What is this thing in the sky?

Identification of a phenomenon

A quick enhancement will give a better view of the whole scene:



Colored squares appears that are possibly artifacts from the use of a scanner.

The wall and its surroundings can clearly be defined so, we can say that there was no move of the photographer during the exposure time otherwise the whole scene would be blurry. The elongated aspect of the object is then likely due to its own move during the exposure time.

Unfortunately, as there's no metadata, I can not use the "distance/length" tool to compute distance vs size of the object.

A possibility is that it could be a chinese lantern. In order to help analysts to determine whether this is the case, we created a tool that can be used assuming that the colorspace wasn't too degraded during any post-process, if there's one.

Extracted from the methodology:

"Chinese lanterns are today one of the major sources of confusion. In order to help the analyst recognize this type of light source on a night photo/video, a specific tool has been implemented in IPACO. This tool does not produce a formal proof, but it gives an invaluable indication of the probability of an explanation being provided by the presence of a Chinese lantern.

The principle consists of designating the light source, computing the mean RGB levels of those pixels of the source that are not saturated, correcting from the sky background values around and deriving the mean chromaticity of these pixels. This mean value of the chromaticity is then displayed in the « Maxwell triangle » and compared to characteristic zones of certain types of light sources (lanterns, stars/planets, aircrafts…). These zones have been built up from a large number of night pictures of the sky showing light sources the nature of which is known, using a large variety of cameras or smartphones with different settings. It will be possible to refine these with growing exploitation of this technique.

If the mean chromaticity of the light source under study only falls within the « Lantern zone », the likely explanation is provided by it being due to a lantern. If it falls within the « Lantern zone » and also within one of the other zones, the explanation is deemed possible. Finally if it falls totally outside of the « Lantern zone », the explanation is presented as of it being unlikely."

Here's the result:



So we can not formally exclude this possibility.

Another point about the cropped/non-cropped discuss. A simple way to check this point is to divide the longest size by the shorter size of the image and to check on Google Image the existence of original images with this exact size.

Image size is 2592 x 1944. It gives a 1.33 ratio which is common for image ratio sizes. Lots of camera produce such image size and it can be check with Google Image, or in specialized sites such as dpreview in "camera review" that gives all the possible image sizes for a given camera.

The old Pentax Optio 550 for example can do 2592 x 1944 max resolution images as well as the Canon Powershot G5.
Some smartphone can produce 2592 x 1944 image sizes too. This is the case for example for the Huawei Ascend G510 or for the LG P769 (Optimus L9 T-Mobile).

a reply to: elevenaugust

The gray triangle portion in the enhanced image you presented bothers me. What would cause that? [Edit- It *looks like* the line is the top of the image, in it's original orientation.]

Can't the 2592 x 1944 image size be produced by a scanner?

IF the original image were to have been printed, rotated a bit and a portion of it scanned, couldn't that result in an image such as what was presented by the OP?

BTW, thanks for sharing your expertise in this area again. Always good to read your contributions.

originally posted by: proob4
Simple a Chinese lantern that was left over from Halloween.
Or swamp gas.

Naaa it's seagulls, or perhaps insects LOL

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
The gray triangle portion in the enhanced image you presented bothers me. What would cause that? [Edit- It *looks like* the line is the top of the image, in it's original orientation.]

Well, I really don't know. Could it be the part of a windows frame?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Can't the 2592 x 1944 image size be produced by a scanner?

IF the original image were to have been printed, rotated a bit and a portion of it scanned, couldn't that result in an image such as what was presented by the OP?

That's a good question. I do think so, but no need to scan only a portion, it can be achieved with the whole photo.

In fact the original photo image size can be preserved, depending of the settings of both the printer and the scanner. Some printers have the option "adapt image size to the frame" automatically on. If you do that and scan the print you can do whatever you want before finalize the scan, i-e apply the default size, (the original size) or any other size and dpi resolution.

The important thing to know is that the original photo size can be preserved in the metadata after the scan process.

I've done some tests using the "pro mode" with an Epson scan and it's incredible what you can do.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
BTW, thanks for sharing your expertise in this area again. Always good to read your contributions.

You're welcome!

I'd seen ball lightning before and the way the light in this photograph "traces" and blurs into the retina of the camera is much like what I'd seen but the ball lightning I'd seen was during a storm so without the weather system above I couldn't say what that could be.

a reply to: elevenaugust

hi elevenaugust, I'm the thread op and want to say thanks for your input. I did write in the op

Maybe an ats camera expert might have some input on this?

I wish you'd come along sooner rather than later!

The exif data.
Someone noticed that there was a zero where the shutter speed should have been and this has been used as a means of debunking, and because I was reluctant to provide the original that too was used to discredit the image and myself!
The zero is genuine, I've had another look at the phone and it always places a zero in that location. However, as I've said many times in this thread, If I were trying to hoax this I wouldn't have chaged a setting to zero, I'd have changed it to what people would be expecting to see, thats just common sense!

The image that you've examined is the original, however, as you've already noticed, the exif has now been changed. Why? Because exif data often has geolocation data, and I've no intention of posting such data on a public forum. How did I strip the exif? Simple, I loaded the image into photoshop and saved it again, and thats all I did! Judging by your comments I suspect you probably realised that? However, it has never been anywhere near a scanner!

No its not a chinese lantern!
I saw this object very clearly with my own eyes, its a craft, not a lantern! The software you have used to judge whether a light source is a chinese lantern has a major problem! What if other sources of light have the same signature as a chinese lantern? If that were the case that software would be wrong every time!
You have indicated that this software is still in its infancy, so maybe it might improve, but as far as I can tell its suggesting that my picture is a "possible" chinese lantern?
Well, I suggest you do a lot more testing before you start using it in public forums where its results might be taken seriously! because in this case its 100% wrong!

You've pointed out that there are squares in the original that became apparent when you processed the image, so I'd like for other peoples sake to point out that those squares can be made to appear on any picture, I can even do it to NASA images, they dont actualy exist within the image, they are created by the software thats doing the processing!

Anyways, as I said, thanks for your input. We can at least assure Raymondo that the image isn't a single point of light that was made blurred by camera movement.

Thanks

originally posted by: VoidHawk
I wish you'd come along sooner rather than later!

Hello VoidHawk! You're welcome, and unfortunately, I'm not here as often as I would like to be!

originally posted by: VoidHawk
The exif data.
Someone noticed that there was a zero where the shutter speed should have been and this has been used as a means of debunking, and because I was reluctant to provide the original that too was used to discredit the image and myself!
The zero is genuine, I've had another look at the phone and it always places a zero in that location. However, as I've said many times in this thread, If I were trying to hoax this I wouldn't have chaged a setting to zero, I'd have changed it to what people would be expecting to see, thats just common sense!

Yes, I know that and already encountered this kind of "problem" with the EXIF data. Sometimes, some smartphones do add zero in technical values (shutter speed, ISO...), and of course this is not in any way the clue of a hoax.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
The image that you've examined is the original, however, as you've already noticed, the exif has now been changed. Why? Because exif data often has geolocation data, and I've no intention of posting such data on a public forum. How did I strip the exif? Simple, I loaded the image into photoshop and saved it again, and thats all I did! Judging by your comments I suspect you probably realised that? However, it has never been anywhere near a scanner!

Ok, thank you for the information. It really looked like it comes out of a scanner, and my tests did show that it could be possible to produce such EXIF data proceeding this way. Anyway, that surely not the only way to produce this and I'm glad you cleared this up as I'm now able to do some more testings.
Now it raise up two questions:
1- Could it be possible for me to have access to the original? You can PM me for privacy concerns or directly send the photo to my mail address: onzeaoutathotmail.fr (at = @).
2- Do you remember the exact process you use in Photoshop to re-save the original image? I'm very interested in this, for my own education on how its use destroy/modify the metadata, for future references.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
No its not a chinese lantern!
I saw this object very clearly with my own eyes, its a craft, not a lantern! The software you have used to judge whether a light source is a chinese lantern has a major problem! What if other sources of light have the same signature as a chinese lantern? If that were the case that software would be wrong every time!
You have indicated that this software is still in its infancy, so maybe it might improve, but as far as I can tell its suggesting that my picture is a "possible" chinese lantern?
Well, I suggest you do a lot more testing before you start using it in public forums where its results might be taken seriously! because in this case its 100% wrong!

Yes, this is of course not a 100% proof that this is a chinese lantern, that's why we said in the assessment "possible". Actually, this is just a helping tool for the analyst. We need more original chinese lantern photos to improve the software and reduce the Maxwell triangle "lantern area". If ATS people read this, I would be thankful to them if they can give me such images.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
You've pointed out that there are squares in the original that became apparent when you processed the image, so I'd like for other peoples sake to point out that those squares can be made to appear on any picture, I can even do it to NASA images, they dont actualy exist within the image, they are created by the software thats doing the processing!

Yes, what you describes is actually the JPEG compression artifacts that produces 8x8 squares. As you re-saved the image with PS, I better understand now how it happened. The re-saving process destroy image data and as the JPEG format is a lossy process, the default compression (80% or around) rate in PS re-saving make more apparent these artificial squares.

A photo of a cat with the compression rate decreasing, and hence quality increasing, from left to right.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Anyways, as I said, thanks for your input. We can at least assure Raymondo that the image isn't a single point of light that was made blurred by camera movement.

Thanks

You're welcome. Yes, I do think that there was no or little camera movement and that the object appearance is likely due to its own move.

a reply to: elevenaugust

Hi,
Did you see the pics in this thread thread /do you have any thoughts?

originally posted by: The GUT
a reply to: Springer

Springer: What's the chance on you having some of ATS' photo experts take a look at these pics?

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: elevenaugust

Hi,
Did you see the pics in this thread thread /do you have any thoughts?

Hi,

I can take a better look at these if you're interested, but is there any other existing thread about these pictures? If no, can we create one?

I would be pleased to help in any way, but I guess that it should be better to ask to the original poster if he agree, don't you think so?

I'm not entirely sure Voidhawk,to me it seems these 'things' maybe more than just typical UFOs.Here is a link below to a video,in which there are similar anomalies captured as this one you have shown.The guy who films them has a certain technique of capturing them on film and also claims a telepathic communication of sorts.

He has amassed an enormous collection of footage,so maybe have a look at His other videos.Some suggest that they maybe biological forms yet understood (officially?) others say they maybe plasma? I do not get the impression these are craft though..whatever the case sightings are mounting up and I sense we will find out soon.
m.youtube.com...

it Even had a slight resemblance to these objects:www.ufo-blogger.com...


nice catch

Whatever it is I would say this picture is genuine whether you can tell what it is or not.

a reply to: elevenaugust

Would think the OP anticipated scrutiny when posting so please scrutinise away.

If you want to just add to the existing thread linked in my last post it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

Cheers

a reply to: elevenaugust

He won't send it to you, and he won't provide the phone model.

a reply to: VoidHawk

I agree, it is abnormally difficult to depict the size of something lie this without reference points. I have seen several UFO's that were sooo high up they were only 2-3x's bigger than a normal star and yet shot across the sky and made at least one turn before they were gone that I could never be able to suppose their size or even if they were in the atmosphere. It's crazy to see something like this and I believe you saw something amazing that you should hold of great value. It's odd that you say that it made a slow turn, but then again, I have heard such a thing between some of my close friends that keep a watch out over the sky's, across the globe. I do beleive the craft you saw wanted people t,notice, and I do believe it is bigger than you thought. Only when a craft like this is spotted, chased , or tracked, will it make it's speed obvious, especially when flying so close to ground. And even then, there is no way to tell how fast a craft is traveling so high above IMHO. Like when pilots say a craft was going 7-7.5k mph. How the hell do they know it wasn't going 6k, or 12k? Just a relative guess when dealing with something so out of the ordinary.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: elevenaugust

He won't send it to you, and he won't provide the phone model.

Well, that line sure makes me want to send in the original...NOT!

Look spooky, you've made your thoughts very clear. You want everyone passing through the thread to write it off as a hoax. Now please go away and catch some terrorists intead of wasting tax payers money posting unwanted bs on forums.

a reply to: VoidHawk

Now I'm a little confused. You said you posted the original.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

What other angle are you talking about? Again I haven't changed angles once.

And the image in the op isn't just resized, its cropped. Why are you trying to say it isn't?

I don't care that it's cropped, I just want to see the full unedited image. It is seeming more and more strange that you seem to be delaying posting it.

I'm not trying to find anything wrong with it, but you asked us to say what we think it is so the original image would be nice.

The image in the op is not cropped! Show me your evidence.

Heres the original, now please explain you false accusations about it being cropped!

Clarify please.

I asked earlier about the triangle area in the top right corner and received no reply. What is that caused by?

I also asked how a bay window plays into this. As best as can be determined through some apparent inconsistencies in your story, you were outside when you took the pic. It's not shot through a window, correct? Earlier I said I see a brick wall and some cornice work, however it also looks like it may be a rain gutter. Gutter would usually run almost level. What I see in the pic is nowhere near level and come to think of it, neither is the brick.

I use a netbook so it's easy to rotate the screen to where the dividing line between the black sky and the whatever that triangle in the top right is becomes the 'top' of the pic. The brick and gutter (?) seem to make more 'sense' when viewed according to what I think may be the orientation of the sesnor when this image was shot. Funny how that makes it look like a long exposure shot of a lantern drifting a little sideways and upward rather than, well, what and how it's been presented in this thread.

Care to comment on my observations?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

I'm pretty sure anyone coming to this thread can read it for themselves to realize nothing you just said is true...

My first post in this thread:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

Edit, NM, saw the exif data, but it seems strange that the speed says 0...even if it is set to auto it would show that. Are you showing settings from the phone or the exif data from the photo? Can you upload the original photo unedited?

My second post:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

What details are you worried to post? The model of the phone?

My 3rd post:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

It just seems extremely strange that there is no shutter listed and that ISO says 0, since that doesn't really seem like a valid setting for a camera taking a picture at night...

You blacked out two settings, one I am assuming is the phone make/model. What is the other? What is the model of the phone?

Edit: And there is actually a very easy way to tell if someone has edited the exif data. Most people don't know how to change everything they need to change.

My 4th:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

Posting the undedited image without the exif data may quell my notions, but I still find it odd you refuse to offer up the raw image with exif data.

Edit: also, you redacted two lines from the exif, not 1. What was the other line? What is the model of the phone?

My 5th, and this is my one and only reference to cropping...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

And again, it is extremely easy to catch 9 out of 10 amateurs who try to change the exif data. There is a key thing they don't change usually that gives it away.

Are you going to upload the unedited photo sans the exif data?

Edit: and not once have I said you added anything into the photo. However there is clearly a blowup in the OP indicating that is a doctored image if at least for easier viewing. How much else was cropped out?

You said none was cropped out. That was the end of it. You are the one who started to get super defensive.

Another post:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

The image in the OP is edited...I'm asking for the unedited photo...you said you would upload it...

Again, no mention of cropping, but the image in the OP is clearly edited as it has a blow up in it...

Up to this point you had answered ZERO of my questions and still had not uploaded the original photo. We still don't know what model of phone it is. We could easily see if the phone would report erroneous ISO data based on the model. The model would in no way indentify a person.

Another post:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

What other angle are you talking about? Again I haven't changed angles once.

I don't care that it's cropped, I just want to see the full unedited image. It is seeming more and more strange that you seem to be delaying posting it.

I'm not trying to find anything wrong with it, but you asked us to say what we think it is so the original image would be nice.

It wasn't until this point that you actually provided the photo. This was THREE DAYS after my initial post requesting it.

And my 2nd to last post:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: intrptr

Exactly, I don't think he realizes how he is coming off...

It looks like he's dodging/deflecting as much as he can...

Also, you still haven't provided the model of the phone.

Nowhere have you been insulted..

I just don't see why you are being so defensive. You claim to have seen this craft, but all you have is an image that appears to have image noise caused by a long exposure and a shifty camera? Do you not have other pictures of it? You took just the one? From your description it was there for a while.

So all along you have been asked for the same things, and you are acting like they were asked for at different times.

From the beginning you were asked for: Exif Data, The Original Image (Which would have contained the exif data) and another shot of the window.

You provided the Original image 3 days after the request. You chose to withhold the exif data, that is fine, so you posted data minus a phone model (which had been requested several times) and a serial #. Also, geotagging of pics is disabled by default on android, so the exif data probably does not contain GPS information. Geotagging comes into play when uploading to social media from your mobile device. It is the social media site that tags the photo with a geo tag.

Another user asked you to re-take a picture of the same window from the day time so the window can be compared to the night shot to see if the blending look of the night shot is from image noise due to exposure or just how the window looks. Again though, the shading at the top and right to me is clearly image noise from a long exposure.

Since Void apparently missed this. He still hasn't given the model of the phone nor has he taken a daylight photo of the same area.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: VoidHawk

Now I'm a little confused. You said you posted the original.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

What other angle are you talking about? Again I haven't changed angles once.

And the image in the op isn't just resized, its cropped. Why are you trying to say it isn't?

I don't care that it's cropped, I just want to see the full unedited image. It is seeming more and more strange that you seem to be delaying posting it.

I'm not trying to find anything wrong with it, but you asked us to say what we think it is so the original image would be nice.

The image in the op is not cropped! Show me your evidence.

Heres the original, now please explain you false accusations about it being cropped!

Clarify please.

I asked earlier about the triangle area in the top right corner and received no reply. What is that caused by?

I also asked how a bay window plays into this. As best as can be determined through some apparent inconsistencies in your story, you were outside when you took the pic. It's not shot through a window, correct? Earlier I said I see a brick wall and some cornice work, however it also looks like it may be a rain gutter. Gutter would usually run almost level. What I see in the pic is nowhere near level and come to think of it, neither is the brick.

I use a netbook so it's easy to rotate the screen to where the dividing line between the black sky and the whatever that triangle in the top right is becomes the 'top' of the pic. The brick and gutter (?) seem to make more 'sense' when viewed according to what I think may be the orientation of the sesnor when this image was shot. Funny how that makes it look like a long exposure shot of a lantern drifting a little sideways and upward rather than, well, what and how it's been presented in this thread.

Care to comment on my observations?

Have to say I find it most odd that you focus on the house rather than the subject of the thread!

Yes I was outside.
The triangle that you are questioning is a wall that I was leaning against when I took the photo.
I was looking almost directly upwards when the picture was taken.

Its a bay window, and what you can see is the top edge of it, there is no gutter.

You have taken the trouble to suggest there's inconsistancies in my account of this event, please clarify.

Hello VoidHawk!

My proposition to privately examine the original unmodified photo is still available. You can count on me not to reveal any details that could concern the privacy of the camera owner.

I can even sign for you a non-disclosure agreement like I've already done it in some cases.

BTW, tracing a camera owner is not that easy, especially with old and poor cellphones, moreover there's absolutely no way (I'm 100% sure) for anyone to succeed in finding the owner just with the camera model name.

Doing this will stop/discard all the inevitable (and should I say normal?) suspicion when the original photo is not given by the photographer.
Sorry to say, but up to now we can only rely on your testimony, even if I'm sure you're an honest guy (or gal?).

When I do photos analysis for any UFO group, individuals or the the French GEIPAN, I DO NOT work on non-original photo and the related case is automatically classified as "C", i-e not enough information to conclude, if not thrown in the recycle bin...

So, please, let me examine the original photo and post my conclusion here after examination and removal of all the EXIF data that could provide clues to anyone about OP's location (i-e only 3 possible: GPS, camera body number and any possible comment made in any EXIF field by the OP). You can count on me, this is absolutely an honest proposition.

Then, the discuss might quietly continue on the nature of the UFO. You definitely cannot seriously discuss the various aspect of any UFO photo/video if the authentication part is not "clear".

a reply to: elevenaugust

Hi elevenaugust.
I'm not that bothered whether people believe or disbelieve, my main purpose for posting was for those who might have seen something similar to offer their own comments. Some have and the vid posted by Charizard was more than I'd hoped for. The only difference between the craft shown in the vid and that which I saw was that I saw no lights on the bottom of the craft, otherwise it was almost identical. The witnesses were multiple police officers from three different forces!
Vid supplied by Charizard.

Direct link to vid

However, what does bother me is people who claim hoax when they have zero evidence. Those people are as dishonest as those who realy do post fakes.

Your request to see the original.
Surely the photo I have already supplied, and that included in the op, are the photos that should be examined!
If you think they have been faked then please say so, while also providing your reasoning for such a claim.
I am interested in what you think could be learned from the original that you cannot get from the full photo I have already supplied, could you please enlighten me on this?