Hi everyone,

First, someone have to explain how the wings can be blurry with a 1/400 sec shutter speed, knowing that the average wing frequency of a flying pigeon is
2 beats per seconds ?

Then, let's compare, no empirical data here but still, look at the difference :



and now our "bird" :



It is totally different. I looked at a lot of "blurfos" photos and none of them have this "triangle" characteristic.

I am sorry Jeff but you did not convince me, you are saying that you have much better photos and I would sure like to see an exemple, just one daytime UFO photo would be nice. Thanks.

Peace,
Europa


[edit on 30-3-2008 by Europa733]

Originally posted by Europa733

I am sorry Jeff but you did not convince me, you are saying that you have much better photos and I would sure like to see an exemple, just one daytime UFO photo would be nice. Thanks.

I'm not here to convince you. You asked my opinion and I gave it. Instead what I have gotten back is the typical nastiness I'm accustomed to getting around here when I say that there's nothing anomalous about a certain photo.

No one here EVER said anyone else wasn't "educated". But, I have 2 decades of UFO work and analysis and I don't think many around here can say that. I have seen thousands of photos in these years, and I grow ever tired of these non descript blurry images that a skeptic will beat your behind with...every...single...time.

It is a huge, waste of time. You fellas want to go thru it, help yourselves. I guess I'm becoming a lot more critical of what a good UFO shot is, hey 10 years ago "lights in the sky" videos intrigued me, until you realize they could be anything. The years will make you see that these types are hugely worthless to showing the UFO reality.

I'm not here to validate photos. I'm here to look for validity that support the UFO issue. This one, does not. Until you guys reach that point of understanding and seeing the bigger picture, I'm always going to be the "jerk", and thats fine because I'm now pretty used to it. People get emotionally attached to a shot, and thats what happens when you don't agree.

I wouldn't stand by this photo, as I said, there's simply not enough to go on for a UFO answer, and more to go on with a bird. If anyone wants to champion this photo, help yourselves. Make sure you use your real name and not some anonymous screen name.

And again, if you're married to some photo that has some sort of preconceived answer you're hoping for because it's going to validate the UFO issue for you, don't ask me to look at it. I'd rather stay with cases that are laid wide open to scrutiny for me, then garner the ire of those who lay their desire of the brass ring on one blurry internet photo.

Like I said, at this point I have to pick my battles, this isn't one I'm choosing to go on with. You guys have at it.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Until you guys reach that point of understanding and seeing the bigger picture, I'm always going to be the "jerk", and thats fine because I'm now pretty used to it. People get emotionally attached to a shot, and thats what happens when you don't agree.

Well it appears you definitely have time to hone and massage your ego while assessing the "big picture" which apparently you have a grasp of much more then all of us here. Thank you for letting us know that...

And trust me man; I don't write for a conspiracy theory message board so I think the attachment part lies more on your side, especially seeing how quick you've been to point at your laurels.

I have posed a legitimate scientific question that has thus far gone unanswered and demonstrated as repeatable, even by numerous photographers. So yeah...who are the one's being more impartial and scientific again?

I'm not saying you have to agree with it being a saucer or whatever. I'm just saying there is no way to say that it is a saucer with any more certainty then one can say it's a bird in flight based on the apparent evidence.

But you did give your opinion, so thank you. We'll keep researching and add it to the "anomaly/coincidence" files... Next case anyone?

Originally posted by Balez
If that triangular shape is from the wing, as it goes up(?) why does the shadow stretch further away from the object, than what the reach of the wing is, as the bottom of this shadow is below the bird?
And also, if there happened to be two beats from the wing, should we not also see a dual shadow covering it or a very blurred motion instead of a shadow?

Sorry I missed this. The facing wing is also blurred by motion (motion elongates the area). The tip of the triangle isnt the wing coming up, it's the more constant (or less movement) area of the wing (pivot) being seen.

The shadow is not a shadow, but high speed blurring of the facing wing, with much more dark area exposed, then the underside of the wing which is lighter and therefore not easily seen against the light sky.

I know this wont matter to you, but I thought I'd clarify.

Ok? All done.

Originally posted by jritzmann

I've received several emails from the members here saying that you guys are essentially hell bent on your own outcome and wont cease til someone gives you the answer you want. So as I said, have at it...keep looking long enough and maybe you'll find one who'll tell you what you want to hear.

Hi Jeff,

I'm gonna tell you what is the problem since you (they) do not seem to understand.

Shakesbeer and I have asked you a couple of simple questions that you never answered. Why ? On top of that, you kept saying that you did not have spare time to work on this case.

So it is NOT because you said it is a BIRD. Let's be honest.
(my hypo' is that it might be an insect anyway)

I'll ask you one last question, why are the wings almost invisible with a 1/400
sec shutter speed ? (assuming it is a bird) You never talked about this aspect, first thing you should have done to back up your claim & opinion, isn't it ?

Now if you still think that we are hell bent, that is fine with me because I know I am not, I just want my questions answered and not some argumentum ad verecundiam instead !

Peace,
Europa


[edit on 31-3-2008 by Europa733]

IMHO, I don't think it is a bird. I have examined the image as well and to me it shows signs of photoshop work or another similar program maybe acdsee since the file was modified using acdsee almost a year after the creation. If you blow up the image to see individual pixels you will notice jpeg fragments that do not match the rest of the image. This part of the image has been superimposed over the rest of the image. The portion that is in question has been intentionally blurred it is not motion blur nor camera blur but rather editing blur.

Want to create a ufo photo simply cut and paste a ufo looking object into an image blur the object maybe lower the opacity then save it as jpeg with a high compression factor to help hide your editing.

Want a true examination send the original file before it has even touched another program. Additionally if your are going to try and capture photos of ufo's...... shoot in tiff format so that your image is not distorted by the jpeg compression.

Originally posted by Shakesbeer
That statement's got me sold! That definitely shows your professionalism as much as your last posts have.

How long exactly do you think I'm going to take your bullsh!t? I'm just wondering. You came to ME...remember?

You got what you asked for, my opinion. You dont like it, go elsewhere. Any more and I'll tell you where to go.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by jritzmann]

The thing about being anonymous online is that people will type things that they would NEVER say to someone's face in the REAL world.

Last week, Jeff asked my opinion regarding this image, and it took me about 5 seconds to realize that it was nothing to write home about. Some of you come up here to his thread, and ask him for AN OPINION. He doesn't tell you what you WANT to hear, so you give him a hard time about it. Why? Jeff is someone who, like me, would LOVE to see some indisputable UFO photos. Even so, what exactly do you think you'll have when those photos appear - smoking gun evidence? Of WHAT, exactly? A good, clear UFO photo does NOT tell you:

• Anything about what the object is made of
• Where it came from
• Who is piloting it
• What it's doing here

So what do you think a good photo will do for ya? Help you "believe" in UFOs? For those of us who have seen them, we need NO proof that they exist. For those who refuse to "believe" in them, the clearest photo in the world will NOT change their minds. For those who are on the fence, see the bullet list above.

No, it seems that, based on the tone of the messages to Jeff, that many of you have some sort of issue with his expertise, and want to pump yourselves up at his expense. Well, I'm telling you this, the photo you're salivating over is crap, it's a bird, and regardless of what you WANT it to be, it's nothing paranormal. That's an EXPERT opinion, I paid my dues, wrote the books, worked on the movies, analyzed enough images, and seen enough genuine UFOs to know that this image is nothing to get excited about. You want to debate it? Let's see your imaging credentials, otherwise, your opinion is just that - your opinion. To this of us with significant imaging knowledge and experience, your opinion is worth squat.

Class dismissed.

dB

Oh My God......

I cant believe that this thread is still active....... its a bird people ...nothing more nothing less.

And its also something that the OP's posted elsewhere (he posted the link in the first couple of posts !!) ..... so two threads for the same thing .....

its a ..... B I R D

my 2 cents