It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paris UFO Clear Daylight Photo

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Here is excellent photo of the Paris UFO sighting :-

files.abovetopsecret.com...


"My female companion and I were vacationing in Paris and decided to go to the Sacre Coeur cathedral, which is up on a hill and provides a nice panoramic view of Paris. A few minutes before, I had commented that I had not seen any planes flying over Paris while we were there. When I took the shot, I saw no........."

Full report here:-

ufoclearinghouse.webs.com...




posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
bird - most likely of the Dove family. It could possibly be a sparrow though but whether it's unladen, European or African remains a mystery.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Hmmmm

A quite large "ufo" flying over head and no one on the ground seems to be interested enough in looking up.




posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
IMO, it looks like a bird in flight, with its wings along the side of the body. There is some motion blur, which can be seen easily by looking at other objects in the photos. Nothing in the photo is crisp and clear.

Properly enlarged:




Usually when people make the claim "I never saw it when the photo was taken" is because it is a bird flying by quickly.

For comparison purposes:



[edit on December 31st 2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TXRabbit
bird - most likely of the Dove family. It could possibly be a sparrow though but whether it's unladen, European or African remains a mystery.



So, you're saying it's not possible to determine it's velocity w/out those parameters?


Just glad you're not suggesting that coconuts migrate.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Its definitely a bird IMO

No UFO here but nice pic though



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 

Holy debunkadunk Miss officer! Great job!



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
this one looks like a bird to me...



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   


It could possibly be a sparrow though but whether it's unladen, European or African remains a mystery.
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


A Monty Python Reference! I could kiss you!!!!

Or perhaps just far in your general direction.

On topic: I go with the bird explanation. Makes the most sense.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I lived next to the spot you took your picture from, so I have a clear image of where you were standing.
However, the contrast between the clouds and the UFO is too strange for me. I'd vote for a fake.
sorry



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
IMO, it looks like a bird in flight, with its wings along the side of the body. There is some motion blur, which can be seen easily by looking at other objects in the photos. Nothing in the photo is crisp and clear.

Properly enlarged:




Usually when people make the claim "I never saw it when the photo was taken" is because it is a bird flying by quickly.

For comparison purposes:



[edit on December 31st 2009 by greeneyedleo]





There is a method use to size objects in pictures that use objects that are are at the same distance to the relevant object by it's pixel count at hi magnification.

If you were to use this method you would come to the conclusion that this bird as you see it is over 10 feet high and close to 30 feet long, I wonder what kind of bird what would be!

Thats just an approximation a more detailed analysis would need to be done to get a acuter size.

Nice




posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by marker
 


Please tell us in detail how you come to this conclusion that if it was a bird, it would be 10'x30' in size. I would love to learn something new.

For I believe it is impossible to judge exactly the distance of the bird. More than likely, IMO, it is close to the camera, thus the reason it appears to be huge in relations to the other objects in the photo.


[edit on December 31st 2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 



A Pixel-Weighting Method for Discriminating Objects of Different Sizes in an Image Captured from a Single Camera
Mookyung Park; Namsu Moon; Sangrim Ryu; Jeongpyo Kong; Yongjin Lee; Wangjin Mun
Computer and Robot Vision, 2006. The 3rd Canadian Conference on
Volume , Issue , 07-09 June 2006 Page(s): 36 - 36
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/CRV.2006.6
Summary: A novel method of pixel-weighting is proposed to calculate the size of a detected object in an image captured using a single camera. The calculated object size does not vary significantly regardless of the location of the object in an image, which allows it to be effectively utilized in a vision-based surveillance sensing algorithm as a meaningful feature for discriminating human intruders from other objects. Experimental results show the feasibility of the proposed method.


It ls not perfect but the size of the object compared to it's so roundings and the distances to other objects just say that it is bigger than a bird.

As to what I don't know!



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by marker
 


Thanks. But that does not show us how you came to your conclusion that the bird would be 30 feet long.

I really do not see how it could be anything but a bird. The object is probably close to the camera (a I said before). We see photos like this all the time - they are all repeats. Same type of image, different location.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by marker
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 



A Pixel-Weighting Method for Discriminating Objects of Different Sizes in an Image Captured from a Single Camera
Mookyung Park; Namsu Moon; Sangrim Ryu; Jeongpyo Kong; Yongjin Lee; Wangjin Mun
Computer and Robot Vision, 2006. The 3rd Canadian Conference on
Volume , Issue , 07-09 June 2006 Page(s): 36 - 36
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/CRV.2006.6
Summary: A novel method of pixel-weighting is proposed to calculate the size of a detected object in an image captured using a single camera. The calculated object size does not vary significantly regardless of the location of the object in an image, which allows it to be effectively utilized in a vision-based surveillance sensing algorithm as a meaningful feature for discriminating human intruders from other objects. Experimental results show the feasibility of the proposed method.


It ls not perfect but the size of the object compared to it's so roundings and the distances to other objects just say that it is bigger than a bird.

As to what I don't know!

This makes no sense. An object farther away may only be 5 pixels long while something up close could be 30 pixels long.

Here are two parts of that picture that are both at the same resolution/pixels per inch. The length of the bird as I have shown is about 40 pixels. The width of the woman's head is about 15 pixels.

Without knowing the distance the bird is from the camera, how can you possibly discern the size of the bird? If the bird and woman were at the same distance from the camera (and I'm not saying they were), and the bird is 30 feet long, then the woman's head would be over 11 feet wide.


I think the bird is close to the camera -- and a bit closer than the woman.

[edit on 12/31/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by marker
 

G'day marker


I went to the patent:

www.faqs.org...

I read the abstract:



Abstract:

A home intelligent service robot for recognizing a user and following the motion of a user and a method thereof are provided. The home intelligent service robot includes a driver, a vision processor, and a robot controller. The driver moves an intelligent service robot according to an input moving instruction. The vision processor captures images through at least two or more cameras in response to a capturing instruction for following a target object, minimizes the information amount of the captured image, and discriminates objects in the image into the target object and obstacles. The robot controller provides the capturing instruction for following the target object in a direction of collecting instruction information to the vision processor when the instruction information is collected from outside, and controls the intelligent service robot to follow and move the target object while avoiding obstacles based on the discriminating information from the vision processor.

Read more: www.faqs.org...


I read the claims:



2. The intelligent service robot according to claim 1, wherein the vision processor includes:a stereo camera unit for collecting image information captured from the camera;an input image preprocessor for correcting the image information by performing an image preprocess on the collected image information from the stereo camera unit through a predetermined image processing scheme;a stereo matching unit for creating a disparity map by matching corresponding regions in the corrected images as one image; andan image postprocessor for discriminating different objects based on the disparity map after removing noise of the disparity map, extracting outlines of the discriminated objects using edge information of an original image, and identifying the target object and the obstacle based on the extracted outlines.


The method to which you refer appears to require 2 cameras & specific preparatory & processing requirements.

It doesn't appear to be appropriate for a simple picture such as the one posted by the op.

What do you think?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

Yes -- I agree it could be done with 2 cameras. Two points of view are required for depth perception. One camera is not enough to discern distance.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

Yes -- I agree it could be done with 2 cameras. Two points of view are required for depth perception. One camera is not enough to discern distance.

G'day Soylent Green Is People

As I think about it, I wonder if anybody has tried to write a "distance hazing" algorithm? The analogy I have in mind is the manner in which you can purchase tissue differentiation algorithms for computer aided medical diagnosis.

As I think about it again, I guess atmospheric conditions would make that too difficult.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

That is interesting, although I would think that there may be different "local" weather conditions at different distances -- for example, fog may may heavier in one location than it is only 100 meters away from another location.

There may be too may variables involved to write an algorithm that is always accurate.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Thats clearely some sort of military jet. You can see the wings and the nose of the jet very clearely.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join