zoser Posted May 22, 2014 Author #51 Share Posted May 22, 2014 At least the images in the OP are worth consideration. Look at this for a collection of obvious hoaxes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted May 22, 2014 Author #52 Share Posted May 22, 2014 (edited) On the other hand, from this year we have this: Looks pretty good to me: Edited May 22, 2014 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted May 22, 2014 Author #53 Share Posted May 22, 2014 (edited) Full video: He comments that the Sun is almost down. He dismisses the balloon option. (0:55) Edited May 22, 2014 by zoser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted May 22, 2014 Author #54 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Another sighting in the same area about a month earlier: MUFON Case 54277 http://beforeitsnews.com/paranormal/2014/02/ufo-hovers-over-fresno-ca-2464860.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZDZ Posted May 22, 2014 #55 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Last week a local news team was covering some breaking news live from the scene. Something seemed to catch the cameramans eye because he suddenly panned to an area of the sky with an odd craft just sitting there. After a few moments he quickly panned back to what he was supposed to be covering but he had, (imo purposefully) managed to get a few seconds of it on screen. I rewound the dvr, paused it at the best location I could determine and took two imgs of it off the HD TV screen with a old Canon Powershot camera I wanna say it is a helicopter with jet engines on the side but where are the rotors? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted May 22, 2014 #56 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Are you 100% positive the flying object following photo is a bird? If so then what species of bird? It's an enlargement from a photo I took within the past week or two. I don't recall seeing it when I took the photograph and can't tell you whether it's a bird or bug or something else. Does this therefore qualify as a UFO because neither you or I or anyone else can identify it as a bird or a specific species of bird? Should I contact MUFON or the dude in the OP's video who runs a YouTube UFO channel? The point I was making is that this phenomena is all a speculation game between both sides but it in reality it's a UFO by it's very definition. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted May 22, 2014 #57 Share Posted May 22, 2014 The point I was making is that this phenomena is all a speculation game between both sides but it in reality it's a UFO by it's very definition. True from a technical point of view.But it does nothing muddies the waters when every photo of something that looks like a bug or lens flare gets added to the heap because the person who took the photo didn't recognise it for what it is therefore it's "unidentified". That photo of mine above is technically a UFO by your logic, but it would be pretty foolish to send it to MUFON or post it here asking if it could be some sort of alien craft blurred out by an anti-gravity drive, just because I can't declare with confidence exactly what it is. Unfortunately too many people do exactly that with their bugs and lens flare and light reflections and it does not help the field of Ufology one bit. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted May 22, 2014 #58 Share Posted May 22, 2014 True from a technical point of view. But it does nothing muddies the waters when every photo of something that looks like a bug or lens flare gets added to the heap because the person who took the photo didn't recognise it for what it is therefore it's "unidentified". That photo of mine above is technically a UFO by your logic, but it would be pretty foolish to send it to MUFON or post it here asking if it could be some sort of alien craft blurred out by an anti-gravity drive, just because I can't declare with confidence exactly what it is. Unfortunately too many people do exactly that with their bugs and lens flare and light reflections and it does not help the field of Ufology one bit. Cellphone cameras just doesn't cut it. The format doesn't have good stop motion. It would be great if they were caught in IMAX. But that's expensive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted May 23, 2014 #59 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Don't worry, MID got heated occasionally We are all only human, and I doubt he would give Zoser the time of day by now. I am continually surprised at Jim Oberg's seemingly never ending patience with the nonsense and disrespectful manner in which Zoser addresses him. Haven't seen Jim in a while, I sure as heck hope Zoser had nothing to do with that like Chrlz, but he would be proud if he did. Which is something else I dislike about him. I see no redeeming qualities there personally, you are a much more patient and forgiving man than I am. Zoser wore my kid gloves clean off. I understand ignorance, I suffer it myself, deliberate ignorance on the other hand is an entirely different matter. I'd add user Pericynthion to the list along with MID and Jim Oberg. He really should post more often but when he does, it's a useful and educational impassionate lesson on the matter at hand regarding actual facts and evidence. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 23, 2014 #60 Share Posted May 23, 2014 I don't feel the need to learn both sides of the story....... Don't need both sides of the story??- curious, just like Zoser. All he needs is Aliens. I live in the' now ' and things speak for themselves. Even though much happened before you were here? Again, interesting - do not need the whole story, don't want it, evaluate on the spot. A good recipe for failure. Enjoy your evening..... triple peace to you. I did indeed, quadruple peace back. Interesting response!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 23, 2014 #61 Share Posted May 23, 2014 A 300x400 image came "straight from a cellular phone camera"? No, it didn't. What camera takes photos at that ridiculously low resolution? What they call the "original photo" contains no useful EXIF data at all to determine the location, time, camera make and model, etc. This doesn't indicate deceit on their part as that kind of data can get lost when copying images depending on the method, but I wonder if they are even aware of what EXIF data is. They also say they used the position of the object in the sky in the 2 photos to determine the relative times the photos were taken when actual raw photos straight form somebody's camera would have that information embedded in the EXIF data and they wouldn't need to resort to that kind of thinking. As such, I suspect that their "basic analysis" was less than rigorous and they really don't know what they're talking about. I sent them an email asking for further information and addressing these points. Interesting to see what if anything they respond with. edit: I got a reply to an email asking if they had a file with EXIF data and asking how they determined it was from a cellphone camera and if they had the actual original file straight from the camera as what was posted on the page and labelled "original Chong photograph" was clearly not a file straight from a digital camera and I got the following response: Charming. edit2: Anyone want to look at the photos posted on the article and see if I'm being stupid and missing something obvious? :tu: Great work Jesse, I enjoyed just reading about it - that return email kinda says it all doesn't it!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 23, 2014 #62 Share Posted May 23, 2014 I saw that the other day. Nice shot but the clarity makes me suspicious. Don't forget that the anti-gravity technology makes the images blurred. Unless it was simple hovering. I have explained the best hypotheses on Anti Gravity today, and they have no way of making a picture film blur, where are you pulling this blur fantasy from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 23, 2014 #63 Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) There was an exchange a while back where he was genuinely concerned that he had offended someone (with whom he strongly disagreed) with one of his responses so he made it a point to make it right with the other member in the open. That showed some character and deserves recognition. I don't believe he is the unthinking, uncaring troll he sometimes plays. I think he is just trying to figure some things out. Cheers Sinewave, at the risk of derailing a tiny bit further, I just thought I would mention that I do not see this, and he deliberately goes out of his way to insult me and has been throwing veiled insults at me since he first found I was a challenge to his views. Never shown remorse to me, more like glee. Otherwise nice post mate, I enjoyed the read, and thanks for taking the time for a personal note. Again, I do envy and admire your patience and restraint. You are one very forgiving individual. The world could use more people like you in it. Edited May 23, 2014 by psyche101 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 23, 2014 #64 Share Posted May 23, 2014 The point I was making is that this phenomena is all a speculation game between both sides but it in reality it's a UFO by it's very definition. As some say - That's an alien craft - without any proof whatsoever, why can't someone say "That's a Seagull" by the same token? We actually have Seagulls, millions of them, we have not one single alien craft, just tall tales. Why would one not gravitate toward the option that we know is a regular happening on this planet, and go for some wild off planet claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 23, 2014 #65 Share Posted May 23, 2014 I'd add user Pericynthion to the list along with MID and Jim Oberg. He really should post more often but when he does, it's a useful and educational impassionate lesson on the matter at hand regarding actual facts and evidence. I stand corrected, and definitely should have included Peri, we have seen so little of him, he slipped my tired mind. Thanks for the pick up, I agree entirely. Did you ever encounter Drunken Parrot? He is another legendary poster we have not seen in far too long. Sad to see the bar plummet from MID Peri, DP to Zoser and Bendigger. Mate, we are going to have to step up ourselves. I am sure enjoying your input. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 23, 2014 #66 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Cellphone cameras just doesn't cut it. The format doesn't have good stop motion. It would be great if they were caught in IMAX. But that's expensive. Even then though, look at the response Jesse got from a simple request. I think that pretty much says it all - don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted May 23, 2014 #67 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Its how real gravity works,When we lose the Great ones Gravity sucks -em-up ! Into the Universes future Good !, And in behind the void,comes the following voids ! Void of trains of thought,fact based knowledge, scientific method, Pure Logic ! Sad but Its whats going to Get us on this Rock,unless we really start to address this on planet ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted May 23, 2014 #68 Share Posted May 23, 2014 :tu: Great work Jesse, I enjoyed just reading about it - that return email kinda says it all doesn't it!! I've since sent him the following email in response, just to see if he's willing to discuss the dodgy facts surrounding this "UFO"The file you posted on that page which you labelled "original Chong photograph" is a 300 pixel x 400 pixel file with no EXIF data embedded. As such it is not an original image that came "straight from a cellular phone camera" as you claimed because digital cameras embed useful EXIF data in the file which the "original Chong photograph" in your article does not contain and 300x400 is far too low a resolution to be the actual file that came straight from the camera.The other 3 photos are clearly not "originals" in the sense of being the raw file that came from the camera but edited together pics with your logo overlaid and annotations added and comprised of different photos put side by side in the same pic. Nothing wrong with that of course for a website, but those of us who actually are interested in properly analysing UFO pics know that none of the photos in the article are "original" photos from a digital camera of any sort and there is no link to the supposed "originals" you claim are posted there. It is essential to get the files as they came off the camera and not subject to resizing, cropping, etc. or anything that strips out the EXIF data which has clearly happened in the "original Chong photograph" I'm interested in giving some sort of rigorous look at. I will admit that I might be wrong and missed a link to the actual "original" photo but having scanned the article several times, I can't find any such link. I'm willing to be corrected and admit my error on this point. I was genuinely interested in knowing how you came to your conclusion about it being an unedited file straight from a cellphone camera and assumed that you had the necessary EXIF data and description of your "analysis" to tell that it was indeed a cellphone camera. Don't worry, I won't email you again unless you respond to this email and I have something to say in response. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 23, 2014 #69 Share Posted May 23, 2014 I've since sent him the following email in response, just to see if he's willing to discuss the dodgy facts surrounding this "UFO" Well said- the field hs needed accountability for the last 60+ years. I feel accountability is directly proportional to credibility I half expect your email reply to be DYOR! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted May 23, 2014 #70 Share Posted May 23, 2014 As some say - That's an alien craft - without any proof whatsoever, why can't someone say "That's a Seagull" by the same token? That's why it's a speculation game. Both sides are making a claim but no real proof. BTW P, Is there any one case that baffles you and find difficult to explain? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted May 23, 2014 #71 Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) That's why it's a speculation game. Both sides are making a claim but no real proof. BTW P, Is there any one case that baffles you and find difficult to explain? Do you really think that photos like mine already posted in this thread are mere "speculation" as to whether they're caused by birds or bugs of extraterrestrial craft?There's no real 100% proof that it's a bird or a bug or any other sort of terrestrial object. Therefore it's a UFO and it's "mere speculation" that it's a bird. Should I contact MUFON with my photo? Edited May 23, 2014 by JesseCuster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawken Posted May 23, 2014 #72 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Should I contact MUFON with my photo? No. Try contacting Audubon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 23, 2014 #73 Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) That's why it's a speculation game. Both sides are making a claim but no real proof. Exactly - yet we have billions of birds, but no UFO's at all. What is the UFO premise based upon - why is it even in the hypothesis? We could from an endless list of planes, missiles, RC's etc etc, but we don't. even though all of them are far more likely than an alien spacecraft simply because of the very fact they do exist here, and in large numbers, yet to date, not one human alive has seen an alien spaceship. How does ET even get a mention????? What is the ET claim based upon? BTW P, Is there any one case that baffles you and find difficult to explain? Portage County. Cannot even comment, I have not the foggiest. The corroboration of Police Witnesses, and the number of them catches my attention as the only eyewitness "UFO" report I have found rather convincing. I think UFOlogy was too hasty with Maury Island too. Not so sure that is a cut and dried hoax - it happens to be the very first MIB encounter recorded. I think UFOlogy fails to recognise, if there was ever a genuine MIB encounter - that would have been it. I must have another deep look at that one day. Had a thread going I must return to. Cash Landrum got the short end of the stick too, not aliens by any means, but for sure USAF Black Ops. And they should have received $20M in damages IMHO. Not totally convinced Anthony Bragalia was 100% correct that Lonnie Zamora was a hoax either. I think that's about it, if I think of any more, I'll let you know. Edited May 23, 2014 by psyche101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra. Posted May 23, 2014 #74 Share Posted May 23, 2014 It can get heated but I don't take any of it personally.I certainly don't hate anybody on here with different views to me but I do get frustrated at the way some people refuse to accept evidence and I do tend to get a bit sarcastic and cynical.People on here with different views have done the same to me in some ways but it's no biggie.We're all debating our corner it would be a terrible board if we were all in agreement. Yes, how boring the world would be if we all agreed on things....no dispute there at all.Discussion and differing opinions are normal and can be a healthy way of communicating. It is the "ganging up" style against a person/target whose views may differ from the majority of the "pack". I think you knew where I was coming from dr no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra. Posted May 23, 2014 #75 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Go for it Astra I happen to think some of the sightings on the OP are genuine. All good zoser 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