Jump to content

Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.

* * * - - 1 votes

What do you think this is ?

ufo unknown hovering pictures daytime pictures

  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#61    Timonthy



  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Aust.

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:32 PM

View PostArchimedes, on 13 November 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Those 'enhancements' are entirely meaningless.  In fact, these kind of applied filters are worse than meaningless as they simply distort what is there and sometimes exaggerate and bring out what are simply image artefacts - image noise, JPEG compression, etc. - so that you end up seeing things that aren't really anything at all.

Even the simple act of resizing a small area of a photograph distorts it, as typically resizing a photo or zooming in beyond native resolution in an image viewer will anti-alias and blur out pixellation.  What were hard edges between pixels get smoothed out into nice smooth gradients and curves and shapes that you can't justify as actually being there at all.
When people use this method to deliberately distort an image to show what they want it's bad.

But you can use filters etc. to help show something more easily without overly distorting the image.

Posted Image

#62    ReaperS_ParadoX


    “What’s wrong with accepting madness?

  • Member
  • 2,521 posts
  • Joined:29 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A really cold region devoid of stars

  • The boundaries which divide Life from Death are at best shadowy and vague. Who shall say where the one ends, and where the other begins?

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:44 PM

How long does it generally take a mylar balloon to come down?



#63    JesseCuster


    Secret Jesus

  • Member
  • 3,796 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:55 PM

Yeah, but people (in my experience) typically just apply random filters that do nothing but mess up the photo.  They think it's like CSI where you can click a magical 'enhance' button that will bring out detail otherwise invisible to the eye.

There are tricks like playing around with brightness and contrast to bring up something otherwise not visible or hard to see in shadows or that is very faint but you can't just zoom in 500% with smoothing filters on, ramp up the contrast, turn up the saturation and invert the image and think the result means anything.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman

"If people put enough excrement in one pile they think they can safely claim that there must be something other than excrement in a pile that big." - stereologist

#64    Harlequin Dreamer

Harlequin Dreamer


  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Anywhere & Everywhere

  • Dear Optimist,Pessimist,and Realist, While you guys are busy arguing about a glass of water, I drank it. Sincerely the Opportunist.

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:59 PM

I'm not sure but it looks like one of those shining, glinting,floating object thingys. :yes:



    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,031 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 14 November 2012 - 03:32 AM

M y  money is on balloons ! Some little kid is still crying somewhere! :cry:

This is a Work in Progress!

#66    ufoscan


    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Joined:19 Feb 2008

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:19 AM

View PostSwampgasBalloonBoy, on 13 November 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

This thing on youtube might be similar. What you guys think?

Coffey got it exactly right.  This is a Mylar silver foil balloon and it's probably exactly the star-shaped design he showed.

Very simply put:  When it just appears to float in the air, that's because it's floating in the air.  As for the "lights", as Coffey said, they are caused by reflections of sunlight.  Then you have to factor in that the camera sensor burns out the highlights and also causes black artifacts.  All this distorts the image and makes it look weird.  But enough of the clip shows the true texture of the object to conclude it's a Mylar balloon.

As for FJB's pictures, I have to admit they do look consistent with what a bunch of stray helium balloons of different shapes would look like.  I know he feels sure they were not, but since the "unknown" did not make any movements that were inconsistent with this explanation, it's hard to conclude otherwise based on the pictures alone.

#67    Pinguin


    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 30 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:41 AM

Based on the photos provided, its very difficult to tell what it is exactly. I don't think it ET though. I'm leaning to some form of debris or balloon. But then again, I wasn't there so I'm just going by the pictures.

#68    ufoscan


    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Joined:19 Feb 2008

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:04 AM

Here is another example of a bunch of Mylar balloons that are misinterpreted as a UFO:

#69    ChrLzs


    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 5,325 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 15 November 2012 - 11:44 AM

View PostTimonthy, on 13 November 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

When people use this method to deliberately distort an image to show what they want it's bad.

But you can use filters etc. to help show something more easily without overly distorting the image.
Well, I'll give a very limited yes to that, but mostly.. NO.

To expand on Archimedes excellent comments (as usual!)... there are VERY VERY few legitimate methods that *can* help (sometimes) to reveal useful detail.  About the only one worth mentioning is a 'gamma' or curve adjustment that *may* help reveal details in very dark (or very light) areas.

The biggest problem is that 99% of these images are jpegs - in other words they have been compressed.  That means they are already compromised and have false detail at the resolution limit, and also in their colour and brightness/contrast accuracy.

On the odd occasion when a 'raw' image is available (ie uncompressed), there may be some other techniques applicable..

But there's another, much deeper problem here.  How many times have you seen one of these analysts demonstrate their technique on a known image of the same type, on a known object, in order to *prove* that it is a valid approach?  Guess why..

The problem is one of Confirmation Bias.  As soon as you start playing with sliders, you are clearly looking for 'something' and will only stop when you have what you want.  Emphasis on 'what you want'.  There is no way to avoid confirmation bias and the almost inevitable false 'detail' that it will result in.  The ONLY way to properly analyse an image is to use the exact same proven methodologies and adjustments that you have used on other images where the efficacy was proven on an actual object.

If I only had a dollar for every enlargement I have seen that has clearly been interpolated (no sign of the little square pixels..), let alone all the other ridiculous processing of jpeg artefacts, digital zooms and other false detail...

Anyway, just for a quick laugh - how about this - here's the Penetrating Photographic Process at work revealing aliens..
and if that wasn't enough, how about this showing it even works on Youtube videos of 9/11..

Believe it or not, some folks actually think that site is serious... but it's a lovely demonstartion of the absolute worst of amateur processing and confirmation bias (plus pareidolia) gone ballistic.

There are answers out there, and they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?' - Tim Minchin ('Storm')
My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - me
The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - me

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users