made as Ritzmann asserted.  The poster elevenaugust elaborated on this at ATS in great detail, showing the only way that such a determination can be made.  The light colour and lack of contrast may simply be the actual colour of the object, so nothing can be made of it's 'hazy' appearance!

Quote

Surely the experts can pick apart his points? that is the way it works isnt it?

Yes, it is.  See above
I haven't gone through Ritzmann's initial analysis point by point, but if anyone wants to ask about anything they saw there that they feel is particularly compelling and supports any particular hypothesis, then PLEASE - let me know.  If he's right, I'll back him up.  If he's wrong, I'll show why and provide cites as necessary.  I would simply make the comment that I find the length of that analysis astonishing for what is a pretty straightforward image.  It simply doesn't contain enough information to warrant that level of verbosity, or the subsequent attention it has got.

I invite anyone who disputes my comments about the haze issue to do so, and I'll go into more detail and show examples - but I would point out that elevenaugust already showed the concept being used properly here.  As stated, you can tell something from too much contrast, but you cannot from too little, as applies here.

Quote

One other quick point, If we use both pictures and 'pretend' that what we see is the UFO 30 seconds earlier. Surely some mathematics can be used to calculate approx speed or size??? Of course this is working of the premise that its the same object but it would be interesting.

Yes, you really do have to positively identify the object in both - in the other image I just see a tiny smudge that has little in common with the 'anomaly'.  And yes, we could then get angular speed, but that's all.  Angular speed is not the same as actual speed - for that you need an accurate distance to object.  If we could then get the actual distance, it would give us a size and speed.  But I'm afraid we simply don't have enough info to do that.  And you can't triangulate without precisely known camera locations or object distances, and this camera has such a wide depth of field, there is not enough information to get a usefully accurate distance even if the object was clearly resolved in both images.

Quote

Boon, I know you said it looks like a bug to you, BUT do you think that is what it is?

Again, I ain't Boon, but assuming the image is genuinely untouched, my best guess is either the bug at fairly close range (NOT on the lens) or a bluish plastic shopping bag at about 15 metres (no calculations done, just a wild-a$$ed guess).  It looks an awful lot like a window chip, but I'm ~85% satisfied that the window is down..  

Edited by Chrlzs, 06 October 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[Abramelin]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 06 October 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

Yes it is a possibility, but I have seen no such elephant, so I would say it's improbable. However, I have seen UFO, so it's not as improbable as your silver skinned elephant. I guess you could say I am a skeptic regarding your elephant the same way you are a skeptic regarding UFO.

I didn't say UFO, I said ET spacecraft.

I have no problems with UFO, but how do you know there's an ET inside the thing, or that it is an ET drone?


.

Edited by Abramelin, 06 October 2012 - 11:41 AM.

[The Mule]

Euphorbia, on 02 October 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

UFO = Unidentified Flying Object

If I tossed a Frisbee past your head and you didn't know what it was, it technically would be a UFO!

Are there unidentified/unidentifiable objects in the sky? Of course! Is there life elsewhere in our galaxy/universe? I would bet on it!

But, you can't just look at a picture of an alleged UFO and assume there is life on board let alone extraterrestrial life. Heck, you can't even assume the object in the picture is some kind of spacecraft.

I want to believe.......but I need that conclusive evidence......you know......facts!




So, just how do you conclude that this is an extraterrestrial space vehicle manned by aliens?

This guy has the right idea...download the pic to your computer, and keep blowing it up until you can see how its been photoshopped. Pixel by pixel. Hoax!!

[Chrlzs]

The Mule, on 06 October 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

This guy has the right idea...download the pic to your computer, and keep blowing it up until you can see how its been photoshopped. Pixel by pixel. Hoax!!

I'm not quite sure if that comment is tongue in cheek, but it's worth noting that the image above is an enlargement of a JPEG-compressed version - NOT the original.  As such it is worse than useless, as it simply shows the false detail resulting from the 8x8 blocks of jpeg compression artefacts...  No knowledgeable researcher would post such a thing as 'evidence' of anything, let alone image tampering / 'photoshoppery'.

If that's what you were implying, then I agree!

[The Mule]

Chrlzs, on 06 October 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

I'm not quite sure if that comment is tongue in cheek, but it's worth noting that the image above is an enlargement of a JPEG-compressed version - NOT the original.  As such it is worse than useless, as it simply shows the false detail resulting from the 8x8 blocks of jpeg compression artefacts...  No knowledgeable researcher would post such a thing as 'evidence' of anything, let alone image tampering / 'photoshoppery'.

If that's what you were implying, then I agree!

busted me. I better stick to mule things.

[scowl]

Man, this looks like the begining of another California Drone hoax.

The light/dark areas on the supposed object look too distinct to me compared to the furthest rocks which are pretty blurry. Looks like someone tried to match their creation with the blurriness of the ground directly below it but found it made it too blurry so the hoaxer had to compromise. Even with that, the thing is so out of focus it's impossible to make any conclusions about it which is convenient. Remember when UFO photos were in focus?  How fortunate the woman focused on the closest and least interesting objects to throw the spacecraft out of focus. These issues were what the Drone hoaxer or hoaxers were dealing with. They failed on an early photo (too sharp, too light) then got better as they hit the Internet with improved efforts. Their last one even had two photos, one focused on a flower with the "drone" more or less correctly out of focus and then one with the "drone" in focus.

Also the alleged object looks nearly transparent. It seems like for a solid object it should be darker than it appears.

Just like the California Drone, the object looks too elaborate. This looks something like a globe over a hoop connected by something in the back. Did they learn that making ridiculous complicated objects leaves too many possibilities for error? If we see more photos of similar objects, I'll know they're back and they've learned from their mistakes.

I'll say it again... just one photo? This is the hallmark of Photoshop hoaxes. The California Drone had the same ploy. Yes, the battery died. Yes, the object just suddenly disappeared. Gosh darn it, I could have taken a dozen shots of it! This is why Rex Heflin's polaroids are probably the best UFO photos around. This guy was able to take three or four shots using a clunky Polaroid camera and even got a shot of the alleged disappearance of the object in a ring of smoke. These days we have digital cameras but people take one shot of a UFO and run off to post it on the Internet.