But... you're editing those images. You're editing them until you find something you're happy with. Yes, it looks like a UFO... but that's not the
original image. Instead of zooming in and reducing quality and parsing colour filters, take a look at the original image. You can't make a good guess
on a manipulated image as to what the original looked like.
By mikesingh
Ecto, that was fairly simple. I just re-adjusted the size of the pic by increasing the pixel count. That's it!
By increasing the pixel count... where do the extra pixels come from? They come from the program trying to find a happy medium between surrounding
pixels that'll fit in with the image. So in effect, you're putting in pixels that never existed. Zoom in with a program that doesn't distort
pixels, such as paint (bad example, but it shows individual pixels).
By mikesingh
According to Lizz Edwards: "I am still amazed that NASA says that this is a CCD glitch.
After 15 months of examining these films how can a glitch be so constant?"
...Because unless you doctored the image afterwards, or the physical photo itself degrades, a photograph won't change itself years down the track. If
this person meant 15 years, and this glitch still occurs, I would like to ask the person if they have any experience in CCD photography in space, and
what they would like to suggest to remove the glitches in a very unpredictable environment.
FiFtEeN: I had a gander at those pics, and this is what I have to say.
1. I think it's quite cool, actually. Looks like a moth in space.
Could very well be a glitch, but there's no size reference as to how big it is.
It could be one metre from the camera and be a sort of space-moth thing, or it could be lightyears away and be totally immense.
2. Could be a glitch. We don't know what caused that to happen, so it makes no sense to speculate and form a conclusion on limited knowledge.
3. Looks to me to be consistent with that horizontal bleeding.
4. Probably the same as above, just on a more drastic level.
5. Nothing out of the ordinary there.
6. It's obvious in the top left corner that it's bled horizontally. To what the big thing down the bottom is, no idea.
7. Same picture as before.
8. Same image again? But that "ace of spades" looks cool. No idea what that is.
9. I'm assuming you mean that large column of flare (I assume) down the bottom. That looks bloody cool, but I wouldn't discount it more than
something such as too much light intensity. There's circles within it overlapping, how cool.
10. I can't see anything?
Those are just my opinions of what I've read about NASA's explanations. I agree that there's something other than us out there, but many of these
photos are pure speculation on something many people know next to nothing about, including myself... I can't in my right mind say any of them are
spaceships or whatnot. I hope I offered the other side of the coin.
I have to say it... but I wish people would stop manipulating and doctoring images in order to prove something. These "filters" don't enhance the
image. They destroy it's original integrity, and you have a new image - something you can't possibly base off the original unless you
knew
exactly what the image was before hand - which is not in this case.
It's the same as me, trying to BS my way through a university essay: more obscure than is needed, overinflated size, and anything I want it to be.
