Interesting UFO video I've not seen before

Armap

would you believe split HSL and a bit of gamma correction sheds a bit of light on this one?


.....

To original poster:

This is a very interesting ufo video. On the one hand it looks pretty real, on the other hand, it doesn't.

If I'm not mistaken that looks like some of the objects that our Astronauts have captured on there camera's in space.

Have any of you noticed this also?

Originally posted by airrikka
Very cool video, the clarity is great. :]

One thing that's bugging me though, is why was he recording it if he didn't know it was a UFO until 20 seconds into it? Wouldn't it be the reverse?
Like, "That looks to be a UFO, let me record it."
not "Let me record the sky... *gasp* It's a f'ing UFO!"

Dunno. Seems a bit suspect to me.

That could be, but then again, he could have looked at the sky and see something shining, so he figured "What the heck, I'll get the camera for a closer look."
Thinking maybe its a plane of some sort, then realizing its not.

Originally posted by Dae
Woah nice footage! Does that thing actually morph? I captured some stills...

Looks kinda creepy to me



It then seems to go dark before it changes, the dude talking tried to describe it as a circle just as it seemed to change into a disk.



Then it seems to morph shape or turn, not sure. Notice how the 'iris' seems to get bigger

\Without any detailed analysis, it looks like it's banking through a turn, which means it could be man-made. I'd be much more impressed with a craft that didn't have to change attitude to turn.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by disownedsky]

why can't people learn to turn off auto focus on their camcorders when filming distant objects in the sky?...

the person said on the camera that 'it dissapeared', but when you look carefully it is still there when he zoomes in and out...

but, yes, this is interesting video!...

Originally posted by untilted
why can't people learn to turn off auto focus on their camcorders when filming distant objects in the sky?...

the person said on the camera that 'it dissapeared', but when you look carefully it is still there when he zoomes in and out...

but, yes, this is interesting video!...

If it's anything like my camcorder, you have to fumble a bit to go to MF, and then grab the focus ring and try to focus at infinity (looking OFF the object of interest).

It's tough under the heat of the moment unless you've practiced it.

that UFO is awesome looking! I wish i had a sighting like that. How long was the UFO flying in the sky and it made any weird shapes?

ribaldmalarky, lol, what a great name. I think it's a fascinating video. The delayed reaction characteristic of shock doesn't surprise me.

observe50, that video wasn't available.

Originally posted by undo
Armap

would you believe split HSL and a bit of gamma correction sheds a bit of light on this one?

No, I don't think that would help.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by undo
Armap

would you believe split HSL and a bit of gamma correction sheds a bit of light on this one?

No, I don't think that would help.

that's where you're wrong, but that's okay, i dont mind when you're wrong.

Originally posted by undo
Armap

would you believe split HSL and a bit of gamma correction sheds a bit of light on this one?


.....

To original poster:

This is a very interesting ufo video. On the one hand it looks pretty real, on the other hand, it doesn't.

I know im new from being a lurker at first but im going to be blunt.
I hate these kinds of remarks.
If you know enough about video etc to state of the top of your head that split hsl and a bit of gamma correction will clear it up a bit then why don't you do so and post your edited pics?

I can go shout technobabble all i want if i don't actually show the work?

your vid remark sounds interesting but without actually doing it and posting the result to me it remains technobabble from someone trying to be important.

no offence meant at all, nothing personal. no reference to any work or lack thereof in your previous posts which i admittedly did not look into before posting this.

Im talking in general.
Your remark intrigues me but then again it's just words, that's what i mean. show me your hsl thingiemajic cuz i have no clue what you mean.

Originally posted by undo
that's where you're wrong, but that's okay, i dont mind when you're wrong.

No problem, I don't mind when I am wrong either.

If you think it would help then go ahead, the fact that I think it does not work should not stop you (or anyone else) from doing what you think is best.

Originally posted by David2012



I know im new from being a lurker at first but im going to be blunt.
I hate these kinds of remarks.
If you know enough about video etc to state of the top of your head that split hsl and a bit of gamma correction will clear it up a bit then why don't you do so and post your edited pics?

Well that's the problem. Armap and I have argued around and around about the validity of using split HSL to uncover modifications to original layers of an image. This disagreement started on the John Lear Moon thread when I uncovered what appears to be a factory, using split HSL, in Tsiolkowsky crater, Far Side of the Moon. The original image was from a single frame of a NASA Apollo film. and depicted this odd white thing in the middle of the crater, with a single globe or ball above it. Because it was from video and not from a print, Armap argued that the quality was too low and that as a result, the split HSL was just depicting pixels in what they call matrixing patterns.

I still think it was valid because these pixels are three dimensional, solid, curved into cylinders in some places and smoke/steam stacks in others, giving the overall impression that its a factory of some sort with various pipes running along the ground. I theorize it may be an iron ore factory, as the ground there is seen in photographs as tinted orange in a kinda of ray pattern that you expect to see with deposition from smoke or steam going continously in the same direction over a rocky surface. It actually has the appearance of rust. That area is high in iron content.

Anyway, because Armap claims the 3d and 2d surfaces are simply matrixing, he says the usage of the split HSL is not useful for discovery of modifications to a photo. so even if I did reveal what it found, it would still be a big question as to whether or not it was valid anyway. Doesn't seem fair to the OP, to cast that level of dispersion on his video frames, when it would just spurn on a huge argument from Armap about how the split HSL process removes too much data from the original pic to be useful.

I just couldn't resist telling him that it was of interest in this example, because he's usually such a skeptic and he absolutely hates the split HSL
theory i have going about Tsiolkowsky


[edit on 27-3-2007 by undo]

Awesome footage! This has been debated here many times but no FINAL conclusion has ever come about.
Someone should try and contact the original owner of the video and ask for the full unedited version so experts can anylize it. If the uploaded and compressed version is this clear imagine what the raw peice of data would be like!!

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by David2012



I know im new from being a lurker at first but im going to be blunt.
I hate these kinds of remarks.
If you know enough about video etc to state of the top of your head that split hsl and a bit of gamma correction will clear it up a bit then why don't you do so and post your edited pics?

Well that's the problem. Armap and I have argued around and around about the validity of using split HSL.......


[edit on 27-3-2007 by undo]

Thanks for the explanation.. Am I glad you didn't misunderstand my post

I'd still be very interested to see your results.

Originally posted by David2012


Thanks for the explanation.. Am I glad you didn't misunderstand my post

I'd still be very interested to see your results.

Well its what i refer to as boxed UFO syndrome. When the image appears to be modified, there's usually a rectangular box where the UFO has been cut and pasted into the frames. The tools for graphics programs, usally include a square, rectangle, pentagon, triangle, ellipse or circle, selection tool. There's also a selection tool that can be drawn onto the source image, like an ink pen, which cuts the source image out in whatever shape you decide to draw on it, it's called the freehand selection tool. Anyway, most who hoax a UFO sighting, use the rectangular seletion tool, creating the hallmark rectangular box on the finished image.

Typically, the box can't be seen unless the gamma correction (brightness) is turned up or the layers are split (such as th procedure I was referring to). Suffice it to say, in the split HSL "saturation layer" (the layer most likely to show a modification if there is one), on the frames provided from the video, there were at the very least, 2 frames in which the boxed UFO syndrome appeared in the saturation layer of the split HSL.

Armap will argue this until the whole thread is flooded with it, so I'm not going to post them here. I'd be willing to email them to you with the proviso that you not post them in this thread, as it would destroy it with endless arguments on that one topic, when in fact, it may be as Armap said and not depicting anything but pixellized matrices

Originally posted by undo
Armap will argue this until the whole thread is flooded with it, so I'm not going to post them here.

You can post it, I will not interfere.

At least this time.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by undo
Armap will argue this until the whole thread is flooded with it, so I'm not going to post them here.

You can post it, I will not interfere.

At least this time.

haha. You little minx.

Still laughing and shaking head.