Spectacular UFO image

cant you see the reflection of light? on the body.

i call it a shimmer..

[edit on 20-3-2006 by TheLostAccount]

Look back at the diagrams pointing out what everything obviously is. There is no shimmer. Those three pictures are the same picture just zoomed in.

mythatsabigprobe LMAO
you should fuzz it up a little and repost in a few weeks as SHOCKING PIC OF UFO FORMATION high res version for only 30,000 dollars

That bird would have to be at least ten feet in size with its relation to the photogragh viewed.I would say ufo.

Bird. Bird. Bird.

This photo is actually a pretty good test of a believers "objectivity" when analyzing data. Whomever still maintains that the picture is a UFO is not qualified to judge UFO pictures! Either that, or I had a UFO poop on my car on the way in to work this morning.

Analysis of image: www.ufoevidence.org...

(Click for larger picture with visible numbers.)

1. Black eyeball sitting inside the head. One can notice a circular region of lighter color directly below and to the right showing a clearly defined jaw muscle. Darker areas are found on the left and right of the eyeball because it is shadowed from where this portion of the head is sunken into the head.

2. Black beak protruding from the head. One can clearly see the darker region comes to a point at the left. The beginning of the beak is clearly defined by the dark semi-circle region further toward the black eyeball. The beak is covered by feathers closer to the face and matches neatly with the forehead and jaw muscle.

3. Right wing protruding from the body. The edge of the wing is defined well by the Sun and the rest of the wing is relatively shadowed. The shadow here is produced by the wing on the other side (#4, #5, and #6.)

4. The beginning of the left wing protruding from the body. The sun hits the wing rather directly so color variation is caused by an actual color variation along the wing of the bird. The rest of the wing's top section can be seen at #6 and as a lining above #5.

5. The bottom portion of the left wing. The extremely dark line below the highlight confirms the wing is curved in that manner because it is a shadow. Underneath the extremely dark line there are very little details due to shadowing but seemingly random patches of dark spots indicate ruffled feathers.

6. The top of the left wing is curved downward. One can clearly see darkened vertical bands on this part of the wing showing the feathers. The shape of the left wing indicates it is 3/4th of the way through a complete flap where the wing is being raised back into the air causing the tip to be pushed downward by having no skeletal support while the middle is pulled upward by being supporting by the skeleton. Look at #5’s dark region at the bottom right and you can see the shadow of the dark feathers being cast upon the body.

7. This is the neck of the bird. The dark region shows there is a ring around the neck. The jagged edges at the right side of the dark region confirm the ring is made by a layering of dark feathers. The neck, obviously, connects with the body of the bird.

8. The ending of the wing. The top part of the wing is visible and the dark region is caused by the coloring of the bird and not by shadow. The light grey wing tapers to black at the end.

9. The end of the body is well defined by the semi-circular dark region. This shows the body has contracted in size at the end of the body. One can easily draw an oval around the body starting from the neck to this section of the body. The lighter region at the top is where there is nothing obstructing the view of the sky in the background.

10. Not much detail visible but one can clearly see the shape of the tail. If looked at from above it would appear in a pyramidal shape, /_\, and that confirms it is a tail section.

There is not much more to say about this image other than “it is a seagull.”


[edit on 20-3-2006 by megamanXplosion]

After 15 pages and numerous illustrations of avian anatomy and the image...if someone still believes its a UFO, I doubt we're going to convince them otherwise at this point...

To each his own...

Yep,... You can cite as much evidence against the "UFO" theory as you want, they will continue to believe what they want to believe. I have a feeling the original poster, and/or other "believers" are having far too much fun with the rest of us, who went through so much trouble disproving their UFO theory. 14 + pages of people shouting "it is a bird!" is really getting out of hand. If I weren't so much against "making things up" , I would post my own UFO photographs just to see who would come to believe it, not to mention try to "prove" that indeed it is a UFO. Some of the posts would certainly be an entertaining read.

Forgetting the discussion between the "its a bird" and the "its a UFO" groups, we should never forget that the JPG compression uses something called "lossy compression", and that means that some information was lost with the compression.

The JPG compression also uses the way we see colours to try to recreate the original image, but that introduces more noise in the image.

In the following pictures you can see the difference between PNG and JPG compression.

JPG


PNG


As you can see, the JPG creates a halo around the blocks of colour, and in the case of the black block it even creates two lines of a different colour under it.




So, when discussing images that use the JPG format remember that we cannot rely too much on the colours of an object in zoomed image, especially in the region of the image where there is a change of colour.


Edit: the JPG was made in Photoshop with "High (8)" quality, the best is quality is 12.

[edit on 20/3/2006 by ArMaP]

This board has it's fair share of idiots but Jenka takes the cake.

I was thinking last night about going through his posts, post by post and marking every stupid and hypocrytical thing he said*. I no longer feel I need to do this as I have come across a post of his in another thread.

I would recommend everyone who see's Jenka to be the obnoxious and arrogant fool he really is, to see his reply in this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

*EDIT: In fact, I may just do that now.



[edit on 20-3-2006 by triplesod]

That's a weather balloon. I know a weather balloon when I see one. Hell, you don't?

Originally posted by triplesod
This board has it's fair share of idiots but Jenka takes the cake.

I was thknking last night about going through his posts, post by post and marking every stupid and hypocrytical thing he said*. I no longer feel I need to do this as I have come across a post of his in another thread.

I would reccomend everyone who see's Jenka to be the obnoxious and arrogant fool he really is, to see his reply in this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

EDIT: In fact, I may just do that now.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by triplesod]

AGREED!

oh and AGREED! to this too.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
I have a feeling the original poster, and/or other "believers" are having far too much fun with the rest of us, who went through so much trouble disproving their UFO theory.

I am sure that jenka is just trolling.

[edit on 3/20/2006 by xxblackoctoberxx]

Originally posted by triplesod
This board has it's fair share of idiots but Jenka takes the cake.

I was thknking last night about going through his posts, post by post and marking every stupid and hypocrytical thing he said*. I no longer feel I need to do this as I have come across a post of his in another thread.

I would reccomend everyone who see's Jenka to be the obnoxious and arrogant fool he really is, to see his reply in this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

EDIT: In fact, I may just do that now.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by triplesod]

"interplanatary sea gull"

Here you go.

Damn that can't be real bird.
It looks too grey. Its head never tucks in during flight like that.
And it's so fat I coudl swear it was pumpin' iron...err on the juice...err on steroids.

And those wings aren't in the right position for "bird flight".

Hahahahahaha....


[edit on 20-3-2006 by mcr]

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
. I have a feeling the original poster, and/or other "believers" are having far too much fun with the rest of us,

I honestly don't think so mate. I am sure that with Jenka, what you see is what you get.


Mcr-Is your name anything to do with the city of Manchester? Mcr is an abbreviation of Manchester. Are you a Manc, or have I got my wires crossed?


p.s. I have been going through Jenka's posts, as I said I would but there are so many wrongs needing righted that it is going to take me to long to do tonight, so, if I remember and can be arsed I will carry on tommorow.

originally posted by megamanXplosion...that certainly cannot be the feet of a snow goose because snow geese legs are not that long.

Here is a picture of a white goose. The feet clearly extend beyond the tail.
Apparently, you do not know birds well enough to judge what a picture of a goose from the side would look like. What else have you made erroneous conclusions about?

And yes, I know this picture doesn't have the shape of the other one. It's a professionally shot picture of a goose in full flight, which all published pics are. Not a distant, blurry pic that wasn't even aimed at the bird.

A few misc. points
1. There is a shape that conforms to a bill, right in front of the "head". It's easy to see if you blow it up.

2. There is no bronze in the pic. It has that cast in the distant shot, once again an artifact of digital photography and file format. The close-up shows brown/black, grey, orange, and white.

3. Like I said, I can't explain the white "flash". But one camera/jpeg artifact hardly overrides the rest. I've seen stranger things in digital pics before.

4. And oh yes. I'm starting to feel like a teacher, I've repeated this so often

I certainly do not think a juvenile bird would appear as large as that object

PERSPECTIVE makes it difficult to judge the size of the object.

Nice post about the seagull, though







[edit on 3/21/2006 by eaglewingz]

It appears that my analysis was acccept without scrutiny. Upon further consideration I realize my analysis was wrong in a few instances. The perspective of light was completely wrong. I was assuming the light was coming from a region in the sky behind the camera. It became obvious to me that the Sun was setting or rising in the background because the clouds near the horizon are pinkish in color and the sky starts light blue at the bottom and ends with darker blue at the top. This means all parts that I attributed to shadowing or lighting are off and that there is hardly any lighting or shadowing on the object at all besides under the left wing facing the camera. What I thought was a shadow of the features is nothing more than dark patches of color on the body. This doesn't change the fact there is an eye, a beak, two wings, a tail, a body, and feathers but I think it does show we are perhaps too eager to accept an explanation. And just in case this paragraph might cause confusion: I am still saying it is a bird.

I noticed another small detail I thought was interesting though fairly irrelevant in discerning what the object is. At the end of the body, slightly before the contraction toward the tail, there is a hint of yellow and green coloring. The bird would be light grey with dark grey blotches, have white and black tapering along the wings, and have a hint of yellow-green at the end of its grey body. I would like to see such a bird in person--it would be very pretty.

The feet clearly extend beyond the tail.

Fair enough. The feet did not extend that far in the pictures I seen but your picture shows that they can.

1. There is a shape that conforms to a bill, right in front of the "head". It's easy to see if you blow it up.

Even after zooming the already-zoomed image by 400% and increasing the contrast there still doesn't appear to be any shape of a bill.

2. There is no bronze in the pic. It has that cast in the distant shot, once again an artifact of digital photography and file format. The close-up shows brown/black, grey, orange, and white.

It appears to have a bronze-color to me. The white on the truck, the offwhite for the side-walk, the redness of the bricks, the offwhite of the grout between the bricks, the silver of the chain-link fence, the brown on the scaffold, the red of the smashed Coca Cola can in the foreground, etc. all have the correct coloring but somehow the object in the sky, directly in the sun, isn't the color it appears to be? I'm sorry but I do not buy that explanation. The camera does not appear to be causing any miscoloration in the picture, nor the JPEG image format. While the JPEG format is lossy and colors can be slightly changed by the compression, the JPEG format will not change a bright white object to dark brown. If you look at the images comparing JPEG and PNG images posted earlier you can see that there are color deviations but only by a few hues--the white block did not turn brown. I should also point out that the amount of compression placed on the comparison image is likely more than the compression used in the photograph because objects in the photograph are rather crisp and are barely pixelated. Everything that I see points to the conclusion that the object in the sky was brown.

3. Like I said, I can't explain the white "flash". But one camera/jpeg artifact hardly overrides the rest. I've seen stranger things in digital pics before.

How could the white "flash" be caused by the camera? The camera does not appear to be using any flash (we would see shadows behind objects in the foreground that would affectively align with the camera) and it is not pointed toward the Sun (the shadows on the building show the Sun is behind and to the right of the camera) so the chances of the "flash" being caused by the camera are very slim and even slimmer when you consider the fact that the "flash" would be a circular shape like a lens flare or it would be surrounding the object in a circular manner like ( or ) because of the shape of the lens. The only other possible explanation I can think of is that the "flash" may be caused by a peice of dust floating directly in front of the camera but that would appear incredibly blurred and not nearly as well defined as the "flash" in the picture. I see no evidence that points to the camera as the cause of the "flash."

PERSPECTIVE makes it difficult to judge the size of the object.

While perspective may make it harder to accurately judge the size it does not prevent specific sizes from being checked. If this were a baby bird then it would have to be relatively close to the camera which means its details should be crisp and well defined (probably more defined than the grout between the bricks of the building.) But that does not fit the picture because the object in the picture is blurry. I've considered motion blur to describe why the object appears the way it does but the blur occurs in all directions and not a specific direction like a motion blur would. The blur is most likely caused by distance from the camera and not the speed of the object (edit begin) or is caused by someone purposefully blurring the object to try concealing the attempt to forge a UFO image (edit end). If it is a bird then it is an adult bird further away than the front of the building, a larger object further back, (edit begin) or was inserted into the picture by editing it (edit end).

[edit on 21-3-2006 by megamanXplosion]

It could be one of these.



Whatever it is, it's not of extra-terrestrial origin.

First, just a note that regardless of someone's posts...downright personal attacks are still a violation of the Terms and Conditions...so all please keep this in mind....

Next...

Yep,... You can cite as much evidence against the "UFO" theory as you want, they will continue to believe what they want to believe.

Just because this particular pic is a bird does not mean that the UFO "theory" is disproved (except perhaps in this one case). There are many explainable sightings. In fact, I'm sure most researchers would agree that over 90% of UFO sightings are probably simple misidentifications. However, it's the 10% or even 1% of truly amazing sightings, cases, etc. that really seem to point to something else going on.

Personally, I think it's healthy and good that even we "believers" can still tell a bird when we see one...but it certainly doesn't negate the truly bizarre and well-documented cases that are out there....

Many years ago my wife and I were sitting at the beach one nite. Suddenly, I saw a light out to sea traveling at an amazing speed. I pointed it out to my wife.

A fisherman's light was out at sea. I was hoping the object would pass between us and the light and it did. All I know is when it passed in front of the fisherman's light one could distinctly see an outline that appeared to be some sort of windows. YOu know lines going up, a bright spot, and another line going up.

I have been to the sea many times and never have seen anything like it. Why? The whole incident from one end of the horizon to the other end where it disappeared from sight took maybe 5 seconds.

Anyone who lives or knows the sea knows that is a tremendously vast area to cover in 5 seconds. Whenever UFO's come up I recount this story and my wife plays dumb for she doesn't want people to think she's a weirdo.

Definitely not a boat, flying sea level if aircraft. It was a true UFO.

For those that claim that of all the pictures taken of UFOs there has not been a good clean one they are fooling themselves. The various govt's of the world have many. Count on it.