13 5 2011 Midlothian Scotland ufobject

[johncbdg 142]

 

[seanjo 6,587]

So a change in foliage or a gap in the foliage is a hovering UFO now?

[Jon the frog 2,271]

51 minutes ago, johncbdg said:

 

Nothing to see there at all !

[johncbdg 142]

3 hours ago, Jon the frog said:

Nothing to see there at all !

well i can not lead anyone to object

[preacherman76 14,080]

I don’t see it either. 

[moonman 3,078]

Absolutely nothing there. Why do you keep posting videos of nothing? Are you one of those crazy people? You just go around taking random clips of wherever you are and you find UFOs in them all? That's crazy person behavior. Get a new hobby.

Edited January 7 by moonman

[Desertrat56 19,850]

4 hours ago, johncbdg said:

 

Is he talking about that water spot that he put arrows pointing to?    

[Nuclear Wessel 4,536]

That's some extremely interesting footage of absolutely nothing.

[Timothy 5,982]

11 hours ago, johncbdg said:

 

What is the purpose of you posting your same old crappy footage again?

You've been doing it for years here on UM. Same every time...

You were told to keep them to one thread in the past.

[johncbdg 142]

14 hours ago, Timothy said:

What is the purpose of you posting your same old crappy footage again?

You've been doing it for years here on UM. Same every time...

You were told to keep them to one thread in the past.

Your right but wrong Tim you know as i do this has never been posted good to see your back 5,967

[Timothy 5,982]

On 1/9/2021 at 1:22 AM, johncbdg said:

Your right but wrong Tim you know as i do this has never been posted good to see your back 5,967

What is 5967?

And yes you post the same crappy footage/images over and over again.

I’d love to understand your motive. Can you tell me?

[ChrLzs 21,775]

Forgive me for not watching the video, but I saw enough from the title image, and also know this poster's history......

My brief advice would be STEP AWAY from the Photoshop effects.  I'll be back a little later to explain precisely why anyone wanting to do serious image analysis should NEVER EVER use that sort of technique in a (failed) attempt to 'improve' detail.

There are some ways to help reveal (or improve or enlarge..) details.  But there aren't many, and even the best techniques must be used carefully.

I'll be back later to expand.

[ChrLzs 21,775]

On 1/10/2021 at 10:20 PM, Timothy said:

What is 5967?

And yes you post the same crappy footage/images over and over again.

I’d love to understand your motive. Can you tell me?

I think that was your post count...  Maybe he's jealous?  He better not look at mine...

[the13bats 12,002]

Chrlzs, i know a bit of a derail of topic but

Have you ever given your opinion and run down of the patterson gimlin bigfoot hoax film, or rather the ones where so called experts claim to enlarge and enhance the film to show details that were not in the original due to lack of resolution.

It would be great.

[ChrLzs 21,775]

8 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Chrlzs, i know a bit of a derail of topic but

Have you ever given your opinion and run down of the patterson gimlin bigfoot hoax film, or rather the ones where so called experts claim to enlarge and enhance the film to show details that were not in the original due to lack of resolution.

It would be great.

Video isn't really my forte, but yes, the same principles apply...  I confess I've never really got into the Bigfoot stuff as what I've seen is, frankly, woeful.  However, as I respect your contributions to the forum greatly, I'd be happy to try and help.  Only problem is I'm lazy - can you point to either a UM thread or the footage you are referring to?

 

[Mr.United_Nations 2,860]

On 1/10/2021 at 12:20 PM, Timothy said:

What is 5967?

And yes you post the same crappy footage/images over and over again.

I’d love to understand your motive. Can you tell me?

Probably to promote his YouTube channel. If he was serious he would go back to places and see if it comes up again. I dont think he makes any attempt to investigate, I mean at least put a back story or talk to witnesses to make it more believable even if it is fake

[ChrLzs 21,775]

And here, in the next few posts, I shall give a very brief example of why you should NEVER EVER use processing techniques like "Find Edges" (which is what Photoshop calls the thing that johncbdg did....).

"Find Edges", like most Photoshop 'filters' or processes, CHANGES the image content.  It ADDs false detail and also DESTROYs detail in the original image, so you cannot distinguish what was truly in the original.  This is bad enough in itself, but when you ignorantly apply this sort of filter to an image that is compressed (like john's video file, and 95% of all images you'll find on the Interwebz), it is adding MORE false detail to the already 'damaged' file - compression also adds false detail...

Image analysis is not about playing with filters until you find something you like... you're just fooling yourself.

 

To show what I mean, here's a JPEG image, cropped from a pic of mine.  It's slightly compressed, but is still fairly high quality...  If you look really carefully, you may be able to spot the slight artefacting - look near the contrasty edge bits...

 

OK so far?  Let's now apply the same effect that john used (refer to next post...)

Edited Thursday at 11:40 AM by ChrLzs

[ChrLzs 21,775]

Here's the filtered version:

Look at all that 'garbage' that has been added - now I can pore over it and find lots of alien shapes, but all I'm doing is looking at FALSE detail that I added..

[Still Waters 51,019]

On 1/8/2021 at 2:22 PM, johncbdg said:

Your right but wrong Tim you know as i do this has never been posted 

Yes it has.