Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

UFOs that are not objects at all?


Anomalocaris

Recommended Posts

I mean aerial phenomena that are not tangible, ie no objects. I know some of these phenomena have been explained before, but I wonder if there are unexplained cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the vast majority of ufo sightings are small and distant, how would you tell one from the other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An UFO may be defined as a manufactured artifact, the result of technological development, with capacity to carry out aerospace maneuvers. And yet, the nature, origin, and purpose are, for the moment, unknown to mankind.

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena could be physical events (eg, meteorological phenomena), but the causes of the phenomenon remain a mystery, and require further study by science.

http://gizmodo.com/w...an-v-1575731405

Although I must admit that some of these phenomena have a detailed explanation:

http://io9.com/57303...ling-into-space

But in summary that was my question, mysterious phenomena that are not necessarily objects.

Edited by Anomalocaris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An object must be something tangible. For example, we have this sighting occurred on Easter Island.

1.jpg

And although there is the possibility that the phenomenon has a much more earthly explanation, like an insect, for example, we know for sure that what we are seeing is an object, through the application of filters on the image.

2.jpg

But I remember reading somewhere about UFO cases that were not really objects, but rather fields of energy of some kind, such as plasma or something like that.

Edited by Anomalocaris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but NO. The 'application of filters' sounds very professional, but such use of photoshoppery is worse than useless.

If you believe you can just apply an effect and adjust the sliders and say "There you go - SEE!!!!", then you need to learn a lot more about imaging.

1. Almost all photoshop filters or effects (there are a couple of exceptions, but I very rarely see them being used, let alone properly) are ADDITIVE (add false detail) or DESTRUCTIVE (remove/lose detail).

2. Unless any processing is applied to a true RAW image, it will be 'enhancing' false details from compression, sharpening and other effects caused by file compression or inbuilt (sometimes unavoidable) camera processing or sensor effects. Almost all phone cameras are already compromised.

3. While cameras do record a little bit of information from near-IR and near-UV that information cannot be drawn out into a heat signature or UV effect by using filters, as it is overwhelmed by the visible spectrum information.

If you or anyone shows a filtered version of an image and claim it shows something useful, you need to back that up by showing an example of how you have used it on a KNOWN scene/object *and* you must also give full technical details of the approach used and the logic that supports your choice of filters/effects/processing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And although there is the possibility that the phenomenon has a much more earthly explanation, like an insect, for example, we know for sure that what we are seeing is an object, through the application of filters on the image.

2.jpg

Can you explain the filters used to produce this image and why they show that what we're looking at is a solid object?

What would the same image look like with the same filters if we weren't looking at a solid object?

To put it bluntly, this is nonsense. Too many people into the paranormal take photos, run them through random GIMP/Photoshop/Paint.NET/<insert image editor of choice here> filters and think the result is meaningful. They typically involved increasing the contrast WAY up, combined with increasing or decreasing the brightness, sometimes inverting the image to produce a negative for some reason, etc. Every so often filters like edge detectors are used or other random filters. The result is never explained, but people who don't know how digital photography and digital image editing works are regularly impressed by the results and claims about what the result means.

In the image above, it's a horribly overprocessed image that means exactly nothing and can't tell you anything about the actual nature of what was photographed originally.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've done an in-depth analysis of that processed image, and here is the result:

post-95887-0-23203800-1436745666_thumb.j

(click to enlarge)

...

...

or, of course, they could all just be the effects one would expect from over-enlarging, over-saturating and over-contrasting an image which has enhanced (aka 'falsely exaggerated') the very obvious jpeg compression, edge enhancement, sharpening and quantisation effects (none of which were real details in the first place).

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I must admit that I made use of a ad verecundiam fallacy. Since the analysis of that picture was not made by me.

It was an analysis by people from "CEFAA", a committee of studies of anomalous aerial phenomena, belonging to the general direction of civil aviation of Chile (a South American country).

http://www.cefaa.gob.cl/web/home.html

Regarding the photo, they claim that:

After processing the image and improve enough you can see that the object has no wings or tail.

The object is of considerable size because it is almost fused with the pixels of the background of shooting and still you can see the object with some clarity. If the object were an insect, then the pixels that make up the image of this, would be larger because of its proximity to the lens.

http://www.cefaa.gob...A DE PASCUA.pdf

Unfortunately they do not specify which types of filters were used, nor the reason for this choice.

Now back to the main topic...

I'm no expert in photographic filters, but as far as I know, the photograph records the photons received on the film or CCD sensor; Now, regardless of which filter was applied, if there is any way to distiguir between "solid object vs plasma", then the photons emitted by a "solid object" would have to be somehow different from an object of "plasma".

On the other hand, I confess that I made a mistake by having used the "tangible" term when I was referring to solid objects, as if that established some sort of contrast to the "plasmas", since the plasma is a state of the matter. In this case the atoms are in a state of temperature or energy so high that the core dissociate from the electrons that surround them. But it is still matter, so are completely tangible.

Edited by Anomalocaris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you explain the filters used to produce this image and why they show that what we're looking at is a solid object?

What would the same image look like with the same filters if we weren't looking at a solid object?

To put it bluntly, this is nonsense. Too many people into the paranormal take photos, run them through random GIMP/Photoshop/Paint.NET/<insert image editor of choice here> filters and think the result is meaningful. They typically involved increasing the contrast WAY up, combined with increasing or decreasing the brightness, sometimes inverting the image to produce a negative for some reason, etc. Every so often filters like edge detectors are used or other random filters. The result is never explained, but people who don't know how digital photography and digital image editing works are regularly impressed by the results and claims about what the result means.

In the image above, it's a horribly overprocessed image that means exactly nothing and can't tell you anything about the actual nature of what was photographed originally.

I guess this method is more useful to find out if a photograph is a hoax or real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP!! Analyse this the same you did with your image

goetia_girls_portsmouth_ufo_south_coast_england_uk.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I must admit that I made use of a ad verecundiam fallacy. Since the analysis of that picture was not made by me.

That's ok, we all get caught out sometimes, especially when it *appears* that some credible organisation has done the hard yards.... BUT... read on..

It was an analysis by people from "CEFAA", a committee of studies of anomalous aerial phenomena, belonging to the general direction of civil aviation of Chile (a South American country).

http://www.cefaa.gob.cl/web/home.html

Aaaahhh, yes, the fabulous CEFAA. In a South American country (forgive the ad hominem, but what is it with South America and incompetent ufo silliness??). The CEFAA was set up as a retirement gift to General (ret.) Ricardo Bermudez, famous for the Chilean 'El Bosque' idiocy where he claimed that what are clearly insects zipping past a couple of videos (sound familiar?) were also alien craft - despite having two reports from image analysts that contradicted him (and each other....)..

The guy is an incompetent idiot (and yes, I'll happily say that to his face and show examples of why) who is beating up these ridiculous images (with the help of UFO=alien-pushers and money-makers Alejandro Rojas and Leslie Kean) purely and simply to justify the existence of his 'agency'.

CEFAA - After processing the image and improve enough you can see that the object has no wings or tail.

If the object is moving quickly (eg like a bug......), or even if the tail or wings were close in colour to the background or at the wrong angle, then naturally they may not be visible. It is ludicrous to suggest they can't be there because they are not obviously visible

CEFAA - The object is of considerable size because it is almost fused with the pixels of the background of shooting

???? What absolute HOGWASH! There is absolutely no referential info there to show the distance, so NO calculation or CEFAA handwaving can possibly say anything about the size.

CEFAA - and still you can see the object with some clarity.

More ignorant word salad. How clear is "some clarity"? It just looks blurry, pixellated, over enlarged and ruined to me.

CEFAA - If the object were an insect, then the pixels that make up the image of this, would be larger because of its proximity to the lens.

Oh for heaven's sake, what a LOAD.. - if it's a tiny insect it could be very close, if it's a large one or a small/large bird, far/very far... - there is NO distance information in that 2d image!!!*

*To clarify, there *can* sometimes be clues to distance, eg min/max haze/contrast calculations that can sometimes limit either the closeness or the distance (but never both) by looking at the original unproecessed image's contrast. Similarly, focus blur ('Circles of Confusion') calculations may sometimes be aplicable, but I'll lay odds that even if we had the full-res original, neither of those are relevant here on such a poor quality low-resolution image.

Unfortunately they do not specify which types of filters were used, nor the reason for this choice.

Of course they damwell don't (BTW, I'm cross at them, not you:)), because any real image analysts would shred the choices and demonstrate why. There is absolutely no way in hell you can play with contrast and thence decide if something is solid.

I'm no expert in photographic filters, but as far as I know, the photograph records the photons received on the film or CCD sensor; Now, regardless of which filter was applied, if there is any way to distinguish between "solid object vs plasma", then the photons emitted by a "solid object" would have to be somehow different from an object of "plasma".

Correct - the sensor simply receives photons of a given intensity - all those photons are from the normal visible spectrum, and just a little above and below. In fact, the sensor is almost certainly protected by glass filters that deliberately block energetic UV (higher frequency photons) and IR (lower frequency but can damage the sensor via heat..)

Playing with contrast and adding colours is simply adding false effects that are meaningless. A real image analysts would never post a ludicrously over enlarged, over saturated and over contrasted image like that - it is laughable. You can see from the huge artefacts including posterised colors, squares and vertical/horizontal lines, that the image has been effectively wrecked by the processing that was so ineptly done.

Anyway, forgive me for my harshness, but this sort of stuff being presented by pretenders and time-wasters like the CEFAA as if it has credibility..just makes me very mad - I think if I met Bermudez, the language would not be pleasant..

I'm happy to back all this up - indeed I'd love to see an ACTUAL image analysis from them, where they had to explain everything they did to the image and why. I would then be happy to show as many examples as you want to prove that the methodology they used is utter IGNORANT GARBAGE.

OK, rant over.... :D

But seriously OP, do keep it up and feel free to ask questions or if you find something that you think is compelling, let us know. Unlike CEFAA and Bermudez, you will find that here people who claim to be experts will be happy to actually prove that to you...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UFO's are spacecratfs piloted by extraterrestrial beings. This is what science is telling us. There will always be those like ChrLzs who's purpose is to deny every single claim and disinform the public about what's going on, whether they are aware that they are doing somebody elses bidding or not.

Edited by TaridD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UFO's are spacecratfs piloted by extraterrestrial beings. This is what science is telling us.

Science isnt saying that at all...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a high speed cloud?

Or a helium foam cloud breaking up

flogo2.jpg

Edited by seeder
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UFO's are spacecratfs piloted by extraterrestrial beings. This is what science is telling us. There will always be those like ChrLzs who's purpose is to deny every single claim and disinform the public about what's going on, whether they are aware that they are doing somebody elses bidding or not.

WHERE does 'science' say that, TaridD?? Please be very specific (eg which science journal, which peer-reviewed study..) and bring your best evidence.

See all that text I posted up above, with citations and references and the offer to back everything up in minute detail? Why don't you try that approach - if there is anything specific you wish to dispute, please say so, and we will debate it in full.

If however, you prefer to simply handwave, then perhaps this isn't the best forum...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taridd actually makes me laugh he lies in wait until a idea is picked apart or explained. Then bam he strikes!! He spouts utter nonsense and runs as fast as he can to the next thread. I see him as nothing more than a angry ufologist trying to troll people.

If aliens where from a 4th or 5th or however many dimensions there maybe, would they be objects? This is purely sci-fi, but I thought would throw a monkey wrench in things....Muahaha.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or a helium foam cloud breaking up

flogo2.jpg

first image is a nice advert for Apple :)

edit to add: not sure if they can sue the clouds? :whistle:

Edited by quillius
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UFO's are spacecratfs piloted by extraterrestrial beings. This is what science is telling us.

It seems that you dont know and/or dont understand what exactly science is "telling".

There will always be those like ChrLzs who's purpose is to deny every single claim and disinform the public about what's going on,

//

Listen, its the FTBs who disinform the public with BS of any kind and color and not the debunkers. And yes, its a purpose of the

debunkers to analyze each single "UFO case" meticulous. You can call it a mission, a mission for the reason of elucidation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that you dont know and/or dont understand what exactly science is "telling".

Listen, its the FTBs who disinform the public with BS of any kind and color and not the debunkers. And yes, its a purpose of the

debunkers to analyze each single "UFO case" meticulous. You can call it a mission, a mission for the reason of elucidation.

I have always viewed skeptics are generally better believers than the "true" ones. Most skeptics are searching for the real deal, not just soaking up every bit of rubbish they read or hear.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always viewed skeptics are generally better believers than the "true" ones. Most skeptics are searching for the real deal, not just soaking up every bit of rubbish they read or hear.

Not my experience, in my experience over the years I've learned that most skeptics will not even begin to consider something that goes against their paradigm. I am all about critical thinking, but its extremely rare to find folks who approach a topic with an honest scientific approach and consider all of the possibilities, rather than just try to impose their preconceptions on something until they are comfortable with it fitting into their worldview.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not my experience, in my experience over the years I've learned that most skeptics will not even begin to consider something that goes

against their paradigm. I am all about critical thinking, but its extremely rare to find folks who approach a topic with an honest scientific

approach and consider all of the possibilities, rather than just try to impose their preconceptions on something until they are comfortable

with it fitting into their worldview.

It will just take you a little while to be here and you will notice that the skeptics here do not match that pattern that you have mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will just take you a little while to be here and you will notice that the skeptics here do not match that pattern that you have mentioned.

I am old hat, this is just a new account because I lost my log in. I've been a member since... 2008ish?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am old hat, this is just a new account because I lost my log in. I've been a member since... 2008ish?

Then I have to say that you seem to be wrong in yr opinion as the skeptics here, or better said, the analyzers,

of course approach ET topics quite scientific and investigative and I by myself include myself into this group.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.