Stunning 'domed' craft photograph captured over Vancouver Island 1981

reply to post by FlySolo


I don't see it but maybe you're right

One strange thing. The cut-out blow-up of the UFO does not resemble the UFO in the picture itself. In the picture itself you can see the underneath of the object as if you are looking up at it. The illuminated part in the middle of the circle looks like a downward-facing protrusion.

Now look at the cut-out. The angle (slightly downward-right) is the same, but here it looks as if you are viewing from the top of the object with the underneath part slanted away from you and out of your field of vision. There is still a light in the middle, but it does not look like a protrusion at all.

In the bigger picture the object is slanted away from the viewer. In the blow-up the object is slanted toward the viewer. They could be of the same object, of course, but they are not the same picture. The fact that one is presented as a blow-up of the other screams fake.

And no, it's not a "trick of light." One picture is supposedly a blown up copy of the other. The "light" would not change, nor would the orientation of the object. Not even the same picture.

FlySolo
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

Not even close.

Thank you for your expert opinion.

reply to post by Blue Shift


lol, I'm not being rude but they really don't. The purpose of this thread was to show a clear, objective, studied photograph. The first one I can see the gull's beak and eyes, along with the colored specks along its neck. The second one is dark with no noticeable detail at all. I can't see how they are even a comparison.

MrCasas
It's a hub cap!

Many good photos do look like known types of hubcaps, does that mean they are, or are UFO's just hubcap looking. Guess the only way to know is if you have one land and get a shot.

But the paper says this:So if correct it is not made of hubcap material.

Of particular note is the fact that the brightest area on the disc was of lower
brightness than the cloud by approximately 0.15 loglo unit. According to a
physics handbook (Allen, 1963), a smooth, polished silver surface reflects
(within the visible spectrum) increasingly higher percentages of incident ra-
diation with increasing wavelength.

An average reflectance value of about
90% is found. Polished aluminum reflects about 85% regardless of wavelength
of the incident radiation; this is also true for nickle (reflectance of about 60%),
silicon (about 30%), and steel (about 54%). This comparison of dark areas on
the negative suggests that the surface of the disc is very likely not a polished
surface of any of the above metals.

FlySolo
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

lol, I'm not being rude but they really don't. The purpose of this thread was to show a clear, objective, studied photograph. The first one I can see the gull's beak and eyes, along with the colored specks along its neck. The second one is dark with no noticeable detail at all. I can't see how they are even a comparison.

Did you read the paper and the evidence?

reply to post by Char-Lee

An average reflectance value of about 90% is found. Polished aluminum reflects about 85% regardless of wavelength of the incident radiation; this is also true for nickle (reflectance of about 60%), silicon (about 30%), and steel (about 54%). This comparison of dark areas on the negative suggests that the surface of the disc is very likely not a polished surface of any of the above metals.

Chrome on the other hand does have a reflection value of 90%.

reply to post by Char-Lee


Most of it

I have blown up the original photo object, to that of the "cut out" object, placed them side by side, I then resized that image x2.

Here is what we have:






I think I'll let the picture do the talking.

Interesting picture, it's not a birdy, just as the report says there is no motion blur. The odd thing is the report also says a classic saucer shape, while it looks more exaggerated like a Jetson's saucer in the picture, but that could be just an illusion. Maybe the old 'Silverbug' was built after all.





It's a pity the woman didn't see it, if only to determine which direction it was going..good picture.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


I don't think you can just enlarge your browser and not lose any quality. That's like holding a magnifying glass to a newspaper photo and expecting to see more detail. The blow up must come from the original negative.

FlySolo
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

I don't think you can just enlarge your browser and not lose any quality. The blow up must come from the original negative.

I'm happy to work with a better image, if you have it?

Interestingly, I could not get the original to line up perfectly with the cut out. The shape of the original doesn't match the shape of the cut out, so I had to use the upper left edge and the bottom right edge of both objects, to line them up.

I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt, the original and the cut out are not the same, and are not from the same image, whether negative or not.

reply to post by FlySolo


Thanks for the post, and the summation with supporting documentation to your report. It's an interesting photo for sure. Although I still remain skeptical with this type of evidence, I appreciate your effort in piecing it all together. It definitely is an Unknown Flying Object. Merry Christmas to you too!!

reply to post by FlySolo


I see it wasn't just me, but the photo in your OP has two different images...the "blown up" image is not the same one in the full image. It appears someone inserted their own image or modified the original image to make it appear more "saucery".

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


I just tried overlaying the blown up version with the original in photoshop and i agree there is no way they match up in shape or shadow.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

Interestingly, I could not get the original to line up perfectly with the cut out. The shape of the original doesn't match the shape of the cut out

That's probably because of the interpolation when you enlarged it. Without enlarging it and looking at the specific light intensities, it matches.

PhoenixOD
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

I just tried overlaying the blown up version with the original in photoshop and i agree there is no way they match up in shape or shadow.

To illustrate my point, this is the picture throughout the paper that had been studied. Not the tiny version you're trying to overlay.


It won't match up enlarging pixels.

FlySolo
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

Interestingly, I could not get the original to line up perfectly with the cut out. The shape of the original doesn't match the shape of the cut out

That's probably because of the interpolation when you enlarged it. Without enlarging it and looking at the specific light intensities, it matches.

Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with colour, definition or light intensity. It has everything to do with shape and angle of both objects. They categorically do not match at all.

FlySolo
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

I don't think you can just enlarge your browser and not lose any quality. That's like holding a magnifying glass to a newspaper photo and expecting to see more detail. The blow up must come from the original negative.

edit on 24-12-2013 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)

I would agree with that, there's just more noise being added to something that is already compressed and noisy.

whyamIhere
Looks like a UFO....

The older pictures have more credibility to me.

Why? Because they look like how Alien spacecraft looked in films when you were growing up? So what, why does that make them credible?