mysterious formations objects in the sky, page 1

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
ok - my immediate observation is that the objects do not actually intersect your ` perfect straight line ` - you have used ` best fit `

second - you claim none fall outside the straight lines - thats becaise you keep drawing new lines till all points are connected ,

That may be so. The black dot marked lines are quite perfect. The others a few pixels from touching the line. They are very exact since these are 3000x4000 images where the objects are very small (a couple of pixels large) and they still form the lines.

Here are the images:
formationobjects.rar - 66.5 Mb

reply posted on 7-12-2009 @ 09:54 AM by waveguide3

Before you can be sure these points aren't artefacts created by the CCD chip, you have to determine the 'background' reponse of the pixel array to a variety of lighting conditions. In a chip of this size there will be many pixels that are either 'hot' or 'cold' or even dead. You say there are no dead ones, but you haven't checked the default resposes by running what are known as 'darks' and 'lights'. This is a standard technique used by astrophotographers to allow the 'background' of the chip to be accounted for in the final image. Unless you do this, you cannot be sure that the spots are real or not. I'd suggest looking into the techniques used to photograph stars using CCD cameras. There are software programs that allow you to 'add/subtract' your darks and lights so what you get is what is actually there.

WG3

reply posted on 7-12-2009 @ 10:13 AM by ZombieJesus

Can you please provide the unedited pictures.

Your video is useless with all the editing and tampering you have done with it.

reply posted on 7-12-2009 @ 10:42 AM by stanlee

reply to post by maxxsee

Mate.. you're a hoaxter and nothing more. I remember your other post here www.abovetopsecret.com...
about the white UFO you drew in on some picture of trees. Although we are into an unaccepted field here.. we are not stupid... scratch that... MOST of us arent stupid. I too can create "ufo's" in pictures of the sky. Frankly I think you should be promptly removed from this site.
This guy/gal just draws images in.. not even decently, and posts them here. How do I know this? because A) when you look at them you can see blatant images that were crudely drawn in, and considering the crude manner in which they were drawn in, the surrounding "aura" is almost always a perfect sphere.. B) you can run several different filtres indepentendly or even concurrently and see a distict difference between pixellation of original image, and pixellation of edited images when zoomed in. None of the shadows line up with the light source, and thats even taking shape into consideration. THe only way this is possinle is my meshing a two dimensional image with a three dimensional original image. Or as we say.. .cut and paste, or draw.

and its not even a nice job. TFH does a far better job but atleast that bloke states he is just playing around.. people like you.. make me ill. there you got your attention.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by stanlee]

reply posted on 7-12-2009 @ 10:46 AM by jackphotohobby

reply to post by maxxsee

Starred, just to say thank-you for providing images, which already is better than a good 90% (est.) of YouTube UFO reports. My gut reaction (by that I mean I really don't know but suspect) is bugs (with an outside chance of birds). Rather than dead pixels.

I've done a cursory check to see if they're dead pixels by overlaying the images (33.jpg & 40.jpg - assuming they're original or close to original, same aspect ratio, ISO, and checking whether the dots move between pictures). In theory, unless the CCD is on its way out, any dead pixel patterns should be consistent between pictures taken at the same level of amplification (i.e. the same ISO rating) and in similar lighting. This isn't a perfect way to rule it out because the aperture and focal length changed between the two shots (aperture particularly). Dead/hot/cold pixels shouldn't be as much of a problem at ISO-50, like those shots, because in theory the pixels are far less amplified versus higher ISOs.

The reason I suspect bugs is that digital compacts have quite impressive depth of field because their sensors are quite small (although the EX-Z1200's 1/1.7" is better than most). A side effect of that is that things are in focus closer to the lens than people expect, including mm size bugs. Which is why people say they didn't see them at the time. They don't/can't. Our eyes/brain don't work that way.

I'm quite impressed with those pictures from a compact at that many megapixels. Nice shots

. No doubt Moore's law as applied to CCDs is playing a big part

.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by jackphotohobby]

reply posted on 7-12-2009 @ 11:01 AM by stanlee

Oh and dont bother downloading the images. 66.5 megs is awefully large for a couple of pictures. obviously they contain a heavier load because of all the image work done to them? better idea. why dont you post the images here in a reply. if you can post a link you can post an image. Well, that and you already posted images here so.. save us the wait, and post these images. the orriginal pictures of the sky. before you edited them

reply posted on 7-12-2009 @ 11:23 AM by jackphotohobby

reply to post by stanlee

I'm OK downloading that sort of size file because I'm on a fast connection, but one of the problems with hosting an image, like you've asked, is recompression and (sometimes, but not always) having the EXIF data stripped from the image. If it's overly recompressed and lacks EXIF data it makes it very difficult to form any opinion of the image at all.

In my experience a ~12megapixel photos with high-quality JPEG compression will be between 3.5 - 8 megabytes per picture (depending on the camera's compression and the scene). I'm guessing three of the images (12bol.jpg, 33.jpg, 40.jpg) in the RAR file were originals. Their size is consistent with 12MP JPEG pictures, and, importantly, the EXIF data is intact. The only problem with his/her files is that they've included the 'enhancements' which has bumped up the size.

So don't be too harsh. I wish everyone was so forthcoming with their original images. Regardless of his/her previous threads they deserve some credit.

reply posted on 7-12-2009 @ 12:11 PM by Majestic RNA

reply to post by maxxsee

You say "I have also filmed these fast dark objects" I looked at your footage on your YouTube channel, sorry but I personally don't think your genuine, the other picture you put up stanlee pointed out also looks fake, I would never just randomly accuse another person of hoaxing but I’ve seen nothing you have taken, be it a photo or footage that convinces me you have the real thing.

reply posted on 7-12-2009 @ 01:15 PM by remymartin

You have a quite a dusty camera there, but not as bad as mine used to be.

reply posted on 7-12-2009 @ 01:22 PM by Mr_skepticc

I believe you got some dust on your lens, or better yet scratches. Also why put this under the ufo section, is that really what you think this is, an unidentified flying object?

[edit on 7-12-2009 by Mr_skepticc]

reply posted on 7-12-2009 @ 01:47 PM by slinkey10

Originally posted by stanlee
reply to post by maxxsee

Mate.. you're a hoaxter and nothing more. I remember your other post here www.abovetopsecret.com...
about the white UFO you drew in on some picture of trees. Although we are into an unaccepted field here.. we are not stupid... scratch that... MOST of us arent stupid. I too can create "ufo's" in pictures of the sky. Frankly I think you should be promptly removed from this site.
This guy/gal just draws images in.. not even decently, and posts them here. How do I know this? because A) when you look at them you can see blatant images that were crudely drawn in, and considering the crude manner in which they were drawn in, the surrounding "aura" is almost always a perfect sphere.. B) you can run several different filtres indepentendly or even concurrently and see a distict difference between pixellation of original image, and pixellation of edited images when zoomed in. None of the shadows line up with the light source, and thats even taking shape into consideration. THe only way this is possinle is my meshing a two dimensional image with a three dimensional original image. Or as we say.. .cut and paste, or draw. and its not even a nice job. TFH does a far better job but atleast that bloke states he is just playing around.. people like you.. make me ill. there you got your attention.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by stanlee]

lol I remember that post also....

To the OP seems like you have put a lot of effort into your choice of 'warm pad' music you have on your vids..

It seems like you find something banal in photos/videos and put lots of effort(to much maybe) into post production which kind of makes it look (from a viewer point) like you have tried to hard, essentially the effect makes it look more banal imo.... just my opinion ... keep searching!!!

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 09:47 AM by maxxsee

Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
I believe you got some dust on your lens, or better yet scratches. Also why put this under the ufo section, is that really what you think this is, an unidentified flying object?

[edit on 7-12-2009 by Mr_skepticc]

It is not dust on the lens. I'm sure of it.
The seconds before taking the pictures the images are crystal clear without these objects. And yes they are flying.
They look very much like this:
www.youtube.com...
(the beginning of the clip, never mind the audio on it, the motion of the objects are identical to the ones I've filmed.)

And now they have appeared in formation aswell as you can see in the photos.
Can't say I know if there is some sort of message in them apart from the lines, but it is an interesting question. Just like the cropcircles perhaps.

To the hoax accusations, I know some ppl are just paraniod and hate ppl who believe in ufos, so scream hoax all you want, I haven't hoaxed anything. I debunked a hoax accusation but the admins of the forum don't seem to care. What more can I do..

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 09:53 AM by maxxsee

reply to post by waveguide3

There might be 2 dead pixels. But you can't see them unless you zoom the pictures A LOT. And the dead pixels don't appear in black color. Neither do they appear in the same places as the objects in the photos do.
Therefore the objects are definately not dead pixels etc.

reply posted on 8-12-2009 @ 11:02 PM by The Shrike

Perhaps this photo and a visit to the website will help strengthen your case.

tracers.8m.com...