Tornado pic shows ufo

[Alienated Being]

Must be a flying cow.

[Sakari]

Now that I think about it, this belongs in the Glowbird database.

[Damn]

Of all the places in the world, the one place where I would not be surprised to see an object flying through the air would be in a tornado...

if you catch my drift

[Sakari]

Of all the places in the world, the one place where I would not be surprised to see an object flying through the air would be in a tornado...

if you catch my drift

Love the avatar................. WILLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSOOOONNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Welcome to UM

[Merc14]

So Photoshopped it is ridiculous. Look at the pixellation around the thing.

[rickyslick]

So Photoshopped it is ridiculous. Look at the pixellation around the thing.

Im getting tired of pointing this out time and time again...

its a pic on a news site....about the aftermath of the tornado

YOU can go see it yourself by 'reading' the link in the OP instead of just looking at MY attempts to clarify it

DO IT for yourself, its not shopped..

ITS A PIC already online, not a pic about a sighting...

ffs this place is so full of dunces...

If there we smarter comments than the above id be more impressed,

Edited April 13, 2012 by rickyslick

[JesseCuster]

And in regards to the OP: Is it not clearly photoshopped, in your zoomed in image why is the 'UFO' in a square with completely different distortion to anything around it? Looks very much like it was cut and pasted from a higher resolution image...

Nope.

That is clear evidence of JPEG artefacts. Take a small object that is highly contrasted against the background and save it as low quality JPEG and you'll get exactly that kind of distortion.

Here's a blow-up of the UFO with no smoothing so you can see the pixels of the original pic in the OP and with an 8x8 grid overlaid on it. JPEG compression works by dividing up the image into 8x8 blocks, and altering those blocks to allow for the image to be mathematically more readily compressed to make a smaller file size. Depending on the level of compression and the type of image being compressed the effect ranges from subtle to very obvious. In this case you can clearly see that the distortion you are talking about takes up exactly 4 8x8 blocks, just what you would expect because JPEG generally handles smooth image gradients better than harsh contrast, and it becomes much more obvious if saved at low quality to make a file size small for Internet purposes.

That's not to say it isn't photoshopped, but this distortion you point out is not evidence of image editing, just evidence that it's a poor quality JPEG.

People shouldn't be so quick to declare that an image is or isn't Photoshopped without knowing what they're talking about.

[Hazzard]

Good Lord,... Is this what UFOology has come to!? I mean, it all started with the grandfather Friedmans fantasy and then it sliced between the legs of Maussan, only to end up with the UFO apps here in 2012!?

http://mashable.com/2010/06/22/best-ufo-videos/

Who can we trust?

Edited April 13, 2012 by Hazzard

[JesseCuster]

So Photoshopped it is ridiculous. Look at the pixellation around the thing.

No, you're completely wrong. Again, the "pixellation" you are talking about is JPEG artefacts.

To illustrate my point I took a photo of my own which had a bird on a wire in the background and cropped out the bit of sky with the bird.

I then save it as both a PNG which uses lossless compression so the image isn't distorted or altered when saving it and reduces the quality and also saved it as a low quality JPEG which totally screwed up how it looks.

Here's the result zoomed in to see the effect nice and clear, exactly the same kind of "distortion" and "pixellation" people are saying is evidence of Photoshopping. It isn't. People, please get your facts straight before making these kind of declarations.

I am very much a skeptic when it comes to UFOs, bigfoot, Martian cities, ghosts, etc. but it saddens me to see these kind of kneejerk accusations of hoaxes by people who can declare something to be Photoshopped when it seems to me they know next to nothing about image editing, image compression, image formats etc. in the first place.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Archimedes

[rickyslick]

No, you're completely wrong. Again, the "pixellation" you are talking about is JPEG artefacts.

Here's the result zoomed in to see the effect nice and clear, exactly the same kind of "distortion" and "pixellation" people are saying is evidence of Photoshopping. It isn't. People, please get your facts straight before making these kind of declarations.

I am very much a skeptic when it comes to UFOs, bigfoot, Martian cities, ghosts, etc. but it saddens me to see these kind of kneejerk accusations of hoaxes by people who can declare something to be Photoshopped when it seems to me they know next to nothing about image editing, image compression, image formats etc. in the first place.

Thankyou Archimedes!

Im not trying to recruit believers here, but I will try defend myself inasmuch as I have not altered the pic, shopped it, or even created it.

As I have kept on saying, it was something I happened to notice in someone elses 'unposed' and no doubt unintentional capture of 'something' in the sky

So now maybe, the conversation can go back to aeroplanes

yawn

But I think I may try get email to the photographer if thats possible...as Archimedes points out a higher quality pic will put this to rest at last

and not the armchair experts here who proclaim fake without even bothering to try their own enhamcements...