It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by seriousskeptic
I will admit to not taking the time to read all the other replies to this post.
There is one thing which "bothers" me about the photo shown.
The camera which is shown in the side mirror on the car does not appear to be aimed in a manner which would allow it to take the picture shown in the posting.
If you imagine a line thru the center of the lens and out the rear of the camera, you will notice it is reversed from the angle it should be. I do not believe this is because the image in the mirror is reversed. If the camera were aimed out toward the object it would still be aimed out of the car, not inward.
Originally posted by jritzmann
Please explain in no uncertain, or ambiguous terms, how a bag or balloon would have symmetry, on both sides and top if it is a randomly blowing object. Why would it of all things, be of a level native to the frame.
LAB color space contains all perceivable colors,
but an object displaying a symmetrical even dome on top
Originally posted by kavaron
What a load of crap again. Why only 1 picture, why no video? Today's cameras have excellent video capacities. If I saw something like this I would shoot 100 pics and record videos for as long as it stayed there.
I think that CigaretteMan is onto something and that this IS a bird.
Originally posted by dethfromabuv
reply to post by CigaretteMan
Thank you. While I acknowledge that my drawing skills weren't the greatest, it's good to know that it has convinced you, and that we're in agreement on the fact, that it was a bird.
Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
Nonsense. I showed the symmetry and consistencies in black and white (and color) marked images without much image processing whatsoever. The less you *have* to do, the better. I had to do very little to garner what I did.
So I can assume the rest of my previous questions regarding the alleged "string" will not be addressed point by point, so I'll move on. If you can see a string, you can see a hell of lot more - so where's your definition of clarity with the much larger object in question. It's not there.
In the end, LAB color modes will gain you access to subtleties of images that RGB and CMYK will not. I've employed it for a long time now - including O'Hare, which you didn't seem to have issue with at the time.
So, we'll have to agree to disagree - I've made my points and table it here.
As really there's no more for me to say - (God knows I wrote enough on my own here in the report) But since I've been accused of "ignoring": - the "ring" theory makes about as much sense to me as the goat sweat. Reflection off what? In what focal range? To what clarity? In atmospheric density, a ring refraction with all solid edges? Sorry, no dice from me on that. And if you think it explains symmetry, then perhaps you can look at a diamond ring with facets and tell me when held in random fashion, how symmetrical it is from any angle. Level to frame? Any of the other points? Doesn't work for me. If it works for you? That's great.
Tear it up folks...I think whatever you will get from this image, you will. If anyone would bother to read the report, perhaps you'll understand that this thread has gone *exactly* according to the theory I talked about. This is about as textbook as it gets. I really enjoyed reading it, and participating. It's a fascinating thing all this.
Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Jinglelord
I don't think it is a regular gull. It has silvery black wings. I suppose there could be gulls like that, just because there are none here doesn't mean they aren't elsewhere. If it was wet on the back, it could reflect light also because of the oil on the feathers. The camera could have accentuated the glare. Maybe it found someones tinfoil cap and carries it on it's back