Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 75
377
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by jritzmann
....

For instance, George Hansen had told me one time that apartment and condominiums tend to have more activity than stable single family homes.

Now, I want you to tell me why you think that is.


Well I see where that's going...
Would that imply paranormal activity in higher proportions around travel departure points, subways (maybe too routine, but they can be 'unstable' places), or particularly international airports (big trips, big changes). Especially with regard to the people who get stuck at them when flight's are delayed, stuck in a highly unstable limbo between worlds.
Ooh, hospitals...
Like in Lars von Triers The Kingdom, or Garth Marenghi's Dark Place (too radical for it's time, just now getting the recognition it deserves after its genius was suppressed).
Sorry, off topic...



Garth marenghis dark place....top show!!!!




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
BTW, I shall return later (see below) to offer some further images (and numbers and logic) to back up what I have been saying. A couple in particular will, I believe absolutely demonstrate and prove my points re:

- 'light-blue-ness' DOES NOT necessarily equate to distance haze

- blur/fuzziness can come from a multitude of sources, and unless all those sources are properly considered and the fuzziness/clarity is very clearly and unambiguously measurable, it CANNOT be used to estimate distance/fakery

I bet some folks here just can't wait for those.. But (see below) - they'll have to be very patient...

Happily (perhaps sadly for this thread) the Christmas season rapidly approacheth, and already all my time for this weekend is completely booked (yes, I have a life and family and friends) and I suspect it won't get any better.. to make matters worse I've volunteered to be the dummy who works over the break (insert violin music here), so until I take some leave probably mid January, I'm gunna be burning it at both ends, and this particular image isn't exactly high on my priorities..

I'm not after sympathy, just patience..! And it's not like anything will be changing regarding this image, nor is there any impending deadline or time limit as far as I can see, so .. chill, folks!

BTW, I intend to post several images when I get back to this, but... am I right in seeing that ATS now doesn't host images?? What the...?

*****
ADDED TEXT - Ah, I see that I can load them, by using the (Old Pictures) function. Silly (and tired) me, thinking that the word OLD and the fact it was italicised and in (brackets) meant it was no longer operating.. (sighs wearily)..
*****



Anyway - if I can't come up with a half-decent demonstration that backs up the plastic/paper bag theory, I'll gladly admit that and revise my suggestions as to what I think is most likely shown in the image. The process will help me learn new stuff, and that's my favorite pastime..


In the meantime, I await Seee and illuminatedOne's images and examples with great interest...
edit on 7-12-2012 by CHRLZ because: Added text..



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
With that said... You can learn a lot about an object and the lighting by studying the specular and diffuse highlights...



Not everyone can see whats wrong here, but a few can.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
That is true, I sent a request to Springer asking if I can have a copy of the original images and I haven't received a reply. I want to run the images through a few professional forensics software packages designed to detect inconsistencies in images and videos. If anyone has a direct download of the original images with the original EXIF data, please do message me.

To clarify a few things about my past replies:
- The sharp / focused edge of the object seems to indicate the object is close, not far. Simply because of lack of real haze.
- The blueness can be two things; the color of the object, or Rayleigh scattering.
- The observed diffuse and specular highlight shape, size, and edge falloff on the object would indicate a glossy surface, not matte.
- The color of the specular highlight seems to be in conflict with what is observed. The highlight is slightly blue which would mean the object is matte, but the highlight itself can only appear as it does if it were glossy. Or it could mean the blueness is fake Rayleigh scattering that was applied to the object and erroneously to the highlight as well.
- It's rare to have a highlight that bright, that round, with that short falloff edge, and yet not be perfectly white or yellow in the center.
edit on 7-12-2012 by Seeee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
With that said... You can learn a lot about an object and the lighting by studying the specular and diffuse highlights...



Not everyone can see whats wrong here, but a few can.


I'm sorry ..

I"m one of those that can't see what's wrong here..can you please point it out..



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I suppose examining the "highlight" might have some merit to it, except for the possibility that it might not be a highlight at all! Who says that's what it is? It might just be another lighter or different colored part of the object. If you believe it is a craft of some sort, maybe it's a _ Or something else. So just assuming the object is monochromatic and all the variations are a result of shadowing, that the white area is a highlight, and then coming up with reasons why it's not right could be an entirely misguided direction to take.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


So in order to support the theory the object is real it is OK for the "resident image analyst" to say,

"The angle of reflection and highlight on the UO match sun location at the time of shooting. " and " It also exhibits the correct shadows and lowlight reflections for an object of high reflectivity."
. But as soon as someone disagrees and says the reflection and lighting is not right, now all of a sudden it may not even be a reflection. So it's a reflection if it supports the real UFO theory, but its not a reflection if it doesn't support the real UFO theory. Sure...



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seeee
reply to post by Blue Shift
 

So in order to support the theory the object is real it is OK for the "resident image analyst" to say,

"The angle of reflection and highlight on the UO match sun location at the time of shooting. " and " It also exhibits the correct shadows and lowlight reflections for an object of high reflectivity."
. But as soon as someone disagrees and says the reflection and lighting is not right, now all of a sudden it may not even be a reflection. So it's a reflection if it supports the real UFO theory, but its not a reflection if it doesn't support the real UFO theory. Sure...

I'm not saying that either approach is valid. There are way too many assumptions being made in either case, as well as potentialities that can't be ruled out. All we have is this okay (not great) image that people are reading their expectations into. Some people see a symmetrical shape, for instance, which it is obviously not. Others see parts that are round or spherical, where there is only the slightest hint of that.

Personally, I see the object itself as blue, which would make it highly suspect, and not surprising in a country where blue and white are the predominant promotional colors. Like a UFO photographed in Washington, DC, that is red, white and blue.

I guess I just keep going back to pointing out that there will always be exceptions and possibilities that can't be ruled out when considering this a photographic object, and they'll never be resolved because all we have is the image and nothing else (except a "witness" who never saw anything), which makes the entire endeavor more than a little pointless.


edit on 7-12-2012 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
With that said... You can learn a lot about an object and the lighting by studying the specular and diffuse highlights...

Not without KNOWING the EXACT nature of reflective surface, or even the nature of the lighting at that moment...

Not everyone can see whats wrong here, but a few can.

Most folks have no idea what assumptions are being made there. Do you?
Most folks have no idea that to model a complete outdoor lighting environment it is simplistic and WRONG to try to apply a simple single light source model.
Lastly, most folks don't realise that to apply such a comparison to an image that is very obviously affected by jpeg quantisation is also invalid.

So... so far we have:
- no attempt to model the actual surface characteristics of the object
- no attempt to model the actual lighting conditions (this isn't a single light source - we don't even know if the Sun might have been behind slightly diffuse high cloud)
- no attempt to show how the blocking artefacts might affect the result
- no attempt to discuss the camera internal processing modes and how they affect the rendering of highlights (eg sensor characteristics, contrast and sharpening settings)
- no attempt to look at other areas of the image to help narrow down any of the above variables
- no attempt to show real world examples showing this analysis being proven

And of course none of these things were even mentioned (and there are more..!). To some folks, everything is simple and as long as you can post a diagram that looks as if the author knows what they are talking about, anything will do...

But as far as properly and usefully analysing an image, you first have to start with common sense and the knowledge that there are some things you CANNOT possibly model in such a way. That comes from experience, not Googling.

If you are going to claim that little set of pictures is applicable, stop handwaving about how you are the only one here who can understand this stuff, and instead prove it by addressing all the points above, and then show a real world example of how it has been proven to work. The fact that you didn't even mention any of those issues, tends to suggest something...



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Getting back on track I think. We have seen a lot of speculation by unqualified folks, but it is the qualified ones I like to hear from. I don't care of you prove or disprove anything as long as you are being honest about your work and willing to admit you don't know anything for sure.

Keep it up guys, I'm buying everyone a pizza party once this is all over.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Getting back on track I think. We have seen a lot of speculation by unqualified folks, but it is the qualified ones I like to hear from. I don't care of you prove or disprove anything as long as you are being honest about your work and willing to admit you don't know anything for sure.
Keep it up guys, I'm buying everyone a pizza party once this is all over.

Supreme with anchovies for me! But may I say this... and it may seem a bit strange as I am directing what follows at me as well as others - but I would suggest you exercise great caution before accepting anyone as 'qualified'. On a forum such as this, you are very, very unlikely to encounter anyone who has genuine qualifications in imaging forensics or photogrammetry (more about that later..). What you may be lucky enough to find are some folks who have significant scientific and analytical backgrounds, with genuine real-world experience in digital imaging/processing/analysis, and who are good at geometry/trigonometry and therefore are likely to be good at photogrammetry.

Oh wait - that's me!! {/egotistical}

So how do you, or anyone, tell who actually knows what they are talking about? Allow me to offer some advice on that... (I invite others to chime in, btw)

1. Posting images/illustrations or citing what is likely googled text and using long techy-sounding words are NOT a particularly good indication. Anyone can do that and sound impressive, especially to an uninformed audience (and most folks are not well-informed on how to analyse an image). Pretenders will also often say that this stuff is too complex for others to understand...

2. Engaging with the readers IS a good indication. If the 'expert' is happy to discuss, elaborate, simplify or defend their words with examples, debate and discussion, then chances are that they are confident in their information and so unafraid of being exposed as a pretender. If they avoid topics, or don't want to talk about claims they have made.. beware.

3. Image analysis isn't simple. Neither is the real world - even the simplest of scenes can be quite complex. That means that anything 'unusual' will often be extraordinarily difficult or impossible to analyse, and require much consideration of every possible contributing factor. If the 'expert' comes forward with a 'simple' solution and seems to be dismissing / completely ignoring other possibilities.. or, if they make a claim using impressive looking words or pictures but refuse to show how they have used that technique before in a real situation.. again, beware.

4. Note that even experts sometimes get it wrong (not often..!) but when they do, how they handle it can be most enlightening - if they immediately admit the error and thank the person who corrected them, that's a good sign. If they cannot utter those terrifying words "Sorry, I made a mistake" even after absolute proof has been shown, then you are almost certainly talking to a pretender.

5. Finally, if the 'expert' is willing to actually take some supporting images themselves or show their own processing in proper detail (rather than just link to googled stuff) that's a good sign.. But refer back to point 3...

So why won't you find many/any genuine image analysts on forums? Well, they get paid to do this stuff properly and are in high demand, and they report back to professional organisations so are not having to deal with multiple ill-informed questions oft from folks with a biased view who don't like their analyses..

Anyway, if someone claims to be qualified.. simply ask them for details of their formal training in Imaging, Forensics or Photogrammetry. Dates, courses completed, Institutions, thanks.

If they just claim to be doing it 'professionally' without qual's, ask about their background.. As for me:
- I don't have formal qualifications in I, F or G, but..
- I spent a significant portion of my worklife in commercial photography and was a very early adopter of digital imaging
- Because of that, I ended up teaching Photography, then Digital Imaging and Editing (Photoshop) right up to advanced levels for many years (yes, I'm old..)
- I also have a lot of background in the sciences (I used to manage a marine research centre in Southern Australia, and was involved in all sorts of analysis including photogrammetry, back when it was almost unheard of..)

I spend a lot of time nowadays doing very wide stitched panoramas (anyone who knows about those will understand that photogrammetry is an essential skill..)
- I do a lot of this type of work (unpaid/hobby) in fields as far flung as ufology, marine, sky/star and moon mapping, SOHO/Stereo solar imagery, Apollo imagery, you name it..

I'm happy to back all that up (and have proven it to moderators at other forums), but I hope my words examples, explanations and willingness to engage and back up my claims, is enough for folks to judge...



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
As soon as ATS stops hording the original untouched images, and sends them to people who request, I will continue to explain my findings in a clear manner so that some of you could understand some advanced concepts I was hardly touching the surface of. Until then, I am not going to waste my time writing another comment because it's pointless trying to debate about a lossy interpolated and compressed image.

There are very few reasons to not upload the original untouched images for all to see. One is to protect copyright in order to protect it's monetary value. If there was no motive to make money off this hoax, then the "shooter" should be willing to put the image in public domain for all to study. Since they are unwilling to do so, that means they are trying to gain from this.


Originally posted by CHRLZ
{/egotistical}


You should have put that at the very end of your post.
edit on 9-12-2012 by Seeee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seeee


Originally posted by CHRLZ
{/egotistical}



You should have put that at the very end of your post.
edit on 9-12-2012 by Seeee because: (no reason given)


Did you feel his rational and reasoned appeal to caution and careful judgement somehow threatened your integrity as an 'expert'?
Nasty.
And aren't the original images available to be emailed? They were in the beginning.
edit on 9-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by delusion
 


Rational? Not even close.

Most of his points are irrational prejudice remarks. On 1, he actually tried to claim, as a paraphrase, "if someone posts images and illustrations, and uses big words, they are probably not an expert." That is complete idiocy. On 2, he thinks if someone doesn't reply instantly, or want to rush to an explanation right away, or have time to go into detail about every single remark, they must not be an expert. That is just stupid. Some experts just don't have time to teach the basics or advanced concepts to every single person that doesn't understand, so they point you in a direction and expect you to learn on your own why they pointed in that direction. The rest of his points are just fluff.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see his entire post is formed as an insult to certain people on this forum. The rest of it is just ego stroking.
edit on 9-12-2012 by illuminated0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
As an aside, I haven't asked for a copy of the original image...

Why not? I'm glad you asked..


1. As I've said, I don't see anything particularly compelling in the image or EXIF or the description of how it came to be.

2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original is a jpeg. If that's the case, then it may be of slightly better quality.. but is *still* a lossily compressed and compromised image. Even if it was raw, there are still multiple variables that will affect its 'accuracy' (eg sensor characteristics, in-camera processing / settings). This is a very good compact camera, but it *is* still a compact, with the fundamental limitations of small sensors and small zoom lenses.

3. There are simply way too many unknowns regarding the nature of the object (if it exists), namely its distance from the camera, its color, brightness, opacity, reflectivity, shape and texture.. And then there's the unknowns of the lighting - how much cloud, was any of it over the Sun, how much haze, etc..

While there are some things that we can vaguely infer from the nature of those captured pixels... the error ranges are huge and the small advantage of getting back to the original image will not help significantly, imo. Anyway, I'm happy to see what others can put up for scrutiny - and I would simply suggest that if you haven't done this sort of analysis *successfully* before, and can thereby back up your claims, then ... be ready for a bit of lively debate.

Note that I still intend to supply some images of 'similar' plastic bags, but that may have to wait till after Xmas as there are quite a few logistical issues to do it properly/usefully. More about that later...



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
On 1, he actually tried to claim, as a paraphrase, "if someone posts images and illustrations, and uses big words, they are probably not an expert." That is complete idiocy.

Yes, that would be idiocy if it was what I had said. Which raises the obvious question - WHY DIDN'T YOU SIMPLY QUOTE ME?

Why did you need to paraphrase? I mean surely you didn't want to misrepresent what I said, which was:

Posting images/illustrations or citing what is likely googled text and using long techy-sounding words are NOT a particularly good indication. Anyone can do that and sound impressive, especially to an uninformed audience (and most folks are not well-informed on how to analyse an image).

That's quite different to what you 'paraphrased'.. And I stand by it.


The rest of his points are just fluff.

Oh, OK. You couldn't be a little more specific?


If there is anything where I've made an error or misled, please be sure and quote it properly in context, thanks.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
As an aside, I haven't asked for a copy of the original image...

Why not? I'm glad you asked..



....because you are not a professional image analyst?


Originally posted by CHRLZ
1. As I've said, I don't see anything particularly compelling in the image or EXIF or the description of how it came to be.

2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original is a jpeg. If that's the case, then it may be of slightly better quality.. but is *still* a lossily compressed and compromised image. Even if it was raw, there are still multiple variables that will affect its 'accuracy' (eg sensor characteristics, in-camera processing / settings). This is a very good compact camera, but it *is* still a compact, with the fundamental limitations of small sensors and small zoom lenses.


According to Springer, they scaled down the image (which is lossy interpolation), and then lossy compressed it afterwards into JPG to save it again, all in order to reduce file size. Technically you didn't even see the original image. You saw a computer generated 2nd generation JPG version of the original.

The particular camera used is a Canon PowerShot S100. It had two modes, JPG and RAW. It is unfortunate that the "shooter" had the camera in JPG Mode. JPG Mode is a convenience to hoaxers because it makes it easier to blame compression for any mistakes they might make adding a fake UFO to the image. Hoaxers actually use JPG compression to their advantage, to let the lossy compression hide certain types of mistakes, and make their composite compression to match with the rest of the images compression.


Originally posted by CHRLZ
3. There are simply way too many unknowns regarding the nature of the object (if it exists), namely its distance from the camera, its color, brightness, opacity, reflectivity, shape and texture.. And then there's the unknowns of the lighting - how much cloud, was any of it over the Sun, how much haze, etc..


Some mistakes with lighting can be detected without knowing a majority of the environment factors. Bad lighting is the most common way to detect fake images.


Originally posted by CHRLZ
While there are some things that we can vaguely infer from the nature of those captured pixels... the error ranges are huge and the small advantage of getting back to the original image will not help significantly, imo. Anyway, I'm happy to see what others can put up for scrutiny - and I would simply suggest that if you haven't done this sort of analysis *successfully* before, and can thereby back up your claims, then ... be ready for a bit of lively debate.


Again, from what I read, the images were scaled down (lossy interpolated), and then saved as JPGs again (lossy compression), and they were originally JPGs so it was 3 iterations of lossy compressions. The original JPG should have quite a bit more detail where it counts (around the edges).

If any of have received the originals, or I somehow missed a link already posted, please send me a link. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
On 1, he actually tried to claim, as a paraphrase, "if someone posts images and illustrations, and uses big words, they are probably not an expert." That is complete idiocy.

Yes, that would be idiocy if it was what I had said. Which raises the obvious question - WHY DIDN'T YOU SIMPLY QUOTE ME?

Why did you need to paraphrase? I mean surely you didn't want to misrepresent what I said, which was:

Posting images/illustrations or citing what is likely googled text and using long techy-sounding words are NOT a particularly good indication. Anyone can do that and sound impressive, especially to an uninformed audience (and most folks are not well-informed on how to analyse an image).

That's quite different to what you 'paraphrased'.. And I stand by it.


How is quoting it different?? You are basically implying that if someone uses long (big) tech-sounding words, or uses images or illustrations, they might not be an expert.

Jeff Ritzmann posted images and illustrations, and used some long words, and things that can be googled. So, it proves your post is pure idiocy.

You are obviously talking out of your rear, and when someone calls you out on it, you talk out of your rear some more to cover your asinine remarks.
edit on 9-12-2012 by illuminated0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
You are basically implying that if someone uses long (big) tech-sounding words, use images or illustration, they might not be an expert.

No. I'm 'basically implying' that it ISN'T a particularly good indication. That's why I SAID that, rather than the words you wish I had said. Please read it again. And I then clearly outlined the things that ARE a good indication - BACKING UP THEIR CLAIMS is one of them. So now, would you like to back up your claim about the supposed specular highlight? You could start by addressing the issues I raised - here they are again:
1. How have you modelled the actual surface characteristics of the object?
2. How have you modelled the actual lighting conditions (this isn't a single light source - we don't even know if the Sun might have been behind slightly diffuse high cloud)?
3. How have you taken into account the blocking artefacts (aka jpeg compression/quantisation) affecting the result?
4. How have you characterised the camera internal processing modes and how they affect the rendering of highlights (eg sensor characteristics, contrast and sharpening settings, dynamic range)
5. How have you looked at other areas of the image to help narrow down any of the above variables - are there any completely 'blocked' highlights elsewhere, and what does that tell you?
6. Lastly and most importantly - provide a real world example of this analysis being proven
Maybe I'm being a little over the top here, but the point is that you didn't state a single assumption when you posted those diagrams, and yet there are MANY MANY assumptions and an absolutely HUGE error range, if you were to try to work it out properly. And why didn't you simply make your point? Be specific, what is your claim about the bright area? Are you claiming that it is direct evidence of a hoax?


Jeff Ritzmann posted images and illustrations, and used some long words. So, it proves your post is pure idiocy.

And yet, he got some of it wrong, like the bit about distance haze. Or do you wish to argue that, as well? I'd be careful if you do, as some of the images I will be posting will show a bright white-with-blue-highlights plastic bag, slightly out of focus, at reasonably close range. Will the bluish white color and slight fuzziness be from distance haze? (Hint - no)

Anyway, enough talk - when will we see your analysis of that specular highlight? Please follow it through, without this sort of stuff:

Not everyone can see whats wrong here, but a few can.

Yes, some of us just might be able to follow you. Or even correct you..
edit on 9-12-2012 by CHRLZ because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join