Disc over pier - Clear photo

UFO Evidence.org link


The latest photo up on UFOevidence.org.

Quite a powerful image, and it seems to have been analyzed by the website's staff.

What are your thoughts?

Love to get the photo gurus to get a look at this one.

Yeah, it looks good. I like it - even if it turns out to be fake!

Even if it turns out to be a hubcap thrown into the air, I like it. It's good to see fresh photos and sightings rolling in.

looks like it could be a blimp or something.
though it could be pasted or every critics excuse "stuff on the lens".
i'll check it for layers.

upon removing a layer of the sky the object clearly sits on top of the original image.






[edit on 21-4-2007 by spearhead]

Originally posted by RiotComing
Even if it turns out to be a hubcap thrown into the air, I like it. It's good to see fresh photos and sightings rolling in.

Funny , first thought I had was a frizbee

On my second thought Would be great if others snapped photos of it at the same time from some other angle. good find

Originally posted by spearhead
upon removing a layer of the sky the object clearly sits on top of the original image.
[edit on 21-4-2007 by spearhead]

Well, it's pretty good placed then since the ligthing on the disc and surroundings are the same.

What tool did you use to do that test?
EDIT: Got the answer myself now... you use magic wand in photoshop didn't you? with tolerance around the 30s? I got the same result just now...
The reason it would then seem like its placed on top of the photo is simply because of the way magic wang works. With tolerance set to 30ish the blue pixel you clicked will be the role model for all pixel in the final selection. Then reason the disc is not selected and nor the cloud which the arrow goes through is because the pixel value for those areas are greater the 30 pixels away from the blue selection.... try setting tolerance to 200 or something like that... then the disc will be included and could be cut away.

In other words... the disc IS in the photo. Just not that easy telling what it is. Could be a hubcap but then I dont understand why there are still some slight remains from compression (pixel distortions above the disc). If someone blurred it out to make it look further away than the dock those distortions would have been smoothed out too...

It bugs me that they don't supply any kind of original size photo on any of those links This size is bad for evaluating anything.

[edit on 21/4/07 by flice]

[edit on 21/4/07 by flice]

At first glance I thought maybe it was a bird diving into the water. But the front/head just doesn't look right for that.

It'll be interesting to see what jritzman and the crew think.

Seems pretty clear that the "object" wasn't part of the original photo.



Look at the areas surrounding both the arrow and the "object", and I think you can clearly see it's something that's been "pasted" into the photo.


.02

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Seems pretty clear that the "object" wasn't part of the original photo.

Look at the areas surrounding both the arrow and the "object", and I think you can clearly see it's something that's been "pasted" into the photo.
.02

I would not jump to so hasty a conclusion. This is also part of the same image, part of the pier below the object. When you zoom this low res digital image area, any physical objects appear to be pixelated in peculiar shapes. Does this mean that the pier and everything was pasted with photoshop?

On a side note, I know exactly where this image was taken in Redondo Beach. The pier in RB is a sort of horseshoe shape, fairly recent construction (maybe 10 years old or so...).

The big boat there is called the Ocean Racer and it costs something like 25 bucks to go on it and go fast along the coast. It's kinda like a tourist trap little area. But the 'Quality Seafood' restaurant there mmmm mmm. Great crab, lobster, fish shrimp all live and cooked fresh right there. Pitchers of cerveza for 4 bucks!

[edit on 21-4-2007 by greatlakes]

Look again at the area around the object, and I think you'll see a rather defined "rectangle" that does not fit/match the sky around it.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Look again at the area around the object, and I think you'll see a rather defined "rectangle" that does not fit/match the sky around it.

Is this what you mean?....

The area around the pier lights also do not appear to match the background and are also pixelated in a rectangular shape.

Pier Lights Image, zoomed.



Pier Lights Image, Highlighted in red, zoomed.





[edit on 21-4-2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by Disgustipated

Is this what you mean?....

Yep. Take away your "outlines" and, well, you don't need any outlines ... to see it, that is.



[edit on 21-4-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Yep. Take away your "outlines" and, well, you don't need any outlines ... to see it, that is.

Yep I agree, same effect as the pixellation area around the UFO. So therefore I don't think this proves anything beyond when a digital image without sufficient resolution is zoomed in, pixellation occurs around physical objects, probably resulting from compression of the image.

Get it in uncompressed PNG. Are they serious, putting up jpg files for analysis?

GL,

I was responding to Disgustipated's question from above.

The pixelation around other things in the image don't have nearly as defined "edges" as that around the "object". IMO

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
GL,

I was responding to Disgustipated's question from above.

The pixelation around other things in the image don't have nearly as defined "edges" as that around the "object". IMO

Yea I noticed that, but I have a possible answer for that too

If you see the UFO (or whatever it is) appears to be closer in the photo than the light posts. However when a large object is seen in the sky, it's dificult to judge the distance from the observer, especially with only a photo. It is much easier for the original photographer to judge this distance. The detail seems to suggest that it is in fact closer than the light posts. This could account for the slightly more defined pixelation.

Also, the contrast of the UFO to the blue sky is 'different' than the contrast scenario of the light posts and the cloudy sky. Two different situations. With these differences however the detail of the pixelated area of the posts is still quite defined, any user can just zoom the image for themselves to see if they can pick out the rect. shape.

It's a gif file, no better on the compression side most likely. My digital stores the image as jpg, how would you store it as png?