Interesting object from AnonymousFO

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Did anyone look at the enhanced version of the image that I made?




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by blahxd67
Did anyone look at the enhanced version of the image that I made?


Where is the enhanced version



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Are any of the contributors to this thread people who've had a first, second or third kind of close encounter? Seriously. I'm not mucking about, nor intend to make a fool of anyone. I'm generating a survey, and this kind of thread is important for the questions, and my understanding of what's going on with the phenomenon. Are people who have had genuine sightings contributing to this kind of online analysis, or staying away from them? I feel if I'm compelled to ignore these kind of cases, other hardcore UFOlogists may be too, or maybe not? Help me out
edit on 21-1-2013 by markymint because: More info



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by blahxd67
My personal opinion at the moment is stuck between either a saucer, or a drone. Or possible a hoax?

Ninety-nine times out of 100 these days, these blurred saucer-shaped things turn out to be birds. The other 1 percent is hoaxes.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by blahxd67
Did anyone look at the enhanced version of the image that I made?


Where is the enhanced version


At the bottom of the web page that's been linked.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by blahxd67
My personal opinion at the moment is stuck between either a saucer, or a drone. Or possible a hoax?

Ninety-nine times out of 100 these days, these blurred saucer-shaped things turn out to be birds. The other 1 percent is hoaxes.


Can you say this is a bird though? Think about it...this person has been able to capture helicopter blades rotating...but not a bird flying. Doesn't make sense(assuming it's not a hoax).



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by markymint
Are any of the contributors to this thread people who've had a first, second or third kind of close encounter? Seriously. I'm not mucking about, nor intend to make a fool of anyone. I'm generating a survey, and this kind of thread is important for the questions, and my understanding of what's going on with the phenomenon. Are people who have had genuine sightings contributing to this kind of online analysis, or staying away from them? I feel if I'm compelled to ignore these kind of cases, other hardcore UFOlogists may be too, or maybe not? Help me out
edit on 21-1-2013 by markymint because: More info


I can say personally that I've never had a close encounter before. I have seen weird objects in the sky, but never actually seen any aliens before. I kinda want to, but at the same time, people have had emotional traumas from these experiences. Not everyone, but many have.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by blahxd67

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by blahxd67
My personal opinion at the moment is stuck between either a saucer, or a drone. Or possible a hoax?

Ninety-nine times out of 100 these days, these blurred saucer-shaped things turn out to be birds. The other 1 percent is hoaxes.


Can you say this is a bird though? Think about it...this person has been able to capture helicopter blades rotating...but not a bird flying. Doesn't make sense(assuming it's not a hoax).


It's all to do with position (distance) size of object in the picture (not actual size) and speed and direction relative to the camera, think about it if a car or plane was doing 200 miles per hour but are 300 ft away with a short exposure time you will not see the distance they have traveled because of the relative size in the picture.

But an object a few feet from the camera traveling at a fraction of the speed appears to be blurred because its relative size in the picture is larger and the apparent distance it seems to have moved is larger because it's closer to the camera.

What would also help create blur would be the object being outside the range of the depth of field of the lens as it will be out of focus to start with!

It's really simple if you think about it.
edit on 22-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by markymint
 


Speaking for myself only then generally staying away from them and I kind of agree with your earlier post.

With no wish to criticise any other posters or those that put effort into finding and investigating these types of photos I do wish that those who have obvious skills in that area would concentrate on the material that is available that shows clear structure.

Ultimately with this one if not proven to be a hoax it is unfortunately an unknown of little real value. Again not wanting to belittle any attempt to determine any photo's contents and understand the issues in not having the originals / enough data etc but if the skills to analyse then why not start here.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by markymint
 


Speaking for myself only then generally staying away from them and I kind of agree with your earlier post.

With no wish to criticise any other posters or those that put effort into finding and investigating these types of photos I do wish that those who have obvious skills in that area would concentrate on the material that is available that shows clear structure.

Ultimately with this one if not proven to be a hoax it is unfortunately an unknown of little real value. Again not wanting to belittle any attempt to determine any photo's contents and understand the issues in not having the originals / enough data etc but if the skills to analyse then why not start here.


Well lets look at the problem with starting here modern pictures taken in the DIGITAL age have EXIF data, that with other data such as DOF Calculator can help work out what are the relative positions of the objects in the photographs.

Now the simple FACT all we ever seem to see in the present day with practically every human being in the western world with a camera on them of some description are pictures of fuzzy shapes or dots of light at night, what does that make you think



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by markymint
Are any of the contributors to this thread people who've had a first, second or third kind of close encounter? Seriously. I'm not mucking about, nor intend to make a fool of anyone.


No offense, but if I have I'm not discussing it on a public web forum. Honestly, unless you're collecting huge amounts of data also ... you would be wasting your time.

I look at images like these for practice and learning, and because I find puzzles interesting. If I don't look at any picture or images because they're beneath my notice then by the time I find one I'm actually mega interested in ... I'll be rusty and have no idea where to start.


Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by markymint
 

I do wish that those who have obvious skills in that area would concentrate on the material that is available that shows clear structure.


Depends how you mean obvious skills.

I consider myself amateur in these areas. If something really amazing showed up, you can bet that persons a lot better than myself would look into such things.


Again not wanting to belittle any attempt to determine any photo's contents and understand the issues in not having the originals / enough data etc but if the skills to analyse then why not start here.


Analyzing digital images is totally different analyzing chemically processed images.

Whilst a lot of the basic maths between analog and digital photography can be quite similar, studies like this become problematic. Chemical processes don't create compression and tables the same way. So access to the actual camera used and physical negative is required. This is especially important to investigate things like neg tampering and double exposures. Photogrammetry is still possible, but the data isn't usually available to do it.

Whilst digital photographs go straight to digital ... by looking at a scan of a print, we would be adding an extra layer of obscuration to an already time consuming process.

A lot of the interesting digital ones I've looked at to my satisfaction. I don't post everything I do here really.

edit on 22-1-2013 by Pinke because: edit grammetry



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
wmd and pinke, thanks for explaining some of the differences between analysing chemically and digitally processed photos.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
wmd and pinke, thanks for explaining some of the differences between analysing chemically and digitally processed photos.



No problem and thanks for that, photography has been a hobby of mine for 30+ years went from FULLY manual SLR ie manual exposure, manual focus then wait a few days for a chance to either process the film yourself or send it away to be done.
To what I have now a modern all singing all dancing Sony SLT DSLR with more functions than I care to mention,but I still take the odd manual shot





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join