Stunning 'domed' craft photograph captured over Vancouver Island 1981

PhoenixOD
reply to post by FlySolo

 

Filters to the enlarged image?

I think you are trying to bang a square peg into a round hole there

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

POW!

Dedicated color enlargers contain an adjustable filter mechanism - the color head - between the light source and the negative, enabling the user to control the amount of cyan, magenta and yellow light reaching the negative.

Source

So I'm not talking out of my arse. The only reason why the hue is off is because of the enlargement process. Shape, size, angular position, shadows and reflections are all the same. Just in a different contrast.

reply to post by FlySolo

Looks real to me and I've seen a ufo up close.

reply to post by FlySolo


A well respected NASA scientist? Because he designed a window? He is fanatical about UFO's so I don't trust him as a source. If he is such a well respected NASA scientist how about he pony up all that science he had access too during his employ that everyone says NASA hides?

reply to post by FlySolo


Interesting photo. I would think 30 ft is a typo for 300. It would be a a very small object if it was that close. Or it was somebody flying a model of one.

I think I've seen this photo in local papers but didn't know about the analysis that was done. British Columbia is a hotspot for UFO sightings.

I'm on the fence about UfO's being extra terrestrial.

PhoenixOD
reply to post by raymundoko

 

I agree , clearly not the same object

The inset picture looks like it has been over enhanced to the point where the lighting altered. It has the appearance of a top view as opposed to the original having a bottom view.


Just because the photo wasn't tampered with, doesn't really prove what was really happening in the photo.

Looks like a stainless steel pot lid.

reply to post by FlySolo


It seems the problem in the discussion between the two of you, is

that Phoenix is thinking digital photography,
while FlySolo thinks analog photography.

You cannot explain analog enlargement from a negative (which is what happened here) with the logic of digital photography in mind.

reply to post by FlySolo


It´s always the same with these "amazing pictures" that are soooo convincing. Well, they aren´t. A low res pic with the ufo in the background. Isn´t that weird, that they are always in the background?

Why on earth has nobody EVER had the idea to zoom in on one of those? Can you show me ONE single picture ( that can be taken at least half seriously) of a ufo in the center of the picture and in a decent size?

And this is the same crap all over again, and it proves nothing. It could be anything (Frisbee, rc vehicle, balloon, whatever really).

Pics like these are the source for a lot of ridicule that hits the ufo community and the topic in general.

There have been worse pics, granted. but it´s still the same old cold coffee.

Reminds me of the day i errrrrrr, soaked my burning bin contents with ether (diesel cold start) then lit a blow torch and poked it in one of the lower holes ............. the lid took off, glad i lit it from the side and low down, otherwise i would now have a flat face. Merry Christmas,yeah, i did do that lol

raymundoko
reply to post by FlySolo

 

A well respected NASA scientist? Because he designed a window?

Your research is astounding.

After working at NASA-Ames from 1967 - 1986 as a research scientist in numerous astronautical (Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Space Station) and aeronautical (e.g., Mgr. of the Joint FAA/NASA Head-up Display Program, landing simulation research) projects, he was appointed Chief of the Space Human Factors Office at NASA-Ames (1986-1988) where he directed research and development efforts of the AX-5 "hard" EVA space suit, habitability design research for Space Station Freedom, and spacecraft window design.

violet
reply to post by FlySolo

 

Interesting photo. I would think 30 ft is a typo for 300. It would be a a very small object if it was that close. Or it was somebody flying a model of one.

As per the paper:

Corresponding distances for f-
8 and f- 16 apertures are 20 and 10 feet, respectively. Thus, the airborne object
in question must have been farther than ten feet (and probably farther than
20 feet) from the camera since it also was in sharp focus.

reply to post by Nightaudit

Can you show me ONE single picture ( that can be taken at least half seriously) of a ufo in the center of the picture and in a decent size?

I think what your asking is impossible. Simply because any 'clear' photo will always be 'too clear'. It's a lose/lose situation.

reply to post by FlySolo


All of his design was "human" based.

"Hey, this window needs to be this size and this place so they don't feel like they are in a tin can"
"That display needs to be over there so we don't overwhelm their visual senses"

You are thinking he was some kind of rocket engineer when that wasn't the case.

reply to post by raymundoko


No. I think he's a professional aeronautics & astronautical researcher. Not a rocket scientist.

Dr. Richard F. Haines, Ph.D., a research scientist for NASA since 1967 has investigated numerous aviation accidents and incidents for the FAA, NTSB, and attorneys, having worked out of the Ames Research Center which includes over two decades of "Human Factors in Space" research studies. Dr. Haines has worked with the FAA on several projects including "Head Up Display" (Flight Standard Hqs.). He is also a member of the International Society of Air and Safety Investigators. Dr. Haines has interviewed many military & commercial airline pilots & spoken with many air traffic controllers to amass reports of more than 3,000 UFO sightings.

reply to post by raymundoko

He is fanatical about UFO's so I don't trust him as a source.

I don't know if he's fanatical about UFO's but I do know he's a respected researcher , it seems to me he's done a thorough investigation on the picture and I would trust him as a source.

If he is such a well respected NASA scientist how about he pony up all that science he had access too during his employ that everyone says NASA hides?

Who's to say he had access to anything of a sensitive nature , it's not as if he was a rocket engineer or anything

reply to post by FlySolo


Pow?

The small image looks dirty yellowish but the enlarged looks clean and chrome like so you want to claim it should be a dirty yellowish like the smaller version because he may have used a filter to change the color for whatever reason.

That would only work if the color and hue was up on the enlarged image and if we knew for certain that the filters were used to change the color in this particular case. But we dont know what machine he used or if he uses a color changing filter or he decided to change the colour your grasping at straws to make the result fit the fact they look nothing alike.

Hmm..square pegs in round holes again.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

But we dont know what machine he used or if he uses a color changing filter or he decided to change the colour your grasping at straws to make the result fit the fact they look nothing alike.

The point is, I explicitly showed that you were wrong about filters not being an integral part of 'color' film enlargements. I have created 'reasonable doubt' while refuting your comment. Whereas before, you were 100% confident colored filters had nothing to do with the change of hue. Now, it is quantifiable that you are only 50% confident that a dedicated color enlarger was even used.

It would seem to me, you are losing ground. Not me.

ETA: So yea... pow

In 1954, Kenneth Arnold saw flying objects which flew in a motion that resembled 'saucers skipping over a lake'. The media dubbed these 'flying saucers'.

Suddenly, people everywhere saw flying saucers.

To my mind, one of two things is happening here - either a myriad of alien species rushed home to re-design their spaceships to look like human perceptions of alien spacecraft (saucers), or people are full of sh#t. I'm strongly leaning towards the latter explanation.

reply to post by Nightaudit

Can you show me ONE single picture ( that can be taken at least half seriously) of a ufo in the center of the picture and in a decent size?

This is a still from a video but could be taken half seriously......

reply to post by Bassago


Isn't it the other way around?
Isn't the 50's & 60's movie flying saucer modeled after reported UFO' s ?
Of course I'm of the notion that models would have changed since then just like our car models and plane models have changed since the fifties and sixties. That would account for the newer reports being triangular in shape. Orbs are probably remote viewing drones or some kind of surveillance device that wasn't on the earlier models. If their tech evolves exponentially like ours does then having craft that looks and behaves very differently than their earlier ships is expected. This does however look like the classic flying saucer.

People will not be convinced until one lands at the Whitehouse lawn, the pilots exits the vehicle, and stands on the lawn for an interview. Until then, they will not believe in it. Even though their are hundreds of people in jail on purely circumstancial evidence. This type of photographic evidence is enough to incarcerate but not enough to convince people of exterencials.