Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

What happened to UFO photography?


Sir Wearer of Hats

Recommended Posts

By desaturating and enhancing the contrast, I was able to find two or three spots on the window to the left of the splotch in the second image:

post-108987-0-30020000-1399669016_thumb.

They were in the same points relative to the splotch in the first image.

post-108987-0-20839600-1399669036_thumb.

It looks like they were all just spots on the window.

Interesting why you chose to only post tiny thumbnails which made me suspicious so I decided to enlarge them,

Hoax2_zpsaa2295fe.jpg

Hoax1_zpsbdfba962.jpg

The 1st image is the give away because it has obviously been processed a lot more. If there was 'dirt' on the window it would be just as obvious in the 1st image without the need for extra degrees of correction would it not?

Then look at the top left of the first image. The 'dirt' is everywhere. All you have done is picked up and magnified noise.

If it was genuine dirt it would be just as visible in both images as there was only 7 seconds between shots and the light conditions would both have altered.

There is no proof that you have identified 'dirt' on the screen.

Then there is the issue of the rocket being dirt, What kind of 'dirt' makes that shape?

It's totally unconvincing.

Just another fake hoax attempt.

Edited by zoser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes the lake shows how much the plane has moved between shots. It helps create the illusion.

The line where the flaps meet the wing change angle - more vertical. This change in angle I reckon would be consistent with the suggestion the camera was moved, in relation to a smudge on a window, between shots.

Only by a very tiny amount. Totally expected with a 7 second delay between shots. Not enough to explain the rocket movement.

Conclusion: The rocket was moving in the air. It's obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no proof that you have identified 'dirt' on the screen.

Now listen up zoser. Scowl has managed to reproduce the same that the hoaxkiller website/image did. Just because you know nothing about image enhancement doesn't mean no-one else does. I will remind you again what was told to you about dismissing others inputs, yet here you go again :td:

You are clearly only here to disagree with everyone while offering no evidence to support your own claims, I and Im sure many others are totally satisfied with the images showing dirt on the screen, if you continue to oppose everyone then youd best be offering your evidence at the same time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zoser has an excuse for everything and proof for nothing : \

See above.

If you want to be part of a deception then that's your problem.

Some are not so easily fooled.

:st

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now listen up zoser. Scowl has managed to reproduce the same that the hoaxkiller website/image did. Just because you know nothing about image enhancement doesn't mean no-one else does. I will remind you again what was told to you about dismissing others inputs, yet here you go again :td:

You are clearly only here to disagree with everyone while offering no evidence to support your own claims, I and Im sure many others are totally satisfied with the images showing dirt on the screen, if you continue to oppose everyone then youd best be offering your evidence at the same time.

Answer the questions in post 377.

It's easily proven as noise. Not dirt, Clever trick but easy to spot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easily proven as noise. Not dirt,

Easy is it? Go ahead and produce your version then, remember, YOU MAKE THE CLAIMS, YOU PROVE IT. And seeing as there is no way on earth you can prove what you say, why all the hand-waving and noise from you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By desaturating and enhancing the contrast, I was able to find two or three spots on the window to the left of the splotch in the second image:

post-108987-0-30020000-1399669016_thumb.

They were in the same points relative to the splotch in the first image.

post-108987-0-20839600-1399669036_thumb.

It looks like they were all just spots on the window.

Good job scowl! Not sure why you bothered since we all are all convinced it was nothing to begin with. Guess we will see if you wasted your time with a certain person shortly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only by a very tiny amount. Totally expected with a 7 second delay between shots. Not enough to explain the rocket movement.

Conclusion: The rocket was moving in the air. It's obvious.

I'm guessing the wing is about 13.5 metres. At that distance 25 mm subtends about 6-7 arcminutes.

Is that angle tiny enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not enough to explain the rocket movement.

Conclusion: The rocket was moving in the air. It's obvious.

Do you know the technical characteristics of a rocket? I would say you don`t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See above.

If you want to be part of a deception then that's your problem.

Some are not so easily fooled.

:st

Stop being obtuse. Your refusal to read and learn from the many experts on here (yes they are experts in photography, physics, optics, etc) is insulting. I come to UM because of all the brilliant people here, people who can look objectively at data and make logical conclusions.. As a scientist (molecular biology) I appreciate this. I can honestly say I don't understand your obsessive desire to prove that we are being visited by alien craft. What's in it for you? Do you think we will all bow down and worship you if ET shows up to speak at Parliament?

Any valids points you may make are lost on me because it has become too tedious to wade through the rest of the drivel you post. You're the one being fooled by bug smears and You Tube. For the record, there are several UFO cases that have never been explained fully to my satisfaction. I am open to the possibility of visitation.

Edited by phantasia
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop being obtuse. Your refusal to read and learn from the many experts on here (yes they are experts in photography, physics, optics, etc) is insulting. I come to UM because of all the brilliant people here, people who can look objectively at data and make logical conclusions.. As a scientist (molecular biology) I appreciate this. I can honestly say I don't understand your obsessive desire to prove that we are being visited by alien craft. What's in it for you? Do you think we will all bow down and worship you if ET shows up to speak at Parliament?

Any valids points you may make are lost on me because it has become too tedious to wade through the rest of the drivel you post. You're the one being fooled by bug smears and You Tube. For the record, there are several UFO cases that have never been explained fully to my satisfaction. I am open to the possibility of visitation.

Ooh, well said! :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To summarise, several reasons why attempting to prove the object hoax is nothing but fake:

1) There should be no need to apply additional correction to one of the images if it is dirt on the window we are looking at. One image needs considerable more correction than the other.

2) Any attempt to prove that the rocket is dirt and that the other specks of dirt moved with the object as the camera moved is false because the animated GIFS prove that the camera hardly moved in the horizontal plane.

Shouting 'parallax' is not going to work without proof. The GIFs show otherwise.

3) Sharpening is only valid for objects that are clearly there. You cannot claim to be able to sharpen objects that were never there in the first place.

Here is the first image enlarged and it shows no dirt.

Enlarged1_zpsc8e19ff9.jpg

What can be seen is dark patches of sky. Look just above the rocket and you see the same thing again. What has been highlighted is nothing more than noise.

If there was dirt on the window it would be visible in this image. It is not.

So the evidence still says that the object is real.

It doesn't matter how many people come in here and shout otherwise it won't make any difference.

There may well be convincing evidence later that I cannot debunk but for now this is easy to prove fake.

As for Seeder's shouting 'troll' there is this to say:

The Oregon Rocket UFO was presented as an anomalous object. If skeptics feel confident that it is a hoax it is up to them to prove it so.

in other words there is a hypothesis comprising of two images and a pilot's testimony. Here it is, prove it false if you feel that it is.

This will be my last post of the day so I will not be able to respond until tomorrow.

Good luck with the debunking, I've done mine, now it's your turn.

:tu:

Edited by zoser
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooh, well said! :tu:

You know Zoser is Kung Fu typing his response of, "See my post #4544, you're ignoring all the proof on YT, I am enlightened and belief in ET visitation makes me feel important and special, blah, blah, blah". I'm done.

Edited by phantasia
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck with the debunking, I've done mine, now it's your turn.

The dying throes of zoser.. out classed every time :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A picture of a UFO is never going to 'do it'. What's needed is an actual piece of a space craft/ an ET itself...something tangible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop being obtuse. Your refusal to read and learn from the many experts on here (yes they are experts in photography, physics, optics, etc) is insulting.

Is this an appeal to authority? ... ^_^

Although on an anonymous forum anyone can claim to be anything...so we don't know who is who really...

There certainly are a lot of insults flying around...mainly directed at zoser...

Because he isn't submissive and sticks up for himself...?

The sceptics, who have formed themselves into the vocal majority, live by the law of the jungle here..

And if other males don't submit to them...then they are in for a rough ride... B):lol:

.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this an appeal to authority? ... ^_^

Although on an anonymous forum anyone can claim to be anything...so we don't know who is who really...

There certainly are a lot of insults flying around...mainly directed at zoser...

Because he isn't submissive and sticks up for himself...?

The sceptics, who have formed themselves into the vocal majority, live by the law of the jungle here..

And if other males don't submit to them...then they are in for a rough ride... B):lol:

.

If people are getting their feelings hurt on an anonymous internet message board, they need to rethink their lives. Just sayin'.

Edited by phantasia
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

does any of this really matter?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

does any of this really matter?

no

it's just that it's got really boring with all the zoser this zoser that....jeeeeezus they are obsessed with him

(zoser not jesus)

:cat:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. the truth doesnt matter does it? And lets defend the underdog shall we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the way this thread has gone there is little point letting this continue.

Closed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.