qxcontinuum Posted October 22, 2013 #26 Share Posted October 22, 2013 how about the other "UFO" in this pic ? what was it doing upside down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted October 22, 2013 #27 Share Posted October 22, 2013 But NOT forgetting what the op IMAGE was... as usual zoser hijacks threads with stuff he has never come to terms with I personally wouldn't waste my time trying to figure out what something in a photo is when it is hopelessly out of focus. I find it sad that these blurry splotches are being considered evidence of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted October 22, 2013 Author #28 Share Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) And...lets not forget the other one I posted ETA Sorted I think, this page - about solved ufo pics - states "Erich Kaiser" - Lens flare: Sun on diamond ring. Now Im no photographer and have never seen 3 lens flares like that, but I dont deny the possibility Found that info on the below link, its a pretty good page but you need to search on names, ie, its not burdened with the pics Solved UFO pics page http://midimagic.sgc...om/ufosphot.htm . . Edited October 22, 2013 by seeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sards Posted October 22, 2013 #29 Share Posted October 22, 2013 I believe more in the ancient polar bear crawling around on that mountain peak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 22, 2013 #30 Share Posted October 22, 2013 unless the ufo turned on its special anti camera blur function they all seem to have That's EM distortion I believe you mean. I told you that on a previous thread and you find one exactly the same. Nice coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 22, 2013 #31 Share Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) And...lets not forget the other one I posted ETA Sorted I think, this page - about solved ufo pics - states "Erich Kaiser" - Lens flare: Sun on diamond ring. Now Im no photographer and have never seen 3 lens flares like that, but I dont deny the possibility Found that info on the below link, its a pretty good page but you need to search on names, ie, its not burdened with the pics Solved UFO pics page http://midimagic.sgc...om/ufosphot.htm Yep looks like you copped a misidentification there. Ufology is renowned for them. Edited October 22, 2013 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 22, 2013 #32 Share Posted October 22, 2013 I personally wouldn't waste my time trying to figure out what something in a photo is when it is hopelessly out of focus. I find it sad that these blurry splotches are being considered evidence of anything. That's the nature of Ufology I'm afraid. They fly faster than planes, and often faster than the eye can see. We don't know how they fly even, and what effect the propulsion system has on the atmosphere. More than a coincidence though that the same effect appears on these images. Try astronomy scowl. The Hubble telescope takes some cracking images of planet's and things. Give it a try. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captain pish Posted October 22, 2013 #33 Share Posted October 22, 2013 This is why nobody takes the UFO and bigfoot community seriously. All they offer are pathetic blurry pictures. As somebody who has seen a genuine UFO from close up I find it insulting that this kind of crap is diluting real evidence. Just for the record I dont believe that the UFO I observed was piloted by an extra terrestrial. The things are man made. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted October 22, 2013 #34 Share Posted October 22, 2013 This is why nobody takes the UFO and bigfoot community seriously. All they offer are pathetic blurry pictures. As somebody who has seen a genuine UFO from close up I find it insulting that this kind of crap is diluting real evidence. Just for the record I dont believe that the UFO I observed was piloted by an extra terrestrial. The things are man made. as i said! and what is truly LOL exactly those believers are ruining the big picture applauding blurriness and cheap fakes like 99% posted in this forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted October 22, 2013 #35 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Seeder, the first OP image shows exactly the same o-o-f effect as the one Zoser has dragged up. That is a scratch on the glass, end of story. Second one is a copying artefact, imo, but I'll look into it more deeply later - I'm *really* busy this week, but should be freed up next.. Zoser, this effect was covered in the original thread (scroll down a bit), and then here, in complete, undeniable detail - stop abusing the forum with continual repeats of your ignorant proclamations. Being proven to *your* satisfaction is less than meaningless. You are the worst case of confirmation bias I've ever seen, and when you add that being uneducatable and refusing to accept basic logic... All this thread is showing is just how lamentable some folks knowledge of cameras, photography and optics can be, and how they can refuse what is staring them in the face, namely that the 'object' is: 1. Out of focus - the blurring is characteristic of that (ie non-directional) 2. In the case ofthe second image, it is also related to several other smears and specks on the glass - see the second thread above for an absolute debunking It is COMPLETELY explainable by the simple, mundane explanation of being debris/scratches/birdpoop on the glass. It does not require ignorant and speculative garbage like some sort of fantasised effect from alienz propulsion systems. The fact that Zoser keeps bringing this absolute dreck up over and over again shows just what sort of tactics he is prepared to use to push his fantasies. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted October 22, 2013 #36 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Looks for stronger reading glasses and a Fifth of The Strongest Whiskey I can Find to Help me through this thread with the quickness & strength! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 22, 2013 #37 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Yeah..it was this one turns out to be a freaking distorted picture of an animated character wonder women , my daughter was watching. You can still see easier the flying position, the pony tale, skinny legs, boobs ..the squarish almost invisible artifact from copy paste ...etc.. I feel like vomiting when I see such crap! You feel like vomiting when you see boobs? WASH YOUR MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP!!!!!!!!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 22, 2013 #38 Share Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) Bad eyesight again. Wrong colour and shape. It's a ghost rocket. These have been seen in Sweden a lot since WW2. Explain the uniform blur, how do you explain that it was moving in every direction possible at once as opposed to forward, as indicated by the spiel? A squashed insect can achieve this feat, a rocket cannot. Edited October 22, 2013 by psyche101 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 22, 2013 #39 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Then please refrain from oozing unproven statements. Indeed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 22, 2013 #40 Share Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) I personally wouldn't waste my time trying to figure out what something in a photo is when it is hopelessly out of focus. I find it sad that these blurry splotches are being considered evidence of anything. I am guessing a reflection of the wing, you can see white lines connecting the "UFO" to the plane. Diffused refracted light. PS: I would think that scratchy glass as suggested by Chrlz would assist that effect. Edited October 22, 2013 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 22, 2013 #41 Share Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) And...lets not forget the other one I posted ETA Sorted I think, this page - about solved ufo pics - states "Erich Kaiser" - Lens flare: Sun on diamond ring. Now Im no photographer and have never seen 3 lens flares like that, but I dont deny the possibility Found that info on the below link, its a pretty good page but you need to search on names, ie, its not burdened with the pics Solved UFO pics page http://midimagic.sgc...om/ufosphot.htm Yes, you can have multiple shapes from lens flare, check out these examples, I quite like the little solar system below the wedding ring The effect is apparently unique to that photographer and his equipment, and other photographers can recognise his work from it. Above taken from LINK The most spectacular I have ever seen would be the Apollo 14 photo: LINK Edited October 22, 2013 by psyche101 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 22, 2013 #42 Share Posted October 22, 2013 It's legit. Before the image was taken a huge silent unidentified object was above the plane. The swirling either side of the object is vapour resulting from very sudden upward movement. He took two images. The first had nothing on it. He took two pictures to verify that the image was not a reflection of something within the plane. Just like the ghost rocket. Case solved. Like this nonsense I suppose? I am guessing you have not seen these, no story to them either. Maybe the photographer was abducted! These are legit too are they? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted October 23, 2013 #43 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Wheel`s on this Buss Just Keep going Round& Round ! Lets just say Its never going to be solved until we Get the Good`s ! A Real Life Alien Delivered Space buggie ! With all the Options ! FTL,Photon Torpee`does and Indoor plumbing ! Then Were onto sumptin ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted October 23, 2013 #44 Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) Wheel`s on this Buss Just Keep going Round& Round ! Lets just say Its never going to be solved until we Get the Good`s ! A Real Life Alien Delivered Space buggie ! With all the Options ! FTL,Photon Torpee`does and Indoor plumbing ! Then Were onto sumptin ! I think we should see a proper space buggy, something loud, polluting, clunk, and possibly dangerous. Where are all the species just learning to cross space? Why is every proposed species advanced, and very rude? Edited October 23, 2013 by psyche101 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted October 23, 2013 #45 Share Posted October 23, 2013 The fact that Zoser keeps bringing this absolute dreck up over and over again shows just what sort of tactics he is prepared to use to push his fantasies. This is how he kept the Ancient Astronauts thread going forever. He would show us a great example of ancient masonry as "proof" that Ancient Astronauts had traveled to Earth to build crude stone structures, then we would explain the Earthly techniques used to create it. Case closed. Then a few weeks later he would post the very same example again as indisputable "proof" that aliens with masonry technology much less advanced than ours had built it. And we'd have to dig up our notes and explain it all over again even though we knew zoser would forget it again in a couple of days. My dad suffered from Alzheimer's for eight years. He was more able to retain information than zoser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted October 23, 2013 #46 Share Posted October 23, 2013 That's the nature of Ufology I'm afraid. They fly faster than planes, and often faster than the eye can see. If that's the case then there's no way we can be sure they exist. We don't know how they fly even, and what effect the propulsion system has on the atmosphere. That would be "none" because they never cause sonic booms and never leave trails and completely defy all laws of nature and physics. On the other hand, bug splatter on a window is completely explainable by nature and physics. More than a coincidence though that the same effect appears on these images. Oh gosh I totally agree. The fact that these photos of shapeless splotches have to be misinterpreted into being extraterrestrial space craft (or ghost rockets, the funniest thing I've heard in years!), is no coincidence whatsoever. Try astronomy scowl. The Hubble telescope takes some cracking images of planet's and things. Give it a try. Young man, I've been doing amateur astronomy longer than you've been watching youtube videos. I've also been reading about UFOs before you were born. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted October 23, 2013 #47 Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) If that's the case then there's no way we can be sure they exist. Au Contraire scowl. Take a look at the OP. Take a look at the red ghost rocket. Denial never helps. That would be "none" because they never cause sonic booms and never leave trails and completely defy all laws of nature and physics. On the other hand, bug splatter on a window is completely explainable by nature and physics. Again take a look at the image in the OP. The swirling is caused by sudden upward movement. A bug splattering is indeed explainable bu not as a UFO. Even with the most vivid imagination neither the OP or the ghost rocket can be explained as a bug. Oh gosh I totally agree. The fact that these photos of shapeless splotches have to be misinterpreted into being extraterrestrial space craft (or ghost rockets, the funniest thing I've heard in years!), is no coincidence whatsoever. Nah. No splotches there. Wishful thinking. We even have Hasting's testimony. Nothing to gain and everything to lose. As usual. Sincere men of integrity. One has to be grateful that they came forward. Young man, I've been doing amateur astronomy longer than you've been watching youtube videos. I've also been reading about UFOs before you were born. I'm sure you excel at the former. I cannot however recommend you as a man of authority, insight, or knowledge regarding the latter. That is said without judgement. It just is the case. Edited October 23, 2013 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted October 23, 2013 #48 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Is there anyone with at least a semblance of photographic knowledge who is impressed by these out of focus things-on-windows? If anyone is genuinely interested and needs a fuller analysis and maybe even some duplications of the effect, please ask. It will take time, and I'm not doing it for Zoser for reasons that I think are very clear (to everyone here except him). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted October 23, 2013 #49 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I cannot however recommend you as a man of authority, insight, or knowledge regarding the latter. That is said without judgement. It just is the case. The bolded words are a bt of a giveaway to the truth... Zoser, you will now link to an example of WHY you said all that. Point out where scowl has made an incorrect observation or inference and explain in detail why you believe that to be the case. If you can't, then be a man and withdraw the comment and apologise for posting this UNSUPPORTED adhominem drivel. Dunno about anyone else, but I'm sick to death of your tactics. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted October 23, 2013 Author #50 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Dunno about anyone else, but I'm sick to death of your tactics. Me too... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now