How Big And Far Is That UFO?

reply to post by abeverage


Oh boy.

Logic, where art thou?

reply to post by eriktheawful


Is this normal map filter with photoshop or gimp. Photoshop seems to make better and more relief maps.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Nice, sensible thread, trying to add some reason to discussion of UFO images.

Now as to that triangular thingy in a later post, I don't see how that can be claimed to be the end of a plane's wing. I'm not saying it is proof positive of an ET UFO, but it ain't part of the wing unless it is some kind of optical illusion. The image appears very distinct, i.e. unblurred, so unless this space craft(?)/stealth wing plane/drone was traveling in the same direction and at the same speed of the aircraft from which the picture was taken, or travel almost directly away, it doesn't appear to be organic to the picture, i.e. photo-shopped. The distinctness of the picture is an argument for it being somehow related to the plane itself.

But I have to ask: what does this thread have to do with the fact that aliens are actually intra-dimensional demons and/or angels, huh?

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by tugslike

 

Looking at the photo, I am not familiar with the landscape, but I don't see anything jumping out at me either:

I see terrain, buildings roads, trees, and clouds. I can also see at the bottom of the photo the window frame of the aircraft he is in, and in the upper left hand corner of the photo looks like the wing of the air craft he is on, and that the plane is banking (turning).

Could you point out what is in the photo that we need to examine?

Looking at the photo, I imagined the triangle to be near..... in all likely hood within 500-2,000 feet distant. I base that on having been a helicopter crew member. While that can't be expected to be accurate, it is consistent with what I have experienced. My guess is neither here nor there, it would depend on the size of the object of course. I am also basing it on the clarity of the object. I would first off examine the object, try to determine distance and look for a corresponding shadow on the ground. But again altitude would come into play, but if the object was within a horizontal plane of the aircraft I was in, I could suppose altitude by virtue of having to look upward or downward or even level as compared to my craft. That would give me (naked eye) an of relative size as in relationship to the distance. There is no apparent shadow that I could find however, so that does not help. Though as I stated, those would be 'my' methods. As for a photograph, my description would likely be shredded depending on what answer the government group wished to provide the public.

Thing is...... there are so many people with camera phones, there should be scads of pictures captured every day, and maybe there are. But another thing comes into play..... people rarely look up. They tend to look at a horizontal plane in relationship with their own. Or, they tend to look down. In mountainous terrain I imagine the propensity to look up is increased by the mere fact the scenery is including a great deal of altitude in the field of view, apart from the relative altitude of the viewer. Really...... how many of you look up?... and how often? Unless you hear an aircraft or commotion in the sky, one seldom looks up.

I guess the answer to your question is........ The object, then quickly try to find it's shadow.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Looks like that "ufo" is part of the wing, and the rest of the wing has been photoshopped out.

reply to post by tugslike


ok well you hit reply to me instead of the person who made the thread. But they picked up on that. Next time hit the reply at the bottom of the post. Or did you mean to ask me specifically?

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by fairguy
These cows are small Dougal, those cows are faaaar away.... Small.... Far away...

OMG....I think I just peed my pants laughing! Thanks for the share!

I've been laughing at that for years now xD

Originally posted by Debunkology

Looks like that "ufo" is part of the wing, and the rest of the wing has been photoshopped out.

It doesn't necessarily need to have been photoshopped out -- it may just be that it is a white wing against a white sky, and the lack of contrast is making the wing disappear into the background.

There does NOT necessarily need to have been an intent to mislead here.

Here is what I mean about the wing disappearing into, or blending in against, the white background. The top image is from the original; the middle image is the original with the wing pointed out; and in the bottom image, the "gamma settings" in the image has been turned down:




Compare that with the image of a wing with a pylon that 'erictheawful' posted on the previous page, and you can see the similarities:




The other picture (the one in question, where the wing is hard to see, and the pylon looks like separate a triangular craft) is a good example of what 'erictheawful' was talking about in his OP. Someone in a post above estimated that this "triangular craft" was 500 to 2000 feet away, when actually it is a part of the wing probably barely 50 feet away.

It is very difficult to tell distance in a regular 2D photo. because there is no built-in depth perception, and no way to really determine distance. Distant objects may look a little more hazy because they are being viewed through more atmosphere than close objects, but that method is inherently not very accurate, due to the fact that atmospheric conditions can vary greatly.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People



That photo is also a good example of a person's brain trying to make sense of the data that the eyes are giving it.

One person, especially if they've never flown, or rarely have, or have only sat forward of the wings might look at the photo and have that grey triangle jump out at them, and to them it looks like a separate object flying in the sky.

Another person (like me), who has flown many times, and have sat many times behind the wings of a jetliner, might look at the photo and think: oh that's part of the wing.

I also don't think there was an intent to photoshope the wing out (I would think if someone was going to do that, they would have done more than just removed the wing, but would have added clouds and then blurred the edges of the "triangle"). I think the sun is so bright on the wing that the camera can't show the details of the wing structure.

What really stuck out to me (besides the clouds being covered up) was if you look at the triangle, you see two tones of grey, one being a lot darker, as though a shadow is across it. It falls just right where a wing would do that.

What I also like (and I have to stress this) is that the conversation about this photo has been very polite, discussed in a mature way, with no insults, attacks, etc, going on. I wish I saw more of that in this forum.

I do believe that people see and can capture with a camera things that defy any explanations (a real UFO). I've personally seen things on my radar screen in the navy that had me going to the equipment to check it out, only to come back empty handed with a shrug and no reason for us to have seen what we saw.

So what I'm saying is that not every picture or video is a UFO. But then, not every picture or video has an explanation either.......

If it did, life would be boring, hehehehehe

reply to post by eriktheawful


Good points.

I would dd to that, the process of photographing the scene can contribute to how much the outline of the wing is lost/vanishes amongst the clouds.

As Soylent Green Is People touched on, in the case of the photograph in question, both the wing and the clouds are technically "over-exposed" or "blown out", meaning that colour/contrast on these parts of the scene basically defaults to zero - in other words there is no contrast between the wing and the clouds.

The photographer would have been able to easily see that there was a wing there, since the eye compensates and also has a higher "dynamic-range" than a standard camera, so contrast between brightly lit objects tends to be much better than cameras, in a case like this.

Of course the movement of background in relation to the wing would also have given the game away to the photographer.

The problem with this is that it is obviously a fake.. you can see the "shopped" elements that was put into too high a contrasted image layer to hide the evidence...

One of these days, they will learn how to actually "fake" an image, it's really quite simple to do so, and leaves no evidence of pixel manipulations if these methods are used..

Until then, it's rather easy to show for a fake...

Look for yourselves...

reply to post by QuantifedInfinity

It's not a photoshopped fake. It's simply a case that the wing is too bright and, therefore, overexposed so much that it blends into the brightness of the sky. So we see part of the wing pylon, but the wing itself is almost invisible.

See my post above.

reply to post by QuantifedInfinity


Mmmmm. Those are compression artifacts. The image is in JPEG format and are famous for compression artifacts when you zoom in.

Try this, you'll see the same thing: zoom in on one of the metal bolts on the aircraft window, you'll see it there too. Zooming in on JPEGs makes them very visible.

I also stand by that I think it's the wing of the aircraft.

Problem is: the poster of this picture has not chimed back in, heh.

If the poster is lurking: please, don't be afraid to come back and talk about the picture. If you're embarrassed, please don't be! People mistake things all the time in pictures. It's a learning experience. One day you might actually capture something that really can't be explained, and I would hate for you (or anyone) to be to embarrassed to post it for us to look at!

EDIT: looks like I need to get serious about the other thread I want to do on lighting, over exposure, shadows, etc.

The information given by the OP is...the very most basic that a person with a camera should know. There's scads more to it, but based on the responses, it's clear this info was indeed needed here.

As for the picture, take it into the freeware Irfanview and lower the contrast [menu | image | color corrections | contrast]. You will see the wing and several dots that may be riveting, as well as a very straight line angling upward to the right, being the edge of the wing.

See image.

edit: I was going to post a small section just showing the wing, but I seem to be unable to do so.

guyx

Originally posted by gguyx
The information given by the OP is...the very most basic that a person with a camera should know.

Well since the ufo hunters on here insist on using crap videos from youtube were it obvious that ALMOST ALL videos are taken by people that cant see that little light in the distance is out of focus when they zoon in, which then makes the shape change to a blob or a diamond, but no that becomes a morphing ufo and at some point will be seen by a member a posted on here.

There are many on here that dont undestand the basics be it exposure, focus / depth of field, it's just as well a few members are pro,semi-pro or keen amatuer photographers.

reply to post by gguyx


To post images on here, you can use an external site, like Photobucket that you have an account with and use the URL of the image in your post.

Or you can upload the picture here and present it in your post by clicking on TOOLS+ in the menu, then click on ATS Upload, and (as long as you have Adobe Flash installed) you can click on the SELECT IMAGE FILE button:




After your picture uploads you should see a thumbnail of it there. Click on it, and then you can select the code to copy and paste into your post and your picture will be visible then:

Originally posted by Tachyeon
You want good UFO pictures this link is excellent some of the pictures are outstanding. www.ufocasebook.com...

You should not trust a website that sports proven and/or admitted hoaxes.

reply to post by eriktheawful




Ah, thanks eriktheawful. The pic is essentially the same as yours a couple posts up.

This pic is just the pertinent portion brought into IrfanView and set at contrast -98.

To address how far and how big, one needs a stereo setup like the one Maccabee worked on with Ed Walters [Gulf Breeze]. It can be read at brumac.8k.com Maccabee's site. Same thing for video, two cameras separated by feet or yards, then use trig to get approximate distance and size. Both video cams would have to be available to the researcher to synchronize time-stamp info [and date/time settings too] and performance stats.

I doubt most people would go for that.

guyx

I seen a UFO tonight flying low under the clouds, I used to discredit people who said they seen this sort of stuff, but after seeing this I just want to tell people about what I saw. I am trying to get all my posts so I can make a thread about it. It is hard to describe the distance it was flying above me, but there was a storm near by but my area was calm, but you could still see the storm clouds around. The UFO was flying under the clouds. At first I seen it in the skyline and thought it was a missile, it looked bizarre. But as it got closer to me the fire looking tail it had disappeared and it was an all black spherical shape. It made no sound whatsoever and had no jet trail. I was actually driving while watching it and took my hat off and had my head hanging out the window stopping in the middle of the road to watch it fly over.

As a new member I can really appreciate your post, and hope that more people would become aware of even the basic elements of photography before posting fakes, artifacts and the such. The sheer number of obvious non-UFO's being posted and proclaimed as unidentified or given a "it's aliens!" slant almost turned me off to this awesome website at first.

Thank you for helping to keep things in "perspective" and by all means please finish and post the follow up you are planning, I'm looking forward to it and so are others.