423 replies to this topic

[synchronomy]

Euphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

I know what UFO means, but do you even have proof that it is flying? Plastic bags float....they don't fly. Or are you going to tell me it can also mean "Unidentified Floating Object"?

Again, this may or may not be a UFO....we have insufficient evidence!

SMH.
Please tell me you are not serious.
Let me put it more simply.  Flying in terms of UFO means "aloft"....drift, fleet, float, flutter, glide, hover, levitate.
If it ain't on the ground it's flying.
Here it is used in a sentence:

If you get hit by a bus you will fly through the air...

[BorisIWantToKnow]

notoverrated, on 02 October 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

if she is married she has her ring on the wrong finger.

I thougt it was a dude

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

I don't see them.  Maybe you should just wash your computer screen every few years.

Nice one.     Maybe you just need a new monitor?  Are you using a 13 inch CRT with 640x480 resolution and 16-bit color?

They're there.  Maybe you should ask someone else in the thread that you don't think is an evil government agent who is paid to be here for the sole purpose of muddying the waters.


Edit:
Okay, I'm not going to engage in this kind of negative back and forth any more.  I was just reminded of an agreement that we made a while back, an agreement that I'd forgotten about.  I'm not going to remove what I said here with the edit, but I will apologize.  I was being a smart ass and I apologize McG.  Hopefully we can discuss this topic respectfully from here on out.

Edited by booNyzarC, 04 October 2012 - 11:44 PM.

[synchronomy]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

I see several such small blurry things in this image


Maybe they just need to wash the windshield?  It does look like pretty dusty driving...  Maybe they are bugs or something else?  Oh I know...  maybe it's a fleet!  

I'm thinking dirt on the windshield, bugs, and/or birds in the distance.
The windshield is definately dirty.  At the right of the image about halfway down you can see the arc of the widshield wiper tip path.

[booNyzarC]

synchronomy, on 04 October 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

I'm thinking dirt on the windshield, bugs, and/or birds in the distance.
The windshield is definately dirty.  At the right of the image about halfway down you can see the arc of the widshield wiper tip path.

Yes, there are many possibilities for an explanation, all speculative, and all inconclusive.

[Euphorbia]

synchronomy, on 04 October 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

SMH.
Please tell me you are not serious.
Let me put it more simply.  Flying in terms of UFO means "aloft"....drift, fleet, float, flutter, glide, hover, levitate.
If it ain't on the ground it's flying.
Here it is used in a sentence:

Of course I'm not serious! Can't I liven up a thread that's basically going nowhere fast? I have a sense of humor that not everyone gets......especially on the internet....

Here's the thing....we have a picture that someone allegedly sent to the guy at ATS who's supposed to be a darn good UFO picture analyzer. Someone posts it on this site and asks what we think.......I responded.....you responded.......lots of people responded........

Do we have something unidentified? Absolutely! Can we go on for days going back and forth as to just what is in the picture? Sure, but are we getting anywhere? Some people who shall remain nameless, are just to trusting of faceless analyzers whom they've never seen or met.

We will probably never know for sure what is in the photo and we can speculate until the cows come home. Skepticism is my friend, along with facts and evidence. Coming to premature conclusions is never a good idea......

Quote

If you get hit by a bus you will fly through the air...

Depends on the size of the bus....

[bison]

The photographer, as seen in the mirror, appears to have his or her hand outside the widow frame of the car. This seems to indicate that the window is open, which would render debris adhering to the window or chips in the glass irrelevant. This object might be explained by tiny pit or a bit of dew on the camera lens, except for the fact that shadows indicate that the sun is to the right of, and a bit behind the camera. The lens would presumably be shielded from the side by its barrel, and the the reflective highlight seen on the object would not, then, be expected to be present.

[Euphorbia]

bison, on 05 October 2012 - 12:04 AM, said:

The photographer, as seen in the mirror, appears to have his or her hand outside the widow frame of the car. This seems to indicate that the window is open, which would render debris adhering to the window or chips in the glass irrelevant. This object might be explained by tiny pit or a bit of dew on the camera lens, except for the fact that shadows indicate that the sun is to the right of, and a bit behind the camera. The lens would presumably be shielded from the side by its barrel, and the the reflective highlight seen on the object would not, then, be expected to be present.

It's already been established that the window was down.

A tiny pit or drop of dew on the lens I would also rule out as they would be well out of the focusing range. All lenses have minimum focusing distances. One of my lenses has a minimum of six feet. Anything closer and it will be out of focus. Directly on the lens they would be a complete blur if they even registered on the sensor at all. This object, although not real clear, would be a complete blur in the picture. Obviously it's not that blurry. You can take a picture through a chain link fence with the camera focused at infinity (three or four feet away from the fence) and the fence will be completely blurred out of the picture.

Your last sentence needs clarification! I'm not quite sure what you're saying.....are you talking about lens flare?

[synchronomy]

Euphorbia, on 05 October 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

Of course I'm not serious! Can't I liven up a thread that's basically going nowhere fast? I have a sense of humor that not everyone gets......especially on the internet....


Depends on the size of the bus....

I kinda figured you weren't serious.  I was tongue-in-cheek when I gave the example of being hit by a bus.

[bison]

No, I wasn't thinking of lens flare. I was thinking of a dew droplet or pit in the camera lens catching the sunlight and reflecting it, in the same way that a shiny, much more distant object would. I can't see that happening,  due to the geometry of the Sun, with respect to the camera. What was suggested about a very near, very small object being hopelessly out of focus; essentially invisible, seems to make sense. The camera seems to be focused on the goats, several feet distant. The apparently more distant object in the sky and crags appear to be moderately out of focus.

[booNyzarC]

bison, on 05 October 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

No, I wasn't thinking of lens flare. I was thinking of a dew droplet or pit in the camera lens catching the sunlight and reflecting it, in the same way that a shiny, much more distant object would. I can't see that happening,  due to the geometry of the Sun, with respect to the camera. What was suggested about a very near, very small object being hopelessly out of focus; essentially invisible, seems to make sense. The camera seems to be focused on the goats, several feet distant. The apparently more distant object in the sky and crags appear to be moderately out of focus.

The clarity of the photographer herself in the mirror and everything else in the foreground makes the argument about things close to the camera being invisible moot.  Surely anyone can recognize this?

The fact that the object in question is out of focus could equate to it being distant and relatively stationary (which begs the question of why the photographer and the driver didn't notice it) or to it being relatively small, close by, and in motion (which could explain why it wasn't noticed, as most bugs go).

How many bugs go unnoticed when you're looking at something else?  Who can know for sure when such things go largely unnoticed?

How many (purportedly) 40 foot wide hovering alien piloted vehicles go unnoticed in the same circumstances?  If there was an object that large and you were looking at goats within a 30 to 60 degree angle, do you think your peripheral vision just might pick it up?  Would you need to see a photograph after the fact to recognize it had been there?

Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but this whole line of argument seems counter-intuitive to me.  I glance at the slightest of discrepancies when I see them with my peripheral vision.  Don't we all?  If an object of that size were hovering in front of you, don't you think you'd at least notice it?

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

So this could be a blue plastic bag, a bug. I am surprise no one has come up with the idea of a flying jelly fish. It near the sea right? this must be it, a new undiscovered specie of flying jelly fish that's lighter than air. I make a good skeptic, don't I?

[uprize]

Wow, seriously everyone over at ATS are really going with the bird/bag theory?
Or saying that the image is faked, even though there is ZERO signed of the image being manipulate in any way, but saying 'it is still possible to fake an image properly' so that no traces of fakery can be found?
That is the logic those guys really use?

I am glad that people are discussing and debating UFO images, as most ARE faked, but I would say that this one is very much legitimate.

[booNyzarC]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 05 October 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

So this could be a blue plastic bag, a bug. I am surprise no one has come up with the idea of a flying jelly fish. It near the sea right? this must be it, a new undiscovered specie of flying jelly fish that's lighter than air. I make a good skeptic, don't I?

No, you don't.  Come up with something that is plausible and you might achieve a measure of appreciation, but your contention about a jelly fish is simply absurd.

I'd call this a failed attempt.  A failed attempt of what?  A failed attempt at attacking the rational and constructive analysis of the UFO phenomenon, and a failed attempt at ridiculing people who offer valid hypothetical explanations for what was captured by that camera.

Feel free to do so if you'd like, but I suggest that you work on your delivery before trying again.

[booNyzarC]

uprize, on 05 October 2012 - 02:28 AM, said:

Wow, seriously everyone over at ATS are really going with the bird/bag theory?
Or saying that the image is faked, even though there is ZERO signed of the image being manipulate in any way, but saying 'it is still possible to fake an image properly' so that no traces of fakery can be found?
That is the logic those guys really use?

I am glad that people are discussing and debating UFO images, as most ARE faked, but I would say that this one is very much legitimate.

And what say you regarding the bug hypothesis?  Could it be a bug?  Or is ET piloted vehicle the only answer that you'll accept?