- #1
- 8,194
- 2,428
In light of recent events, I thought it appropriate to display a little of the filtering that I do when considering UFO claims. This is a good example of a report that I can completely reject at a glance. This does not mean that I reject this with absolute certainty, but unless something else comes along to ignite my interest in this story, for me, it goes in the debunked file.
http://www.rense.com/general41/flying.htm
I find these pictures unconvincing. One method that can be used to gauge relative distance in a photograph is to look at the contrast between the light and dark areas of an object, and compare this to other objects in the picture that are at a known distance. The closer something is to the camera [or your eye], the greater the contrast between light and dark areas. As an object approaches infinite distance, the contrast goes to zero and the object appears to be the same color as the horizon.
In these pictures, we see significantly greater contrast between the light and dark regions of the "saucer" as opposed to those of the planes. This tells me that this is a small object very close to the camera.
http://www.rense.com/general41/flying.htm
I find these pictures unconvincing. One method that can be used to gauge relative distance in a photograph is to look at the contrast between the light and dark areas of an object, and compare this to other objects in the picture that are at a known distance. The closer something is to the camera [or your eye], the greater the contrast between light and dark areas. As an object approaches infinite distance, the contrast goes to zero and the object appears to be the same color as the horizon.
In these pictures, we see significantly greater contrast between the light and dark regions of the "saucer" as opposed to those of the planes. This tells me that this is a small object very close to the camera.
Last edited:
