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 1
seeder

Image analysis experts welcome, UFO pics

134 posts in this topic

It's got to be a really interesting book before I pick it up. Have read a fair share of them. Though I rent a lot of docs to gain knowledge.

It works better for me that way. Better focused on the issue where a book tends to make you groggy. Good for insomnia though.

Do you read the documents you rent? They do not make you groggy, but a book does? Not sure I follow, doing the same thing aren't you? Processing information, reading?

And these documents are shorter than my post??

I think our cultures are quite similar. Our ancestors left the old country to start a new life.

A new life being the important phrase here? Our cultures are similar, but not the same.

You have no comment on the previous? Or did you simply not bother to read it?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, please! :D

I only have a few minutes right now, but did they really give ONLY the possibility of 'speed' as the reason the person didn't see it, and ignore the other timing information? If so, then it shows that the 'analysis' is done by someone without a clue about optics and imaging, let alone human psychology, physiology and perception. Later I'll pop back and see what they actually said, but having seen some of the stuiff that comes out of these self-proclaimed 'investigative organisations', nothing would surprise me.

Even though I still think this was most likely not photoshopped and simply shows debris/whatever on the window (see Alien Dan's excellent observations here), your points about the timings are excellent - we need more of your type of thinking!

His statement indicates that the incident only took half a second and he also stated

the object was literally a blur and I didn’t see it as it was moving in the same direction as the plane.
While not a statement of speed alludes to speed as being the reason he didn't see it.

I did see Alien Dan's analysis, it is good but the object being dirt didn't sit right with me. Even though seeing both images one above the other in his post helps, I decided to overlay them using the following site: http://www131.lunapic.com Here is what I got:

Overlayed_Images.jpg

Dirt/debris has to have a liquid component, at least initially, to be able to stick to windows. If the red dirt/debris were stuck in one spot, the photographer would have had to point at it to frame it completely in the picture. While there is some change in where the iphone is pointed it falls within the range of it being hand held. There is no indication of the iphone being pointed at stationary debris since it would have been a much greater change that could be seen in the comparison.

Since he didn't point the camera at the debris then the debris must have moved along the window between pictures. If the debris were dry and came free from it's initial spot it wouldn't have reattached itself but just blown away considering the plane was moving at 200 mph. So the debris would have had to be wet. If the wet debris had slid along the window two things would have happened that didn't:

1 - The left end of the debris would have changed shape as it slid along the window due to a certain amount of friction

2 - There would have been a trail as liquid was left on the glass as a streak and then dried there

Because of my analysis I came to the conclusion that he supposedly didn't see it because of it's speed and that the object was in fact an add on to the picture by an app or other means.

I of can be wrong on both counts but that's the way it seems to me.

Edited by Quaentum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the apparent motion of the bug splatter is caused by the photographer moving the camera around the window to get more shots of the Three Sisters. The bug guts are just a few inches from the lens so they can appear anywhere in the frame.

Notice that the wing is lower in one shot? I don't think the wing dropped like that so clearly the photographer was taking shots through different parts of the window.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photographer supposedly didn't know the object was there because he couldn't see it so there would have been no need to take pictures quickly. Normally when we take pictures we take a few seconds to set up each shot so it comes out good yet he supposedly took all three pictures in the half second the event lasted.

The fact that he didn't see them is not evidence that the rocket was not there. He just didn't see it period. It depends on where his attention was focused at the time. There have been experiments to prove that people don't see things if their attention is drawn elsewhere. I've done it with cameras myself. Your argument isn't convincing and is totally conjecture based.

Normally we look at pictures we have just taken to make sure they are OK especially if we can't be sure we'll have the same view in the future. The photographer would have seen the object in his photos yet he waited 4 months to file a report.

He had his own reasons for doing so. Maybe he was not a keen ufologist. I'm sure you are aware of the stigma that pilots suffer from reporting UFO's. That could well explain the delay.

When we compare the exif data from the two images we find the first image was taken at 11:16:28 and the second at 11:16:35 a full 7 seconds later. Taking 7 seconds to get from point A to B means that the object would have been seen by the photographer and that it's speed would have been far less than indicated.

You keep repeating this assertion yet it is totally based on your own speculation. Nothing more.

This shows us that the statement does not match the actual evidence. From the discrepancies in his statement as compared to the evidence and the fact it took him 4 months to make the report I conclude that what we have is a fake either made with Photoshop or more likely an app for the iphone4.

There is no evidence that this was photoshop. There is nothing knew in your post that was not already known. Your only hope of debunking this image is to find exactly what it is; if it is a reflection then of what? Or prove that it was photoshop. If it was faked, why not fake it totally in focus?

Again Occam's Razor comes into this because he would have to know that virtually all UFO images have that characteristic slight blur. So is the photographer a Ufologist? I don't believe we have proof of that.

Two things make it stand out to me as convincing, and this is what the skeptics will have to tackle:

1) There are two images.

2) It has the characteristic blur, which is exactly like many other UFO images.

So by all means have your opinion, but it will not suffice as proof of fake I'm afraid.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the apparent motion of the bug splatter is caused by the photographer moving the camera around the window to get more shots of the Three Sisters. The bug guts are just a few inches from the lens so they can appear anywhere in the frame.

Notice that the wing is lower in one shot? I don't think the wing dropped like that so clearly the photographer was taking shots through different parts of the window.

As I said I can be wrong about it it's just how it appeared to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again Occam's Razor comes into this because he would have to know that virtually all UFO images have that characteristic slight blur.

Yes, that characteristic blur that makes them conveniently useless for photographic study.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you read the documents you rent? They do not make you groggy, but a book does? Not sure I follow, doing the same thing aren't you? Processing information, reading?

And these documents are shorter than my post??

Documentaries on DVD. Not paper documents. You may not think that's a good source of info but opinions vary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did see Alien Dan's analysis, it is good but the object being dirt didn't sit right with me.

...

There is no indication of the iphone being pointed at stationary debris since it would have been a much greater change that could be seen in the comparison.

Quaentum, I appreciate your carefully considered efforts, and the fact that you are open to correction.. Makes a wonderful change from some posters here..

But I'm afraid I have to disagree strongly with the part in italics.

The problem is that you are not taking into account a couple of things:

1. Perspective issues with objects at different distances

As I tried to show with this animation (done in relation to another scenario altogether, but somewhat relevant here as a proof of concept):

gallery_95887_22_372376.gif

..small movements of a camera can make very large changes in both position *and relative position* of objects that are close to the camera. Even relative to things at similar distances (see second point also), Remember that the camera can be moved forward and back (which then changes all of the relative distances and ratios), up/down and left/right (which changes both the relative distances and angles and ratios..) and also can be angled up/down/left/right (ditto). All of these movements cause differing perspective effects, and trying to guess at what happened to the camera between shots can be extraordinarily difficult, and the changes in position are very, very complex. Look again at my animation, and note that I haven't even used all the different ways I could have oriented the camera...

2. Angle of view issues

Every lens introduces distortions (like pincushion and barrel) that mean linear perspective is distorted even further than the effects above.. So by changing the angle/position of the camera so that objects are at different distances from the center of the field of view, even more non-linearities are introduced. Sure, these are normally relatively minor for 'ordinary' shots, but they add to the complexity and need to be taken into account.

Photogrammetry is a black art, and you need to be very careful in making proclamations about what is or is not 'proved'.

FTR, (and I'll make no promises when) I intend to see if I can duplicate the effects of this, using a piece of perspex and a camera that I can configure to give similar performance to that used. I'm pretty sure that I will be able to duplicate the effects to an extent that even a Zoser would find rather compelling.. (not sure what that is worth..)

BTW, I again suggest that folks TRY it for themselves. Get your camera, go sit in the car and watch what happens to stuff on the windows when you move the camera around (in all directions and orientations).

Edited by ChrLzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure all of you know about this sighting in the air. Makes me wonder why the the pilot was demoted to a desk job

just because he spoke to the media about his incident.

http://en.wikipedia....t_1628_incident

Edited by Hawkin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess its bad form to B.B.Q a "Z" ?

Hey, Dont - you'd be more than welcome too - I reckon we need the life of the party.. Howz about getting off your backside, jumpin on a plane and coming over to visit a country even bigger and purtier than Texas? :D

Hmm, maybe we should set up a Skype video link or sumpin...

Dingo & psyche, I'll pm you later - am busy over the weekend but should be freed up from Monday on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our cultures are similar, but not the same.

OK,OK...you like vegemite on toast and I like biscuits and gravy. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK,OK...you like vegemite on toast and I like biscuits and gravy.

Our two cultures have much to be proud of, judging by those pinnacles of culinary excellence..

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found another piccy for analysis, I wont give the source just yet but I do invite opinions

23uzm09.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found another piccy for analysis, I wont give the source just yet but I do invite opinions

23uzm09.jpg

I know this one :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:clap:

Ooh, ooh, me too!! I know this one I really do!!! pick me, pick me...!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Ok well... I was following links about the storms in the UK, not sure how I ended up on the following link, but as said, I was reading stuff about storms. Scrolling down thru the page is where I found that image, which is NOT being presented as ufo at all

http://singletrackwo...-updates/page/4

But it again goes to show that the camera does indeed lie. Though without intention or malice of course !!

eta: Id assume office lights being reflected?

.

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it again goes to show that the camera does indeed lie. Though without intention or malice of course !!

eta: Id assume office lights being reflected?

.

With respect seeder that image is hardly ever likely to be taken seriously as a genuine UFO pic though is it?

Here's another 'UFO' for you:

Lenticulariswolke.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect seeder that image is hardly ever likely to be taken seriously as a genuine UFO pic though is it?

Here's another 'UFO' for you:

why dont you, in line with the thread title, find images that can be investigated rather than just post a cloud pic? You can be sure if a story was dressed up with my image about 'a fleet of ufos', and embellished with dodgy witness accounts, then there will be many gullible believers getting in a flap about it.

But as per the OP, it does go to show how image artefacts can be the source of ufo reports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quaentum, on 25 October 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

When we compare the exif data from the two images we find the first image was taken at 11:16:28 and the second at 11:16:35 a full 7 seconds later. Taking 7 seconds to get from point A to B means that the object would have been seen by the photographer and that it's speed would have been far less than indicated.

[/size] You keep repeating this assertion yet it is totally based on your own speculation. Nothing more.

How does the raw data become an assertion? It does not.

Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Documentaries on DVD. Not paper documents. You may not think that's a good source of info but opinions vary.

Oh, OK then, you said documents, perhaps spell check got the word and changed it, that happens to me from time to time.

It depends on if they are actually documentaries or not, people like Zoser state that anything that conforms to their notions on Youtube is called a documentary, he misuses the term all the time, but I think he does that just to annoy people as knows what he is looking at is entertainment, not a documentary by any means.

As long as they are accurate, and come from solid sources, yes, they are excellent, and a good way to compress time. Few of the regurgitated UFOlogy DVD's would qualify I would think, some I admit are not a bad watch though. I have quite a few at home myself - even some woo woo ones. Got to know both sides of the story you see. One of the more entertaining woo woo efforts I would say is 50 Years of Denial, I honestly think it is much more interesting than out of the blue. I do feel they illustrate the hollywood side of UFOlogy more than anything though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure all of you know about this sighting in the air. Makes me wonder why the the pilot was demoted to a desk job

just because he spoke to the media about his incident.

http://en.wikipedia....t_1628_incident

He was not demoted for speaking about a UFO, he outright broke company guidelines, and was punished for giving interviews without the authorisation of JAL, according to company rules, they had every right to fire him altogether, but instead he only received a reprimand, and was eventually reinstated.

He broke company rules, and did not challenge the reprimand because he knew he broke rules. If anything, he got of light. Another pilot who did the same thing with safety concerns was sacked, he worked for Ryanair. He gave a newspaper interview, recieved a warning, did not heed it, and was sacked when he went further. It's company policy, we do not get to decide what that is. The woo woo train want for some reason to think he was supressed for speaking out, when it was nothing like that at all. The alleged UFO had no bearing on the decision.

As far as I know, a pilot has never been fired for reporting a UFO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK,OK...you like vegemite on toast and I like biscuits and gravy. :w00t:

I like em both!

You have to try Vegemite, it is after all the only edible axle grease in the world. Heavenly stuff I reckon. Did you know you can also put a small teaspoon into hot water, dissolve it, and have something similar to Bonox?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/size]

Oh, OK then, you said documents, perhaps spell check got the word and changed it, that happens to me from time to time.

It depends on if they are actually documentaries or not, people like Zoser state that anything that conforms to their notions on Youtube is called a documentary, he misuses the term all the time, but I think he does that just to annoy people as knows what he is looking at is entertainment, not a documentary by any means.

As long as they are accurate, and come from solid sources, yes, they are excellent, and a good way to compress time. Few of the regurgitated UFOlogy DVD's would qualify I would think, some I admit are not a bad watch though. I have quite a few at home myself - even some woo woo ones. Got to know both sides of the story you see. One of the more entertaining woo woo efforts I would say is 50 Years of Denial, I honestly think it is much more interesting than out of the blue. I do feel they illustrate the hollywood side of UFOlogy more than anything though.

Have you seen the documentary, UFO's: Then and Now? It has both sides giving their opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found another piccy for analysis, I wont give the source just yet but I do invite opinions

23uzm09.jpg

Either they are office lights or the Maury Island UFO is back!

Here are some MOVING UFO's :D I posted these already, no takers yet. Must have something to do with a skeptic putting up UFO pics huh? The Yellowish/Goldish UFO looks quite strong, it almost looks like it is lighting up everything underneath it, and a second one comes in from the distance.

IMG_0756.JPG

IMG_0757.JPG

IMG_0758.JPG

Good size too by the look of them, just like you would need to cross space............. :D

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the documentary, UFO's: Then and Now? It has both sides giving their opinions.

Is that from the UFO files series? Of so, then yes, I have quite a few of those in my collection, way way back when I first joined a lovely lady went by the nick of Crystal...... err, something or other, was kind enough to share many episodes, and cut them up into 4 or 5 downloadable parts to accommodate those of us on dial up back in the day. Roswell, The Final Declassification I thought was a good watch in that series as well, and Reverse Engineering was quite watchable too.

If not, if you could post an IMDB link or something, I'd much appreciate it, so I can track it down. I tried the latest UFO hunters series, but it was more yawnworthy than anything else.

PS - Was it this series?

UFO_Files_SC.jpg

This is the one I mentioned

51QZ4178K3L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

And the lovely Jeri Ryan Narrates this one - I think I liked the special features best to be honest, they were good. I have a different cover to this too for the Oztraylian release.

UFOS_AND_ALIENS_1.jpg

Edited by psyche101

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.