Flying Saucer Photographed - Santee, California May 22, 2013 - QUALITY

Originally posted by smarterthanyou
why do photos get so much attention when good UFO videos are a) more prevalent b) harder to fake ?

I disagree. I don't know of any "good" UFO videos that don't look fake. Most of the "real" ones are just blurry lights in the sky that could be anything. Have you ever seen a UFO video that doesn't look tampered with that clearly and distinctly shows a flying saucer approaching from a distance, hovering overhead, landing, and having somebody or something get out of it? Nope. Never. Now, THAT would be a good UFO video.

Otherwise, people tend to latch onto blurry, indistinct images because it allows them to fill in the gaps with their imaginations.

But the bottom line is that an image of any kind, still or video, doesn't have much value by itself because it doesn't explain anything or add anything to the discussion. Unless there are multiple images of the same thing from different, non-anonymous people, it's just a curiosity. Even then it's not worth a lot unless some kind of physical, testable object can be linked by chain of evidence directly to the UFO. There are different levels of proof. Images by themselves are only about a half-step up from an unverifiable anecdote.

Originally posted by CigaretteMan
Flying Saucer Photographed - Santee, California May 22, 2013 - QUALITY

You meant LOW QUALITY, right?

Have you tried to contact the witness and ask for a copy of the original file? It might show more than the tiny pics posted on the 10News site, or the useless Youtube video she uploaded.

ElHenry

It is DEFINITELY not a hoax...I do not have the skills to make it anything than what you see. The pics taken were to update the barn photos for our logo and nothing more. I noticed nothing but a speck on the LCD screen of my camera after the shot, and only realized something was odd when I zoomed in on it after downloading the images. Everyone who knows me knows I do not have the camera or computer skills to manipulate photos, I'm lucky if I can figure out half of the gadgets on my own camera. I did not post this to the world, it was posted on our historical society website and from there it was picked up by the news. No hoax, just a unidentifiable flying object.

www.10news.com...

Henry also reported that the camera she was using when she shot the UFO photo stopped working completely after that day. UFO witnesses often report similar accounts of electronics malfunctioning during or after a sighting. Santee sits right under a military flight path and borders Gillespie Field, so the city gets a wide variety of aircraft in its skies. Could this photo be an unusual military craft, a drone, a on-of-a-kind plane testing for Wings Over Gillespie, or simply a blurred insect? Or could there be even stranger things over head?

santee.patch.com...

She didn't notice the object when taking the picture so I'd say it's most likely a blurred insect.

Blurd (blurred bird)--blurd is the word,
Have you heard about the blurd?
Everybody knows that the blurd is the word!

Most blurds are side-view shots of seagulls taken with slightly low shutter speed, making them really look like so-called flying saucers. This one is a bit different but still screams "blurd."

A UFO video with reasonable credibility:

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by CigaretteMan
Flying Saucer Photographed - Santee, California May 22, 2013 - QUALITY

You meant LOW QUALITY, right?

Have you tried to contact the witness and ask for a copy of the original file? It might show more than the tiny pics posted on the 10News site, or the useless Youtube video she uploaded.

Brian Haddock 20 hours ago
Very nice shot El. Have you posted the original photo anywhere or is the video all that is available? A couple of shots before and after this picture would be good for researchers too.
Reply ·


El Henry 4 hours ago
Yes I have provided before and after shots....I even have a shot where the object is much further away, and then the next shot it's right there...though I didn't see any of this until I loaded it to my PC.
Reply · in reply to Brian Haddock

www.youtube.com...

i'll send her a msg....

is this the best `evidence`

really?

ugh

Well hopefully this doesn't fall into the endless black hole of threads, so ill give it a bump.I really think there maybe something to this one. Hopefully we can get some more info on this. I wouldn't just say its a hoax or a bug it seems like people are way to quick to dismiss the photo without having all the information.

Ellen Henry, Researcher/ Board Member Santee Historical Society.

www.santeehistoricalsociety.com...

She also took a picture of a rabbit and when it came out blurry she said she took a picture of a ghost..


www.facebook.com...

Thought I would post up some enlargements / filter enhancements. I don't think this thing is of intelligent design. Rather it may be a freaky case of capturing a small meteorite on it's way down. You be the judge.

Image enlarger can be found at source forge Image Inlarger


Image at 700%




Black & White Inverted



Edge Detect



Edge Detect & Auto Level




To me it looks like a meteorite

Thoughts?

reply to post by miner49r


nice enhancements. Would a meteorite appear to me motionless in the air on its way down? Having never really witnessed one, I don't know...

The other thing I can't get over is the fact that I went to high school with the reporter Janet Kwok...lol...sorry, no one cares but it's always strange to see someone you know on TV.

But ya, it is a strange image...

reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun


The account I read said the lady taking the picture didn't see the object until after she downloaded them to her computer. I am thinking it was just a case of snapping the pic just as the object passed through. If it were a small meteorite it would moving pretty fast.

ETA: Here is the article I read

San Diego UFO Photographed Over Historical Edgemoor Barn

Here's a couple vids where the object(s) appear somewhat similar?

It's so obvious....Anyone can see it is a hoagie.

It is a shame the video was 240P and not better. However, I believe it is a UFO. I would not trust the Image Enlarger app/program. It appears to alter the photo.

reply to post by groingrinder


I agree... I wish I had the original photo.

The image is simply enlarged not changed. The enhancements simply highlight the shape and definition. I didn't do anything to change the image shape.

reply to post by JBA2848


i got a response from her, link to the same facebook source re the 'high-resolution' pics...

www.facebook.com...

is this the same object?

Originally posted by silo13
What amazes me is here we have a great video, daytime, no obvious staging, a news report with valid news coverage - and no one cares, lol!

Do I believe this is a UFO? You bet.

Do I believe it's extraterrestrial?

Why the hell not.

peace

What amazes me, is that you are ignoring the fact that she is sitting on land adjacent to an airstrip where you can clearly hear both birds and aircraft during the news segment....and yet, you think aliens.

That's "why the hell not".

Also
...struggling economy
...business needs attention.
.....shows up in 1 photograph out of the series of others she took?
....camera broke? (LOL...red flag = sorry, you can't inspect the other photos where its clearly a bird!)

The image is simply enlarged not changed. The enhancements simply highlight the shape and definition. I didn't do anything to change the image shape.

But you did. By "enlarging" the image you have used an algorithm which interpolates the data "between" pixels (unless you use a "pixel resize"). The program "guesses" at what is there. You have added data which does not exist in the image you used.

Image interpolation works in two directions, and tries to achieve a best approximation of a pixel's color and intensity based on the values at surrounding pixels.

www.cambridgeincolour.com...

When an image is scaled up to a larger size, there is a question of what to do with the new spaces in between the original pixels. Here, we briefly examine some of the differences.

research.cs.wisc.edu...

Thanks for the links Phage. That is a good read. I have wanted to get into some better software rather than using freeware, but it is just so dang spendy.

Okay, I am willing to admit that enlargements do add some data in the process. So in the interest of purity I do stand corrected. If one over tweaks the photo then it is possible to morph it into something somewhat different.

Although, looking at the enlargements and comparing them to the photos on Facebook they are extremely similar without that great of a difference. Both have been enlarged by different individuals with most likely different software.

In order to enlarge it all, the object had to either have been very large at a great distance, or smaller at a lesser distance. Given there were no other reports or sightings I have the sense that it was the latter. Smaller and lesser distance.

Given the features and irregular shape my vote is still a small meteorite or a hoax.

Trust me, I would love to enlarge something and find a UFO in it... that is why I do it!

But in the interest of research and out of good conscience I can't call it anything but a meteorite. It can be too easy to fall into the trap that everything seen in the sky is ET.

Facebook Double Clip




Facebook Double Clip Enlarged 550%

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

Did you miss above where the poster nevertheless pointed out thAt her name and location are known and business/money situation is not that great... she is not anonymous, just wanted you to think that to make it seem more credible. It appears to have worked on some.

I think a few posters nailed this one. I'll agree that I too believe this is nothing more than a Blimp. The shape fits, the testimony that it didnt move much. Makes sense