What do you think this is ?

[FenderJazzBass]

UAV

One of my pictures does Actually resemble the same kind of shape as this. I am convinved it was not a normal drone or plane as it was just hovering slowly moving bewteen the buildings, back and forth. After a minute or so it looked smaller. It then shrunk away from me. I was unble to see it again. I know what a balloon is and how a ballon floats away. It was not a windy day and what i saw did not look to me like a ballon.

I do see balloons occasionally, however this was not like any ballon as it appeared to be a solid craft that was under its own control. that's just what it looked like to me. thanks all for your input.

Edited November 13, 2012 by FenderJazzBass

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4LXRustbEE&feature=g-vrec

[freetoroam]

There is sharp edges in pic 2 and 4.

And i only posted that as an example. UAV's come in hundreds of shapes and sizes. Im not saying it is that, it was a suggestion. x

There is sharp edges in pic 2 and 4.

And i only posted that as an example. UAV's come in hundreds of shapes and sizes. Im not saying it is that, it was a suggestion. x

Example accepted. x

[freetoroam]

Swampgasballonboy,

I did think I saw something, but on moving my screen up and down a few times, realised it was a mark on my screen on not on the picture, so after cleaning my screen I now see that , yep, its a blank picture. Is that deliberate or have you forgotten something?

[freetoroam]

Take it back, the youtube vid is back!

Must of been a technical hitch...or was it????!!!!! spooky?

[ollyhw45]

wow thats a pretty good video

[Lilly]

These guys need to use some descriptive adjectives other than the 'F' word. I must admit though, it was certainly one weird looking object.

[booNyzarC]

Looks like a mylar balloon or a cluster of mylar balloons to me...

[Coffey]

I think it looks like a helium ballon, made of that shiny foil stuff. The video posted showing a "ufo" does not have lights on it at all, it's the sunlight reflecting off it. Just like how it happens to planes, shiny balloons and helicopters.

Example of silver shiny foil helium balloon:

There is also videos of people attaching cameras to bigger versions of the above balloon, then attaching a parachute as well and then letting it fly up to the edge of the atmosphere to take pictures or film videos of the journey and scenery.

It looked to me like a solid metalic craft the size of a small plane. I couldnt tell what it was from far away. The pictures show it changing shape, from my view, it was flipping or rotating. It was not a windy day. there was no wind so i dont see how it just vanished. From my view it was moving/ rotating and shining with bright lights. It was close for the 1st few minutes then as i tried to get closer it vanished into the sky. thats it.

Just because you felt no wind at your level, does not mean there is not wind at higher up.

[JesseCuster]

I've enhanced the colors and played with some filters in GIMP to see if anything else is revealed. I'm telling you, it was the size of a small plane when i first saw it. It didnt' look like a balloon to me. I see many balloons where i live and this didnt look like or move like it. Either believe me or not, i wouldnt waste your time talking about a ballon. Anyway, It moved from one side of the street to the other wobbling. I understand that balloons also wobble but this was different. Trust me. This was not a normal flying object. It was big the size of a small plane and got smaller as i came out of the buildings and up on to the levee for s better view. anyway, i'ev done my job. Made the report. The truth is out there and its more fantastic than i could ever imagine.

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.

[Timothy]

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.

[ReaperS_ParadoX]

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

[JesseCuster]

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.

[Harlequin Dreamer]

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

[DONTEATUS]

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

[ufoscan]

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

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4LXRustbEE&feature=g-vrec[/media]

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.

[Pinguin]

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.

[ufoscan]

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

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os3GFBVXU4U[/media]

[ChrLzs]

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.