Wichita UFO


by dlgoff
Tags: wichita
nottheone
nottheone is offline
#55
Feb18-09, 07:25 PM
P: 94
If this enhanced image gets approved it's darker but the contrast is clearer and the flares are clearer making them look like lights. Not sure what is going on but I read the file as just over a meg but when I upload it it says 36.5k so it may not pass.
Attached Thumbnails
wichita UFO 1 cropped.jpg  
Ivan Seeking
Ivan Seeking is offline
#56
Feb18-09, 08:46 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,493
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Well, it's still a UFO, it's just of terrestrial origin.
Yes, an UFOOTO.
Orion1
Orion1 is offline
#57
Feb21-09, 09:48 PM
Orion1's Avatar
P: 991

nottheone, that image appears excellent!

how did you enhanced the image?
nottheone
nottheone is offline
#58
Feb22-09, 02:51 PM
P: 94
Quote Quote by Orion1 View Post

nottheone, that image appears excellent!

how did you enhanced the image?
Corel Photo-Paint, one of the contrast lenses. I only spent a few minutes with it. Later I spent more time trying to get something out of the black area but there isn't much there that I could find. It seemed to have a little smooth gradiation towards the center.
junglebeast
junglebeast is offline
#59
Apr13-09, 11:23 AM
P: 462
Here's what I interpret in nottheone's touch up...

DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#60
Apr13-09, 12:59 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by junglebeast View Post
Here's what I interpret in nottheone's touch up...
well, it's certainly a fresh perspective, I would not have considered that upper tail-and-pod to be a horizontal wing-and-pod.

But your extrapolated interpretation doesn'r hold water if you now compare it back to the original image (instead of nottheone's touched up version).
junglebeast
junglebeast is offline
#61
Apr13-09, 01:16 PM
P: 462
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
well, it's certainly a fresh perspective, I would not have considered that upper tail-and-pod to be a horizontal wing-and-pod.

But your extrapolated interpretation doesn'r hold water if you now compare it back to the original image (instead of nottheone's touched up version).
It seems that the original image link is broken, but I think it is the same as this image I found on Google: http://kwch.images.worldnow.com/imag...o_original.jpg

Why do you think it does not "hold water" compare to the original image?
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#62
Apr13-09, 01:31 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by junglebeast View Post
Why do you think it does not "hold water" compare to the original image?
Because your interpretation is taking advantage of "enhancement artifacts" introduced by nottheone's processing. If you take your new interpretation image and place it next to the original, you'll find a lot more tweaking will be necessary to reconcile the two.

notheone's image blurs many edges, making it easier to interpolate straightish lines where there were none (eg. 1] port wing, trailing edge and 2] nose taper). If you now put your interprertation next to the original, you'll see that the trailing wing edge is not continuous and the nose taper is completely different. Those are just a few examples.
Mzachman
Mzachman is offline
#63
Apr13-09, 01:43 PM
P: 51
2 ideas...

Flying mole cricket with a jet strapped to it's back.... Coming at us and to the right... lol
http://paynomind.com/media/1/2009020...%20cricket.jpg

Or going away from us and to the right a B2 with a jet strapped to it's back. Kinda like this, only the nose angled up a little more, and pointed away from us a little more: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b2bombs.jpg

As the first flyby happens watch the angle of it.... http://www.metacafe.com/watch/775852...by_at_airshow/

Not saying it was a B2, but maybe something similarly shaped with a jet of some sort on the back.
junglebeast
junglebeast is offline
#64
Apr13-09, 02:16 PM
P: 462
I'm not quite following the points you raised, however, the fact that it is missing a vertical tail fin seems to definitively rule out the perspective I suggested.

After taking another look at the original image, I realized that it's absolutely impossible for this to be a plane of any kind at all. Based on the focus of the tree in comparison to the object it's clear that the object is significantly nearer to the camera than the tree, and that it's size is therefore quite small.

Then taking another look at the image, I'm almost positive that this is a picture of a bird. There is a downward curve in the front characteristic of a beak, and a flat tail in the back with no vertical fin indicative of a bird's tail feathers, and the odd structure over the torso is easily explained by motion blur between the flapping wings.

The bright spots aren't lights, they are reflections. Bird feathers can be quite reflective, especially when wet.

DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#65
Apr13-09, 03:45 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by junglebeast View Post
After taking another look at the original image, I realized that it's absolutely impossible for this to be a plane of any kind at all.
Hang on. Your conclusion is non sequitur. While it is notable that the tree and object seem to be differently in focus, there are myriad reasons for this that do not result in a complete dismissal of the eyewitness account - which utterly contradicts your interpretation.
junglebeast
junglebeast is offline
#66
Apr13-09, 05:12 PM
P: 462
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Hang on. Your conclusion is non sequitur. While it is notable that the tree and object seem to be differently in focus, there are myriad reasons for this that do not result in a complete dismissal of the eyewitness account - which utterly contradicts your interpretation.
Eyewitness accounts can't really be trusted given the number of proven hoaxes (eg, loch ness, crop circles, flare-balloons...) that pervade this type of thing. Especially not when the eyewitness account is the only piece of evidence that doesn't have a direct explanation. In this case, an anonymous report of "I heard something...I took a picture...I think it was a plane" is not exactly convincing to me.

The circle of confusion in the image for the tree branches is ~4.5 pixels, and for the object it is ~10.5 pixels. The fact that these two numbers are different means that the objects are at different distances. If this were an airplane, one would assume that the distance of the object was greater than the tree.

However, that's not optically possible. As the distance of an object approaches infinity the change in size of the focus of confusion approaches zero, as illustrated by this animation:



From wikipedia, we can write the circle of confusion radius c as

c = A*abs(S2 - S1)/S2*f/(S1-f)

But in the same image, all of these are constants except for S2 (distance of the object), so for the purposes of the discussion it can be simplified to

c = k abs(S2-S1)/S2

where S2 is the distance of the object being imaged. The thing about this function is that c asymptotically converges quite rapidly to S1 as a function of S2. In other words, objects more distant than S1 have a very limited effect on increasing the size of confusion. That is why, for example, other very distant objects like the con trails still appear in focus in this image. If S2 is closer than S1, the size of circle of confusion increases very rapidly. This is the only way to explain the very large factor of 2.33 in the relative size of focus of confusion, and is conclusive proof that it is not an aircraft, but rather a small object in the foreground of the tree.



Most people should not need to resort to math to come to this conclusion, though, because our brains are naturally capable of interpreting this type of information. This is why when you look at the whole image (not just the cropped part around the bird) it is quite obvious that the fuzzy object is close to the view, and a rough estimate of scale can even be perceived...
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#67
Apr13-09, 06:59 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Having gone to college for photography I am aware of depth of field geometry. But you are too sure of yourself (especially ironic as you flip-flop your sureness from post-to-post).

1] If you dismiss the observer's account you might as well dismiss everything. A picture means virtually nothing without the details of the account. In this case, we are actually lucky to have a witness account. One thing the witness account does is rule out that the object is small and nearby. Without the account we would have to consider that as a possibility.

2] As mentioned before, there are other reasons than differing distance why the two objects are not necessarily blurred the same way. Interestingly, you have already explicitly mentioned one of them in your own 'bird' account. Suddenly, now that you're sure it's a bird and not a plane, you seem to give it no consideration at all.

While you raise good points worth addressing, don't shoot yourself in the foot by making any claim "absolutely". Discussing anything with someone who is convinced of their rightness is a futile exercise.
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#68
Apr13-09, 07:24 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Awesome.

The original link seems to have rotted but I've found an image of it that's 3Megs.

And if that ones rots, I've saved it to my HD.

http://kwch.images.worldnow.com/imag...o_original.jpg
junglebeast
junglebeast is offline
#69
Apr13-09, 07:42 PM
P: 462
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
2] As mentioned before, there are other reasons than differing distance why the two objects are not necessarily blurred the same way. Interestingly, you have already explicitly mentioned one of them in your own 'bird' account. Suddenly, now that you're sure it's a bird and not a plane, you seem to give it no consideration at all.
What factors could cause it to be blurry? The most common...

A) The object could be in the distance, greater than S1. I mentioned this possibility (that it is further away from the tree) only in order to disprove and rule out that possibility. If it were true, the con-trails in the far distant background show us the asymptotic limit of the radius of confusion on the far end, which is lower than the radius of confusion of the object. If the blurring is due to being out of focus, then this proves that the object is closer than the tree...and that's just based on the mathematics of it...

B) A fast moving distant object that is motion-blurred? There are a number of reasons why this explanation is not realistic. First, even a fast moving distant plane is not likely to cause motion blur because it's apparent speed on the image plane is divided by distance. If the shutter were open long enough to cause motion blur, the tree would likely have even more motion blur due to being shot from a hand-held camera. Second, the blurring on the tail is isotropic, indicating that it is due to being out of focus rather than motion blur.

C) The object could be in the foreground. This coincides with all visual evidence. There does appear to be some motion blur, and this is in support of it being closer, because a bird in the foreground is going to have dramatically more apparent movement in the image plane due to being so much closer (and having fast flapping wings).

On top of all this, if it were a distant UFO, just look at how big it would have to be...a lot bigger than any plane by my reckoning.
Mzachman
Mzachman is offline
#70
Apr13-09, 07:53 PM
P: 51
It could be a kite (or glider) of some kind. If were seeing the belly of it from it's right side the little thing going down in front could be where the string attaches, and the string would be very hard to see with that much blurring. What you're saying about focus length does make sense, so that's why I ask. I could also see that easily being some kind of kite if you imagine it that way. At that angle the wings would be just about parellel to the ground and everything. Just an idea. I really have no idea.
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#71
Apr13-09, 08:18 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by junglebeast View Post
A) The object could be in the distance, greater than S1. I mentioned this possibility (that it is further away from the tree) only in order to disprove and rule out that possibility. If it were true, the con-trails in the far distant background show us the asymptotic limit of the radius of confusion on the far end, which is lower than the radius of confusion of the object.
The object and the contrails are effectively at infinity. They will have the same level of focus.

You have not demonstrated how out-of-focus the contrails are, you are just taking it as a given.

Quote Quote by junglebeast View Post
C) The object could be in the foreground. This coincides with all visual evidence.
It coincides with one piece of evidence if you interpret it that way. Your weapon is pointing at your foot and the safety is off...



One of most likely sources of the blur is camera-movement. That would explain why everything in the picture has (more or less) the same amount of blur and why the blur has quite sharp edges (look at the branches of the trees).
RonL
RonL is offline
#72
Apr13-09, 09:11 PM
PF Gold
P: 701
Quote Quote by junglebeast View Post
I'm not quite following the points you raised, however, the fact that it is missing a vertical tail fin seems to definitively rule out the perspective I suggested.

After taking another look at the original image, I realized that it's absolutely impossible for this to be a plane of any kind at all. Based on the focus of the tree in comparison to the object it's clear that the object is significantly nearer to the camera than the tree, and that it's size is therefore quite small.

Then taking another look at the image, I'm almost positive that this is a picture of a bird. There is a downward curve in the front characteristic of a beak, and a flat tail in the back with no vertical fin indicative of a bird's tail feathers, and the odd structure over the torso is easily explained by motion blur between the flapping wings.

The bright spots aren't lights, they are reflections. Bird feathers can be quite reflective, especially when wet.

I had to scan the entire thread to see if anyone else would mention a bird, this is a sight I see quite often in my back yard, as birds glide through the trees making an approach to land near the water pans, and my pool, which is now a fish pond.


Register to reply