Saw UFO with my eyes and my drone (pictures)

originally posted by: Blue Shift
While it may be true that there are intelligent aliens somewhere out there in the vast cosmos, and while someone might have an encounter or personal experience that convinces them beyond a doubt that there are aliens and they're interacting with humanity in some way, the rest of us are still going to rely on a consensus to define that reality.

I've never seen a black hole, but I'm pretty sure they exist because people I believe are smarter than me about the subject say they do, the physics seem to hold together, and I've seen a blurry, fuzzy image of one.

But nobody with any real authority has laid out the truth of intelligent aliens to me yet. So while the objective truth might be that there are intelligent aliens out there (or flying around Earth), it has never been proven to me to my satisfaction by consensus so it remains inconclusive to me and most other people.

Intelligent Life "Rare" Says Astronomer Using Bayesian Analysis

I can appreciate that perspective

According to Vox, over half of American Adults and 60% of young adults believe intelligent ET life exists (1) and 1/3 believe UFOs are actively visiting Earth (2)

1: www.vox.com...
2: www.newsweek.com...

My perspective is that our fellow citizens are more believable than various governments so I have to put more weight on their statements than the organizations that lie to us as a matter of standard operating procedure

Anyhow, I am incredibly appreciative of the time you've spent in this thread especially

a reply to: JBurns


So, 2/3s don't think we're being visited?

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Tried to make a stereo pair, but it was too small. Can't really do it when the object is only a few pixels wide in some shots. Anyway, here's a blow-up. The suggestion of "extensions" at the 5 and 11 o'clock positions are likely processing artifacts.

Thanks for taking a look at this and enhancing it Blue Shift

a reply to: Phage

That would be accurate

a reply to: JBurns

There are some AI based resizing programs, but as most of them use the power of the newer graphics cards GPUs I could not tried them, as I have an oldish computer.

By using several frames it could be possible to create an artificial high resolution version of the image of the object.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JBurns

There are some AI based resizing programs, but as most of them use the power of the newer graphics cards GPUs I could not tried them, as I have an oldish computer.

By using several frames it could be possible to create an artificial high resolution version of the image of the object.

What I find is that if I drop an image into Firefox or another browser window and then Ctl-+ the thing, the browser does a better job of extrapolating the in-between pixels to make the image more viewer-friendly. Photoshop will enlarge or expand a digital image but unless you blur it it will still be blocky. So I've developed a habit I repeat where I find the best image I can from a source and then screengrab that, then enlarge it in a browser and screengrab it again, then use Photoshop to do the heavy lifting on the brightness/contrast and other tweaks to possibly coax out a little more detail.

I know there are misleading artifacts introduced, but I find that overall I'm able to get a reasonably good enlargement that shows as much of the important aspects of the object as possible without it being buried in processing noise. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it's worth a try. Again, you can't get more information out of the image than what is there in the first place, but things like unobserved colors and shadows can sometimes be coaxed out.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I know, many people use that method instead of resampling the image in Photoshop.

Hey guys lets see if this helps with the video

I circled the blip in the first couple seconds of the video (streamable.com...)




ibb.co...
ibb.co...
ibb.co...
ibb.co...

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Blue Shift

I know, many people use that method instead of resampling the image in Photoshop.

There are apparently some plug-ins for Photoshop like Topaz that can do a slightly better job. But nothing like on police shows where the blow up a fuzzy image to reveal some hidden thing like a license plate number. That's just science fiction.

originally posted by: JBurns
Hey guys lets see if this helps with the video

I circled the blip in the first couple seconds of the video (streamable.com...)

Well, it's there, but unfortunately too tiny to do much with. This makes it look more square than it probably is, although you could arguably say that it "tends" toward being something that is not perfectly spherical, which could mean that it may not be a weather balloon.

An average helium party balloon can reach a maximum altitude of around 29,000 feet (9,000 meters).
The clouds in the video are likely culmulus or statocumulus clouds, and usually don't go much above 4,000 meters.
FWIW

a reply to: Blue Shift

Yes, that could never be done with only one image, although with a video it's possible to make an image based on several frames and reach a final result that shows more than any individual frame.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

Well, it's there, but unfortunately too tiny to do much with.

As ArMaP says, if someone wanted to do something with the video, you could use multiple frames from the video (you need to use at least 5 frames and 20 or more might be better if you can get them without the clouds) to get more signal and less noise than is possible in a single frame. Amateur astro photographers process their images that way, this article explains it:

A guide to astrophotography stacking
Unlike a lot of "enhancements" some people try to make which actually make the image worse, that method can actually give better images, but you have to be careful about the clouds, they can make a mess of things if they are partially obscuring the object.

This makes it look more square than it probably is, although you could arguably say that it "tends" toward being something that is not perfectly spherical, which could mean that it may not be a weather balloon.

I can't rule out a spherical shape from that image alone, though resolution is so low it's hard to tell the exact shape. I guess the overall image itself has good resolution, but the UFO has too few pixels to give much detail in a single frame.

a reply to: ArMaP
Good point!

Wow very fascinating. Good eye and good pics. Having a hard time seeing it in the video, though.

I have seen 2 of these objects. One I am skeptical about. I kind of think it may have been a helicopter viewed at a weird angle. The other I can't explain. It gave me an odd feeling and it just looked and moved strange. My friend saw it,too. Both looked very similar to this. Great thread.

I'm disappointed the video isn't shaky and out of focus. Kidding, fantastic job. And anytime I see ArMap not able to discount it with some quick proof, it makes me smile and think there could be something to it. He has dashed my hopes with fact more than once, but I'm grateful for his expert help.

Good luck with your search for facts. This is one of the better sightings I have seen in quite some time.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Blue Shift

Yes, that could never be done with only one image, although with a video it's possible to make an image based on several frames and reach a final result that shows more than any individual frame.

I've seen the image overlay technique used on the alleged hoax channel Third Phase of the Moon, and agree that it provided some interesting results. I don't know how do to it myself, though, and have never gotten the same results. Worth a try, perhaps, although unless it can show a NASA logo or something, we're still stuck where were are right now.

Oh, I see above that there's an actual program that might make it easier. I'll give Deep Sky Stacker a look and see if I can do anything useful with it.

a reply to: ArMaP

Vindicate....sorry, pain meds

But mt point still stands as It (ufo) looks just like the one in the link i posted.

a reply to: baddmove

If this was a complex shape I would agree, but seeing that it's only a sphere that could easily be a balloon, I don't think seeing a similar UFO means much.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: baddmove

If this was a complex shape I would agree, but seeing that it's only a sphere that could easily be a balloon, I don't think seeing a similar UFO means much.

Yes, these kinds of things pop up all the time. Here's one seen in Utah on 6/10/2020.

Remarkably stationary considering there's a good breeze on the ground. Source:
www.mufoncms.com...

a reply to: JBurns

It's no use, I can't see it on the video.