I noticed almost all of you use the wrong resizing method.
When you resize an image like this, you can NOT use a "smart size" type function. You have to do a "pixel resize" type function.
A "smart size" will smoothen the pixels and give you an artificial computer generated
A "pixel resize" will keep the original pixels that were created by the camera, it will just make them bigger pixels.
Here is a "pixel resize" of the UFO.
As you can see, it preserved the actual pixels, but just made them bigger. This preserves the actual shape and size created by the camera. Looking at
the image above we can see that the right side of the UFO is darker than the left. Also, the right side of the UFO is longer than the left, if you
make a center point. Look at this illustration below:
As you can see, I have marked the horizontal parts of the UFO. The right side of the UFO seems to be longer
than the left side, because it has
the "D" section. This could possibly
mean that this object is flying from right to left
. I figured that the shutter speed of the
camera, and the speed of the UFO would give the UFO a "tail".
Next up is a negative image of the "pixel resize" method. When you use other "filters" it actually messes of the UFO, and it will turn it into a
"computer generated" image because most of the filters will change the pixels itself. So I like to just use a negative image, as all it changes is
As you can see, the UFO is not as "round" as the other "enhancements" seem to make it. The solid parts of the negative usually are the main body.
the object reflects enough color light into the camera to give it an "aurora" type appearance because of the divergence of the
light by the time it reaches the camera. So this could be why there is some green pixels on the top and bottom, that make it appear more round. Or it
could possibly be round, but I would put my money on it being more wide than tall.
Looking at the EXIF data I have found the time intervals at which the images were taken.
1: 2007:07:02 14:27:35
2: 2007:07:02 14:27:38
3: 2007:07:02 14:27:43
As you can see, it took 3 seconds to take the second shot, and then 5 seconds to take the third shot. Since the UFO only appears on the first image,
and not the second or third, it is safe to say it took 3 seconds for the UFO to get out of the view.
For fun, I did the following measurements:
the UFO is at the same distance as the back of the truck. And the back of the truck is the standard 102 inches wide. And the UFO was
flying from right to left. We can calculate that it took 3 seconds to fly 21 marks times 102 divided by 12 = 128.5 feet in 3 seconds which is about 29
Miles Per Hour.
the UFO is flying right to left at the same distance as the back of the truck. We can calculate that it took 3 seconds to fly 25
marks time 102 divided by 12 = 212.5 feet in 3 seconds which is about 48 Miles Per Hour.
the UFO is further
away from the back of the truck, then it is safe to say it is flying FASTER than 25, or 48 MPH.
the UFO is closer
from the back of the truck, then it could be flying slower that 25, or 48 MPH.
It's unidentifiable, and it appears
to be flying.
[edit on 8-9-2007 by 11 11]
[edit on 8-9-2007 by 11 11]