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 2
ChrLzs

Good analysis of UFO imagery - where?

57 posts in this topic

Of late, I notice a lot of 'interesting' claims being made about various images posted here. To name but a few topics, things like:

- how far you can usefully enlarge an image, and what methods are best/worst

- what other post-processing techniques are useful (if any), and how should such work be documented

- how to tell false detail from reality (eg bokeh, out-of-focus versus motion blur)

.. all seem to be rather hot topics, and not all posters here have a good grasp on them. Perhaps that includes me.. but I'll let readers be the judge of that according to what I post. My time at this forum is somewhat limited but when I see bad processing or false claims being made I try to step in and offer whatever expertise I have, for what it's worth. At times I offer to help or properly analyse an image (and I'm happy to provide examples of that, just ask).

Now, sometimes I don't complete those analyses, because:

- I run out of time and lose track of the thread

- the thread loses momentum and no-one seems interested any more

but as I've said before I am *always* happy to revisit a thread if there is genuine interest.

So here's a thread especially for anyone to point me back to an analysis that is worthy of continuing/completing, or to simply ask questions about image analysis..

I was partly prompted to do this because on a recent (currently closed) thread, a poster (who can remain nameless unless he wishes to participate) directed this at me:

HE {ChrLz} KNOWS BEST!! ;) [even more than Haines, Maccabee etc, and is always going to prove so....but yet to do it. lol

Just for the record I don't claim to be the best or to know best but then again I'm not exactly an amateur on photography/imaging/photogrammetry and the scientific method that is needed to underpin any useful analysis.

So now's the chance for that poster or anyone of the same opinion, to point out which thread or analysis I didn't complete to their satisfaction, or, alternatively, what analysis is their most favorite. It doesn't have to be from Haines or Maccabee... All I would ask, and I don't think this is unreasonable:

- that you have at least a passing knowledge of (or genuine interest in) imaging

- that you are prepared to debate logically

- that the analysis comes to some sort of interesting conclusion, in other words it strongly suggests non-terrestrial origin.

BTW, at the moment in my spare time I am (slowly!) following up on the Ramey memo and also the Betty Hill star map.. Other, more complete, contributions are available on request... :D

So, ask/point away...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chrlzs what is your opinion of this please

oregonredtriangle16sept11sisterw.jpgsistersoregonalarge740.jpg

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2012/sistersoregonalarge740.jpg

Speculation is a Ghost rocket UFO, Fighter jets or my favorite, a squashed bug.

Can you shed some more light on this please. Thanks for your time. Great idea by the way :nw:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=254157

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p.s. antigravity propulsion system emission may have caused blurring effect (cough cough) lol.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the 'original', if that's what it is, I see a square 'greyed' area around the UFO. The only reason I can think of, would be that the area of the enlargement only was extracted, manipulated and then reinserted into the original image. It seems pretty careless though.

That's my opinion. If someone has an easy explanation for the 'grey box', I'm all ears.

Edited by Likely Guy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The greyed area looks like it was taken from inside the airplane (obviously :)) and the grey area is the result of the window/plexiglass. JMO.

Not sure what it is but I'd go with squished bug before alien spacecraft. One of those two options is known to exist at least, the other would require infinitely more information than is contained in the photo.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually after looking at it again it makes me think of the extinguisher that they drop from planes during forest fires. Why a plane would dump its payload at such a high altitude escapes me, but I'm throwing it out there regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The greyed area looks like it was taken from inside the airplane (obviously :)) and the grey area is the result of the window/plexiglass. JMO.

I've never seen an aircraft with square windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually after looking at it again it makes me think of the extinguisher that they drop from planes during forest fires. Why a plane would dump its payload at such a high altitude escapes me, but I'm throwing it out there regardless.

Or a drag chute that hasn't been fully deployed from another plane that's obscured by the wing tip. I'm just being curious to what I can't see as well as what I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen an aircraft with square windows.

I am assuming that the photographer had the camera close to the window. I do not know of course. I think some small planes have very simple windows, likely square.

IF it is a simple image manipulation that has created that artifact then it is a horrible attempt.

I'm a skeptic when it comes to aliens visiting the earth so no matter what it is I am as sure as one can be that it is a perfectly explainable 'thing'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good suggestions so far

This image was one of two and expertly pieced together by UM bmk 1245

S86794_rescale_zps1057c1ff.gif

There is an apparent 7 sec lag between the two shots.

Edited by taniwha
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Taniwha.

As was correctly pointed out on that thread, the blurring of that object is NOT from motion. Motion blur is almost always very obvious as it is directional - in other words, if the object were moving say from left to right, then all *vertical* edges would be directionally 'smeared' at their left and right sides, eg:

320px-London_bus_and_telephone_box_on_Haymarket.jpg

If it was moving up and down, horizontal-ish edges would be blurred at top and bottom, eg:

320px-HDR_example-motion_blur.jpeg

The only time you would get equal blurring on all sides would be if the object were moving straight towards or away from the camera (which clearly contradicts with the report), plus, this effect looks quite different from out of focus, eg (don't ask me what this is a pic of, but it's a good example!):

320px-Zoom_blur.jpg

I hope it is as obvious to you as it is to me that the thing in question shows *none* of those effects - instead it looks exactly like out-of-focus blur. For that lens/sensor/aperture, I would guess an object somewhere in the region of 5-30" (12-75cm) from the camera would likely be blurred at about that amount. I'm happy to go into how to determine that accurately (it involves some calculations of 'circles of confusion', which is perhaps ironic.. :D) But the easiest way to verify it is to simply get a matching phone and take some example images in similar light..

So we have a 'thing' that could very easily be something on the window, inside or outside. That requires no invention of explanations involving anything non-proven.

But those supporting this first disputed the out of focus issue, and then when that was lost, they had to invent anti-gravity effects??? Seriously? First they want to claim alienz, when there is no actual evidence of alien visitation, then they invent a mythical process that again is not in current existence (anti-gravity), and *then* add to the fantasy by claiming anti-gravity - if it even existed - would make the claimed craft blurry in exactly the same way as being out of focus...? Now which is more likely, when there were holes found in the story right from the start? (Eg, why was the pilot in a passenger seat? why only two shots in 7 seconds, which contradicts the claim of fast movement? why no other witnesses?)... OR an out-of-focus blurry object/stain/debris/birdsheet that is on/near the window

As for the darker areas, Likely, it may be the reflected interior of the aircraft, which could be outfitted in all sorts of interesting ways, but I don't know for sure. It's also very possible that this is a re-photographed image (eg off an LCD monitor), which might explain why there also appears to a be a face-on silhouette of the photographer (look carefully under the wingtip to the immediate right of the pontoon) - seems a funny position for someone sitting in an aircraft... I'd be happy to investigate further, but in the light of so many problems with that one, I think my time could be better spent elsewhere.. If you can't see the silhouette, let me know and I'll enhance it for you.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent answer and yes the reflection is visible to me even. Ok Chrlzs I am satisfied the mystery is solved. Good luck with the many more photo anomalies/hoaxes no doubt destined to this thread.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, though I'm not satisfied with the explanation that the object is inside the plane. Another point to note, in the two photo montage, it appears the plain is turning slightly to the right (note the ground below), which would give the appearance of the object's movement being faster than that of the observation plane, if the object were close by. The object is too out of focus to make out what exactly it is, but something of alien origin is last on my list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, though I'm not satisfied with the explanation that the object is inside the plane.

May I ask why? And the consensus seems to be something on the window, outer or inner (assuming it is untampered with).

Another point to note, in the two photo montage, it appears the plain is turning slightly to the right (note the ground below), which would give the appearance of the object's movement being faster than that of the observation plane, if the object were close by.

Problem with that is you may be forgetting that the camera is handheld, and can be shifted laterally/vertically or tilted/turned on its axis. A small shift in the position/angle of the camera will make a huge difference in the location of the 'thing' (if it is close) and it will also change the angle of the background countryside versus the wing/pod. Try this while sitting in a car, with something stuck on your window - shift the camera and alter its angle, and watch what happens to the object on the window, and to the outside foreground and background. You will find you can change all of their relative positions quite a lot with quite small movements of the camera. Unless the camera is fixed, that type of analysis is almost bound to either fail completely or have very large error ranges.

The object is too out of focus to make out what exactly it is, but something of alien origin is last on my list.

Agreed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nuforc.org/S86794_a.jpg

Filename : S86794_a.jpg

JFIF_APP1 : Exif

Main Information

Make : Apple

Model : iPhone 4

Orientation : left-hand side

XResolution : 72/1

YResolution : 72/1

ResolutionUnit : Inch

Software : 4.3.5

DateTime : 2011:09:16 11:16:28

YCbCrPositioning : centered

ExifInfoOffset : 204

GPSInfoOffset : 574

Sub Information

ExposureTime : 1/1676Sec

FNumber : F2.8

ExposureProgram : Program Normal

ISOSpeedRatings : 80

ExifVersion : 0221

DateTimeOriginal : 2011:09:16 11:16:28

DateTimeDigitized : 2011:09:16 11:16:28

ComponentConfiguration : YCbCr

ShutterSpeedValue : 1/1676Sec

ApertureValue : F2.8

MeteringMode : Division

Flash : Not fired(Auto)

FocalLength : 3.85(mm)

SubjectLocation : 1295,967,699,696

FlashPixVersion : 0100

ColorSpace : sRGB

ExifImageWidth : 2592

ExifImageHeight : 1936

SensingMethod : OneChipColorArea sensor

ExposureMode : Auto

WhiteBalance : Auto

SceneCaptureType : Standard

Sharpness : Hard

GPS Informtion

GPSLatitudeRef : N

GPSLatitude : 44 3.53 [DM] 44 3' 31.80" [DMS]

GPSLongitudeRef : W

GPSLongitude : 121 16.35 [DM] 121 16' 21.00" [DMS]

GPSTimeStamp : 18:16:2938

GPSImgDirectionRef : True direction

GPSImgDirection : 172.83‹

Thumbnail Information

Compression : OLDJPEG

XResolution : 72/1

YResolution : 72/1

ResolutionUnit : Inch

JPEGInterchangeFormat : 838

JPEGInterchangeFormatLength : 7939

1/1676Sec

http://rense.com/general95/S86794_b.jpg

Filename : S86794_b.jpg

JFIF_APP1 : Exif

Main Information

Make : Apple

Model : iPhone 4

Orientation : left-hand side

XResolution : 72/1

YResolution : 72/1

ResolutionUnit : Inch

Software : 4.3.5

DateTime : 2011:09:16 11:16:35

YCbCrPositioning : centered

ExifInfoOffset : 204

GPSInfoOffset : 574

Sub Information

ExposureTime : 1/1774Sec

FNumber : F2.8

ExposureProgram : Program Normal

ISOSpeedRatings : 80

ExifVersion : 0221

DateTimeOriginal : 2011:09:16 11:16:35

DateTimeDigitized : 2011:09:16 11:16:35

ComponentConfiguration : YCbCr

ShutterSpeedValue : 1/1774Sec

ApertureValue : F2.8

MeteringMode : Division

Flash : Not fired(Auto)

FocalLength : 3.85(mm)

SubjectLocation : 1295,967,699,696

FlashPixVersion : 0100

ColorSpace : sRGB

ExifImageWidth : 2592

ExifImageHeight : 1936

SensingMethod : OneChipColorArea sensor

ExposureMode : Auto

WhiteBalance : Auto

SceneCaptureType : Standard

Sharpness : Hard

GPS Informtion

GPSLatitudeRef : N

GPSLatitude : 44 3.53 [DM] 44 3' 31.80" [DMS]

GPSLongitudeRef : W

GPSLongitude : 121 16.35 [DM] 121 16' 21.00" [DMS]

GPSTimeStamp : 18:16:2938

GPSImgDirectionRef : True direction

GPSImgDirection : 268.83‹

Thumbnail Information

Compression : OLDJPEG

XResolution : 72/1

YResolution : 72/1

ResolutionUnit : Inch

JPEGInterchangeFormat : 838

JPEGInterchangeFormatLength : 8108

We were cruising at 11,500 ft at approx 200 mph. the balloons would have to be fast!! That thing was a streak, it went by as nothing but a blur. Only the luck of the camera could tell me that it was some sort of object of quite some size

Something else to note is the exif reveals they where taken 7 seconds apart and at 1/1700 of a shutter speed. 7 seconds in the supposed distance that i traveled would not make the object look like a blur to the eye. There should be no motion blur to the camera either. The blur is not motion blur, it's focus blur. Since the plane and mointains are in focus, the only possible place for the object to be is closer than the plane, or inside close to the camera.

Not exactly sure what the threads about but I'll add that I'm a professional photographer, and hoaxing UFO photos and videos since I was 12 is actually what got me into photography lol so i know quite a few tricks of the trade.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nuforc.org/S86794_a.jpg

http://rense.com/gen...95/S86794_b.jpg

Something else to note is the exif reveals they where taken 7 seconds apart and at 1/1700 of a shutter speed. 7 seconds in the supposed distance that i traveled would not make the object look like a blur to the eye. There should be no motion blur to the camera either. The blur is not motion blur, it's focus blur. Since the plane and mointains are in focus, the only possible place for the object to be is closer than the plane, or inside close to the camera.

Not exactly sure what the threads about but I'll add that I'm a professional photographer, and hoaxing UFO photos and videos since I was 12 is actually what got me into photography lol so i know quite a few tricks of the trade.

You may like to read the posts here

http://thehoaxkiller.com/forum/index.php?topic=57.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The red thing in the picture is the flying wonder women cartoon character. You can clearly distinguish the flying "standard" position, the pony tale , boobs, skinny legs ending with boots. The square grey area is clearly showing that was a new picture added to the initial one. In the same time look at all the details including landscape, mountains, lake, etc..the only object unclear and manipulated is the red one. It's a horrible fake. One of those that made me stop believing in ufo's

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with that is you may be forgetting that the camera is handheld, and can be shifted laterally/vertically or tilted/turned on its axis. A small shift in the position/angle of the camera will make a huge difference in the location of the 'thing' (if it is close) and it will also change the angle of the background countryside versus the wing/pod. Try this while sitting in a car, with something stuck on your window - shift the camera and alter its angle, and watch what happens to the object on the window, and to the outside foreground and background. You will find you can change all of their relative positions quite a lot with quite small movements of the camera. Unless the camera is fixed, that type of analysis is almost bound to either fail completely or have very large error ranges.

I'm using the wing and pontoon as the reference. While there is some difference in perspective, it is not enough to explain the window theory unless the cabin is 20 ft. plus wide. Look at the border of the picture, particularly the seam where the wing flap attaches to the wing root.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using the wing and pontoon as the reference. While there is some difference in perspective, it is not enough to explain the window theory unless the cabin is 20 ft. plus wide. Look at the border of the picture, particularly the seam where the wing flap attaches to the wing root.

Draw little "smudge" on you kitchen window, and take pictures of it with your phone in different positions (few/several cm from glass).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have a 'thing' that could very easily be something on the window, inside or outside. That requires no invention of explanations involving anything non-proven.

But those supporting this first disputed the out of focus issue, and then when that was lost, they had to invent anti-gravity effects??? Seriously?

Yes seriously. How else do you think they fly? Kerosine?

Then do a comparison with other UFO photo's and you will find exactly the same thing. They all have the same blurred effect.

Compare with these:

http://www.ufocasebo...opictures6.html

Then listen to pilot reports and you will find that they have seen similar objects.

Also read this by someone who has already investigated the phenomena:

http://ufomedia.blog...o-pictures.html

It all ties in. The approach of trying to explain the image by comparing it with known photographic phenomena is doomed to failure because we are dealing with a non-conventional object

This is a well known and documented phenomena.

The fact that there are two shots argues strongly against the reflection hypothesis anyway.

Case closed.

Edited by zoser
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes seriously. How else do you think they fly? Kerosine?

[...]

Nope. "They" fly on wishful thinking and sheer ignorance...

Seriously. Take two cameras (same model preferably) mounted on the plank (say 1-3 metres, or so, apart) to the meadow, focus to the infinity, set same settings and start shooting (in sync; either by manual triggering, either from timer, either from laptop) with, say, 1 seconds intervals. I can guarantee, you will get plenty of "UFOs" (bugs, flies) on one camera, but not on the other, and you will get plenty of "UFOs" on both cameras (birds) - from parallax you will be able to estimate how far and big your "UFOs" are.

Heck, you can even mount camcorder between two still cameras...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. "They" fly on wishful thinking and sheer ignorance...

Seriously. Take two cameras (same model preferably) mounted on the plank (say 1-3 metres, or so, apart) to the meadow, focus to the infinity, set same settings and start shooting (in sync; either by manual triggering, either from timer, either from laptop) with, say, 1 seconds intervals. I can guarantee, you will get plenty of "UFOs" (bugs, flies) on one camera, but not on the other, and you will get plenty of "UFOs" on both cameras (birds) - from parallax you will be able to estimate how far and big your "UFOs" are.

Heck, you can even mount camcorder between two still cameras...

That in no way explains the image of an unidentifiable Rocket UFO.

You may deceive yourself but it won't work on others.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean rocket that flies backwards, balls first, so to speak (maybe "they" were listening Accept, huh)?

Sorry, got mixed up... "They flew" with balls behind... Sorry, again.

S86794_b.jpg

Nope, I'm just lazy punk who bothered to learn a bit about photography...

Edit: junk deleted

Edit2: apology added

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTH???

Why did my edit ended as a quote???

Edit: Ah, problem resolved

Edited by bmk1245

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great idea for a thread, Chrlzs.... As some people seem to think that a photo is all the evidence we need to start screaming that ET is here we need people to separate the bad from the :unsure2: not so bad?.

Edited by DBunker
1 person likes 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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.