Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Alisdair.MacDonald

More NASA UFO's?

Are these UFO's?   51 members have voted

  1. 1. Do these videos contain images of UFO's?


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,529 posts in this topic

Hate to butt in to the self congratulations on the enlarging 'techniques'... But may I ask a very simple question (of Zoser), and it is one that EVERY researcher worth anything will immediately answer..

HOW, precisely did you do that enlargement?

By answering that question, you have passed the test of verifiability and repeatability, and also allow proper review of the technique. It's a VERY simple question, but is about to lead us on a journey of knowledge (or in the case of some here, lack of it..). As a few hints on why I ask it, and what is about to unfold, some things that are important when enlarging...

1. The original image must contain only unprocessed, 'real' detail ( ie it must not be compressed, sharpened, contrast enhanced, digitally zoomed, out of focus or otherwise compromised)

2. The enlargement algorithm (method) must NOT add false interpolated detail.

One of the best ways to spot when an enlargement method DOES add false detail, is that it does not show the individual pixels when more than 2x enlarged. I suspect that these enlargements are somewhat beyond that 2x limit... If the inherent and unavoidable pixellation is not evident, then interpolation - which is addition of guessed (=FALSE) 'detail' - has happened, and the enlargement is worthless. In fact it is worse than worthless, it is misinformation. I will elaborate later as necessary...

Synchronomy - may I say that in general I'm VERY impressed with your posts and approach - but do you have some background in the technical issues of enlargement, from a forensic investigation viewpoint? It's a very complex issue and is probably the most misunderstood (and abused) 'technique' in these circles...

PS, my life is very busy at the moment, so apologies for large gaps between attendance.

Edited by Chrlzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to butt in to the self congratulations on the enlarging 'techniques'... But may I ask a very simple question, and it is one that EVERY researcher worth anything will immediately answer..

HOW, precisely did you do that enlargement?

By answering that question, you have passed the test of verifiability and repeatability, and also allow proper review of the technique. It's a VERY simple question, but is about to lead us on a journey of knowledge (or in the case of some here, lack of it..). As a few hints on why I ask it, and what is about to unfold, some things that are important when enlarging...

1. The original image must contain only unprocessed, 'real' detail ( ie it must not be compressed, sharpened, contrast enhanced, digitally zoomed, out of focus or otherwise compromised)

2. The enlargement algorithm (method) must NOT add false interpolated detail.

One of the best ways to spot when an enlargement method DOES add false detail, is that it does not show the individual pixels when more than 2x enlarged. I suspect that these enlargements are somewhat beyond that 2x limit... If the inherent and unavoidable pixellation is not evident, then interpolation - which is addition of guessed (=FALSE) 'detail' - has happened, and the enlargement is worthless. In fact it is worse than worthless, it is misinformation. I will elaborate later as necessary...

Synchronomy - may I say that in general I'm VERY impressed with your posts and approach - but do you have some background in the technical issues of enlargement, from a forensic investigation viewpoint? It's a very complex issue and is probably the most misunderstood (and abused) 'technique' in these circles...

PS, my life is very busy at the moment, so apologies for large gaps between attendance.

These enlargements are simply common blowup, they are certainly not intended to be of forensic quality. They are simply "snagit" enlargements. They are only an approximation of the original image. The pixelation goes to hell when the enlargements are great.

Edited by synchronomy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Synch. I apologise for initially not clarifying that my question was more directed at Zoser, who seemed to be claiming to have a new-found ability to enlarge the bejeebers out of images...

Thing is, these enlargements are indeed pretty much worthless. Apart from the fact that they clearly *have* used an interpolation technique, which adds in pixels on a rough-guess basis, the image is almost certainly already compromised by the aforementioned issues like compression and sharpening/contrast enhancements, let alone being over- or digital-zoomed, out-of-focus and motion blurred...

Such enlargements are, 'forensically', worse than useless. But (oft times) they can be great for folks who want to find 'detail' they can somehow add to their tantalisation.. And of course if the 'researcher' can then add on a bit of post processing, like additional sharpening, posterising, edge filtration ad infinitum, they can adjust the sliders to get pretty much anything they want...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to butt in to the self congratulations on the enlarging 'techniques'... But may I ask a very simple question (of Zoser), and it is one that EVERY researcher worth anything will immediately answer..

HOW, precisely did you do that enlargement?

By answering that question, you have passed the test of verifiability and repeatability, and also allow proper review of the technique. It's a VERY simple question, but is about to lead us on a journey of knowledge (or in the case of some here, lack of it..). As a few hints on why I ask it, and what is about to unfold, some things that are important when enlarging...

1. The original image must contain only unprocessed, 'real' detail ( ie it must not be compressed, sharpened, contrast enhanced, digitally zoomed, out of focus or otherwise compromised)

2. The enlargement algorithm (method) must NOT add false interpolated detail.

One of the best ways to spot when an enlargement method DOES add false detail, is that it does not show the individual pixels when more than 2x enlarged. I suspect that these enlargements are somewhat beyond that 2x limit... If the inherent and unavoidable pixellation is not evident, then interpolation - which is addition of guessed (=FALSE) 'detail' - has happened, and the enlargement is worthless. In fact it is worse than worthless, it is misinformation. I will elaborate later as necessary...

Synchronomy - may I say that in general I'm VERY impressed with your posts and approach - but do you have some background in the technical issues of enlargement, from a forensic investigation viewpoint? It's a very complex issue and is probably the most misunderstood (and abused) 'technique' in these circles...

PS, my life is very busy at the moment, so apologies for large gaps between attendance.

Ah, where is Starchy when you need him?

Sorry Chrlzs, before your time here. He and KS15 were legendary - you would have enjoyed their image "analysis" :P

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if they were alien spacecraft they did the smart thing....they saw Earth and kept on going

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, where is Starchy when you need him?

Sorry Chrlzs, before your time here. He and KS15 were legendary - you would have enjoyed their image "analysis" :P

Cheers,

Badeskov

I don't know Bade, he probably wouldn't have "enjoyed" it much at all... I think they might have caused Chrlzs to pop a blood vessel LOL :lol:

I must admit to a little twitching of my own when I reviewed some of their 'content'... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone hook me up with the link to the original video. My phone doesn't let me click on thevideos & link to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know Bade, he probably wouldn't have "enjoyed" it much at all... I think they might have caused Chrlzs to pop a blood vessel LOL :lol:

I must admit to a little twitching of my own when I reviewed some of their 'content'... :lol:

Yeah, well, in that sense it was so ridiculous that it was rather funny, albeit in a sad way...:P But I could easily see Chrlzs get quite irked :lol:

Cheers,

Badeskov

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snagit's awesome when you get into the editor. good choice.

I thought the flashes in the video were lightning. I've seen them before on NASA video's.

The flashes obviously are; but because of the way that the large moving object later morphs into something that resembles the flashes then I think that too is related to electrical phenomena. Does anyone concur with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone hook me up with the link to the original video. My phone doesn't let me click on thevideos & link to them

The video clip is on page 54. Is this what you need? Never mind I'll post it again:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Synch. I apologise for initially not clarifying that my question was more directed at Zoser, who seemed to be claiming to have a new-found ability to enlarge the bejeebers out of images...

Thing is, these enlargements are indeed pretty much worthless. Apart from the fact that they clearly *have* used an interpolation technique, which adds in pixels on a rough-guess basis, the image is almost certainly already compromised by the aforementioned issues like compression and sharpening/contrast enhancements, let alone being over- or digital-zoomed, out-of-focus and motion blurred...

Such enlargements are, 'forensically', worse than useless. But (oft times) they can be great for folks who want to find 'detail' they can somehow add to their tantalisation.. And of course if the 'researcher' can then add on a bit of post processing, like additional sharpening, posterising, edge filtration ad infinitum, they can adjust the sliders to get pretty much anything they want...

Tell me if you agree with the findings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video clip is on page 54. Is this what you need? Never mind I'll post it again:

[media=]

[/media]

The snapshot that I enlarged was at 30 seconds +/- 0.5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the object that appears towards the end of the clip in the top left and is descending. Could this be a similar phenomena or is it something else?

Zoser3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone come across this object? Is it one of ours? Is it a hoax?

Zoser4.jpg

zoser5.jpg

See 3:18 in the following clip:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

hey zoser....great to see you having some fun with images.....nice zoom in of the what-ever-it-is in the above post.... :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

hey zoser....great to see you having some fun with images.....nice zoom in of the what-ever-it-is in the above post.... :tu:

Yes; can't help thinking that that the last one is a hoax otherwise it would have been more widely publicised surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes; can't help thinking that that the last one is a hoax otherwise it would have been more widely publicised surely?

I don't know....there is so much on the internet (at the moment).... most of it will stay on the internet.

And won't get into the mainstream media.

the hoax possibility always has to be considered....that's the paranoia that has been created by the hoaxers (many who will be intelligence

service employees, IMO)....trying to muddy the waters and bury the good stuff.

. :tu:

edit...to be honest...it doesn't look like a hoax to me.

one of ours? one of theirs?..... :huh:

nice pic...cheers for that..

.

Edited by bee
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone come across this object? Is it one of ours? Is it a hoax?

Now THAT is the way this should be done. By falcification. Weeding out the mundane and the nonsense to see what is left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now THAT is the way this should be done. By falcification. Weeding out the mundane and the nonsense to see what is left.

We are still left with a mystery though. I can't find anything that says this is a hoax. It isnt' ours either. I'm beginning to think that the best evidence really is in these space clips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to think we should just declare this thread an adults-free zone and move on.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are still left with a mystery though. I can't find anything that says this is a hoax. It isnt' ours either. I'm beginning to think that the best evidence really is in these space clips.

Best evidence for what exactly zoser? Are you shifting away from your previous thoughts:

I reckon that the larger objects on the clip are storm related phenomena. Don't ask me any more than that because I just don't know, A meteorologist would be useful at this point.

and:

Not at all; I personally don't think it's an ET craft for one minute. It has to be something though.

I was quite encouraged to see you post these things. I'm hopeful that your latest turn isn't a sign of one step forward, two steps back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to think we should just declare this thread an adults-free zone and move on.

Just when it was starting to get interesting!

It's not about one side against the other; not for me anyway. There is just too much evidence for the ET hypothesis; no amount of clever argument or clever science can alter that fact.

On the other hand it does look like the mystery of the large disks may have been solved and we have a more 'prosaic' explanation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was quite encouraged to see you post these things. I'm hopeful that your latest turn isn't a sign of one step forward, two steps back.

I'm convinced that the some of the spherical phenomena may be related to electrical weather effects. That still doesn't account for the dozens of photographs that remain unexplained from the various space missions. The video clip in post 889 has some awesome footage.

I think that ice and camera aberrations are not valid explanations either I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to think we should just declare this thread an adults-free zone and move on.

You first.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone come across this object? Is it one of ours? Is it a hoax?

Zoser4.jpg

zoser5.jpg

See 3:18 in the following clip:

[media=]

[/media]

Zoser...

The anomaly in the upper right corner is simply a reflection of the tip of the space station. If you brighten the original just a little bit, you can see the panel which extends toward the upper right at an angle.

Edit:

Here, this might help:

s110e5912_light.jpg

Edited by booNyzarC
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.