Same UFO photographed 5 years apart?

[Brian Topp]

Just another irrelevant rant from Chris. Never relevant to the thread, and always misses the point.

Same old Chris.

actually, chris is making sense

[AlienDan]

I'm a protographer, quite familiar with sensor dust. I've had them on new cameras to. I'd like to analyze the originals If you can get them to me.

[zoser]

actually, chris is making sense

Nope, Just more flat out skepticism. Unless I see it for myself it never happened.

Since you took the trouble to respond, care to explain his point?

Edited September 7, 2013 by zoser

[Brian Topp]

Nope, Just more flat out skepticism. Unless I see it for myself it never happened.

Since you took the trouble to respond, care to explain his point?

There is no trouble to respond, I just hit the reply button.

1. I be wasting my time since you would just shrug it off by ignoring it like my other posts.

2. His point doesn't really need to be explained since it makes clear sense.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Brian Topp

[RocketSwitch625UK]

I'm a protographer, quite familiar with sensor dust. I've had them on new cameras to. I'd like to analyze the originals If you can get them to me.

Since buying my first digital camera in 2004 I have taken over 22,000 photos. I have captured numerous aeroplanes, helicopters, flying birds, and insects in many of my photos and none even come close to what is in that picture. Once I even stood at my bedroom window for at least an hour taking photos of birds flying off the roofs of houses in an attempt to replicate the picture, but to no avail. If it was "sensor dust" like you say, then why did the object only appear in one of the nine photos that were taken seconds apart from each other? I'm sorry but your theory doesn't make sense.

Edited September 7, 2013 by RocketSwitch625UK

[seeder]

Since you took the trouble to respond, care to explain his point?

Dont do it Brian, zoser is on a posting frenzy today. I think we should buy him a bus ticket tour some place, let him see there is a big world outside of the PC and forums, with normal people, and normal concerns, doing normal activities...having fun, seeing daylight, doing STUFF...having relationships, going to the movies...having a meal in a restaurant.. shopping, or just window shopping... seeing family.... doing hobbies.. walking in the park..

Not watching endless rubbish vids on UFOs and stuff... and hanging around on forums all weekend...and posting within a seconds gap to any post he has made...

[RocketSwitch625UK]

Dont do it Brian, zoser is on a posting frenzy today. I think we should buy him a bus ticket tour some place, let him see there is a big world outside of the PC and forums, with normal people, and normal concerns, doing normal activities...having fun, seeing daylight, doing STUFF...having relationships, going to the movies...having a meal in a restaurant.. shopping, or just window shopping... seeing family.... doing hobbies.. walking in the park..

Not watching endless rubbish vids on UFOs and stuff... and hanging around on forums all weekend...and posting within a seconds gap to any post he has made...

Pot kettle black in classic Seeder style.

Edited September 7, 2013 by RocketSwitch625UK

[Brian Topp]

Pot kettle black in classic Seeder style.

You haven't been here a long time to say that.

[AlienDan]

Since buying my first digital camera in 2004 I have taken over 22,000 photos. I have captured aeroplanes, helicopters, flying birds, and insects in many of my photos and none even come close to what is in that picture. Once I even stood at my bedroom window for at least an hour taking photos of birds flying off the roofs of houses in an attempt to replicate the picture, but to no avail. If it was "sensor dust" like you say, then why did the object only appear in one of the nine photos that were taken seconds apart from each other? I'm sorry but your theory doesn't make sense.

I'm implying that it is based on the picture you posted, but if it is not in any others, then it likely isnt. That's why I'd like to look at the original, and either a shot before or after it.

Edited September 7, 2013 by AlienDan

[zoser]

Dont do it Brian, zoser is on a posting frenzy today. I think we should buy him a bus ticket tour some place, let him see there is a big world outside of the PC and forums, with normal people, and normal concerns, doing normal activities...having fun, seeing daylight, doing STUFF...having relationships, going to the movies...having a meal in a restaurant.. shopping, or just window shopping... seeing family.... doing hobbies.. walking in the park..

Not watching endless rubbish vids on UFOs and stuff... and hanging around on forums all weekend...and posting within a seconds gap to any post he has made...

I just like people to substantiate their claims and remarks. You should have learned that by now.

[Brian Topp]

I just like people to substantiate their claims and remarks. You should have learned that by now.

I would like certain people to acutally research their own evidence before presenting it forward and expecting every one to lap it up

[zoser]

I would like certain people to acutally research their own evidence before presenting it forward and expecting every one to lap it up

I take it you decline to explain Chris's post.

Just more trolling.

An extremely effective tactic; ask a skeptic to explain themsleves.

[RocketSwitch625UK]

I'm implying that it is based on the picture you posted, but if it is not in any others, then it likely isnt. That's why I'd like to look at the original, and either a shot before or after it.

Sensor dust did start to appear in that camera's photos about two years after I bought it, so I soon ditched it and bought a new more up to date model. This picture taken in August 2006 was one of the camera's first photos that sensor dust appeared in.

Edited September 7, 2013 by RocketSwitch625UK

[Star Man]

Maybe some of you guys have trouble reading I don't know.

Here is what the source in the OP says:

According to news sources, the Siberian sighting of an unidentified flying object the size of a Boeing 747 on February 15 about 6pm was marked by many witnesses and photos snapped from mobile phones.

Observers noted that whatever it was, the entity in the sky had an odd blurriness about it and was gray-black in color

I do not get that. Gas type of ufo's size could be smaller than2 mm or bigger than Boeing 747, and could be any colour even metelic looked.

I got more then 30 photos of this type, non of them are alien mechanic craft. but I can call it: bio- ship.

[DONTEATUS]

Hey Star MAn ! my sighting way back in the day was quite solid looking,and If the best way to describe it Liquid mercury in color,It still means that I still looked closely enough and long enough to know without touching it ,that it was solid. ANd oh,So Fast to this day I remember every detail of it.over 30 years ago ! What a Day that will Live on with me forever.

I think that Bio-ships are a distinct possibility also, Plasma`s ect coulld be a form that advanced peep`s Love to travel in? Just a thought. justDONTEATUS

[Star Man]

Hey Star MAn ! my sighting way back in the day was quite solid looking,and If the best way to describe it Liquid mercury in color,It still means that I still looked closely enough and long enough to know without touching it ,that it was solid. ANd oh,So Fast to this day I remember every detail of it.over 30 years ago ! What a Day that will Live on with me forever.

I think that Bio-ships are a distinct possibility also, Plasma`s ect coulld be a form that advanced peep`s Love to travel in? Just a thought. justDONTEATUS

I had been “cheat” by these sightings many times. October 2005 a perfect dome shape ufo hang above my roof 20 (?) meter high for one minute, it’s silver color and black bottom, size as basketball. I did told this story at SETI’s meeting. I do find many these sightings from all over the world and some people even captured their photos. Only years later, I study all the information which including my. The result is some species could do this “trick” or it’s nature ability.

[Brian Topp]

Zoser,

Remember the thread about quality of the photos and videos and compression where 3 members tried their best to explain about compression? No? ok.

Have you ever used a photo copier before zoser? where it scans your image and then prints out a X amount of copies, yet when you look at the copy, it is not always so perfect such as smudges from the glass that scans, ink being rubbed, Paper being moved while being scanned, bit of hair on it, staple holes, staple on it etc.

Imagine this, I made a paper article and I made a copy of it. Now time has past and I wanted to make more copies of same paper article I had made but I had some how I lost my original, So I used the copied form, now it going to be mutated and different that the original. Now say that I want to blow up some words that were photo copied, it won't be as clear as the original article since over time it has been mutated down.

The same thing happens with images, If some one takes a video from TV or a dvd, they compress the video down, where it looses a lot of it's detail. Then you get Youtube who compressed your video further and you loss more data. Now, You come a long and took a photo of that video and blew up the image.

The end result is this zoner, the image may get to keep the picture the inside portion (the black stuff) but not on the outside portion. The outter shell is corrupted by constant compression and then being blown up. That is the point of what chris was explaining, you increase the image size, which corrupts the original data and will give you different textures and colors than the original photo. That is why people want the original photo, not the compressed and blown image that the original poster had submitted.

Here is a picture of albert einstein, the image shows what happens when you compress or make copies of copies of videos.

Still confused? Ok look at the first image on the top left corner. Let's say that Albert is the original image.

Now after copies and compression and blowing the image bigger look at Albert on the bottom right hand side. You see how he is blurry, Well that is what happens when you tried to make the image bigger, it looses it original detail.

Now, If you move one to the left of the Albert (the one on the bottom in the middle) you notice how blotchy the image quality is? Now look at his shoulder, you see his lines is not as smooth as the original albert? Well now you are losing the outter shell detail, That is what we are trying to explain to you.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Brian Topp

[seeder]

I just like people to substantiate their claims and remarks. You should have learned that by now.

Ha! What Ive learned by now is you just post any story youve seen lately - that gets you in a froth of excitement, and then complain much when the skeptics pull it to pieces. You want substantiation from others, even though what you have posted is never substantiated or can barely stand up when scrutinised by others.

You have never had one piece of proof for any claim you have made. All you ever do is refer people to more woo woo vids and non descript people claiming to be speaking the truth. And you fall for it every time. people like you are the reason people who write woo-woo books and author small movies are laughing all the way to their banks

[seeder]

I take it you decline to explain Chris's post.

Just more trolling.

An extremely effective tactic; ask a skeptic to explain themsleves.

Chrlzs will surely be back to explain his own post. Why should BT have to do it? It was clear enough for any reasonably educated person to understand.

And zoser you need to stop calling others trolls. You are the one who is seemingly on a hell-bent mission to have his name all over the UFO forum, spouting stuff like some expert on all things to do with aliens. Backed up with youtube videos.

only....

typos

Edited September 7, 2013 by seeder

[seeder]

Pot kettle black in classic Seeder style.

[badeskov]

I take it you decline to explain Chris's post.

Just more trolling.

An extremely effective tactic; ask a skeptic to explain themsleves.

Chrlzs' post is pretty much self-explanatory if you understand photography even just a little bit.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Brian Topp]

Zoser,

Remember the thread about quality of the photos and videos and compression where 3 members tried their best to explain about compression? No? ok.

Have you ever used a photo copier before zoser? where it scans your image and then prints out a X amount of copies, yet when you look at the copy, it is not always so perfect such as smudges from the glass that scans, ink being rubbed, Paper being moved while being scanned, bit of hair on it, staple holes, staple on it etc.

Imagine this, I made a paper article and I made a copy of it. Now time has past and I wanted to make more copies of same paper article I had made but I had some how I lost my original, So I used the copied form, now it going to be mutated and different that the original. Now say that I want to blow up some words that were photo copied, it won't be as clear as the original article since over time it has been mutated down.

The same thing happens with images, If some one takes a video from TV or a dvd, they compress the video down, where it looses a lot of it's detail. Then you get Youtube who compressed your video further and you loss more data. Now, You come a long and took a photo of that video and blew up the image.

The end result is this zoner, the image may get to keep the picture the inside portion (the black stuff) but not on the outside portion. The outter shell is corrupted by constant compression and then being blown up. That is the point of what chris was explaining, you increase the image size, which corrupts the original data and will give you different textures and colors than the original photo. That is why people want the original photo, not the compressed and blown image that the original poster had submitted.

Here is a picture of albert einstein, the image shows what happens when you compress or make copies of copies of videos.

Still confused? Ok look at the first image on the top left corner. Let's say that Albert is the original image.

Now after copies and compression and blowing the image bigger look at Albert on the bottom right hand side. You see how he is blurry, Well that is what happens when you tried to make the image bigger, it looses it original detail.

Now, If you move one to the left of the Albert (the one on the bottom in the middle) you notice how blotchy the image quality is? Now look at his shoulder, you see his lines is not as smooth as the original albert? Well now you are losing the outter shell detail, That is what we are trying to explain to you.

See I took the time to explain and he just ignores it.

[zoser]

See I took the time to explain and he just ignores it.

See I took the time to explain and he just ignores it.

No one is ignoring you BT. The point I was making is that many skeptics just don't seem to understand what they are talking about and when challenged just go on the attack instead of explaining the issue. That has happened many times over the last week.

Chris has outlined a principle here, similar to JC's idea on the other thread. It's still very debatable however whether the effect is so significant that it gives us a misinterpretation of the overall shape of the object. We can still see that it is Einstein. On the my other thread we could still discern a saucer shape. On this thread we can still see a comparison between two similar looking objects.

So the principle is acknowledged but I question the value of it in these cases.

[Brian Topp]

No one is ignoring you BT. The point I was making is that many skeptics just don't seem to understand what they are talking about and when challenged just go on the attack instead of explaining the issue. That has happened many times over the last week.

Chris has outlined a principle here, similar to JC's idea on the other thread. It's still very debatable however whether the effect is so significant that it gives us a misinterpretation of the overall shape of the object. We can still see that it is Einstein. On the my other thread we could still discern a saucer shape. On this thread we can still see a comparison between two similar looking objects.

So the principle is acknowledged but I question the value of it in these cases.

you either didn't fully read my response or you just ignoring the whole point....

My point is, with tampering (resizing the image, different compressions of the video/image) you loose detail of what the original picture is. If you were given the picture of albert on the bottom left and you used your methods, it would look completely different then it meant to be.

Again Zoser, I am going with experience here.

[Brian Topp]

No one is ignoring you BT. The point I was making is that many skeptics just don't seem to understand what they are talking about and when challenged just go on the attack instead of explaining the issue.

No Zoser, Do you want me to bring up other threads of "skeptics" explaining very politely with details on why it is a not ufo/alien. My point is your over look peoples explanations and yes, people get frustrated when you don't even research your own claims.

Honestly Zoser, We just want you to start doing proper research on your proof before posting it here.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Brian Topp