The way this thread opened was almost a self-parody by UAPMax, and I think most of our members didn't make fun of his "beliefs" as much as we made fun of his gushing, overblown claims about a thing that neither we nor he had seen yet. He himself, once he had possession of the image, seemed pretty underwhelmed and disappointed but was forced into defending it (by attacking Metabunk) by his own initial enthusiasm.
Fair point, generally speaking. I've removed the somewhat flippant "Beat that......!" line from my post.
However, I was giving examples of my pareidolia, not claims made by anyone else.
I think he was passing along info from the photographer and hadn't seen it. But his writing style is unclear, so I'm not sure.
how funny would it be if that was some type of butterfly trap? [didnt see any with little 'windows' like that]
i dont think he insulted us collectively, all he said was "go F yourselves". I dont really take that as an insult.
I prefer his way actually. I'd prefer someone call me an asshat, then listen to some condescending diatribe about my alleged cognitive disabilities just because they can't believe i would deign to disagree with them!
Apparently there's a middleman?
Whether or not the pre-release discussion had value, this seems to me a valid concern. Could Mods address it, perhaps by at elast inserting the image at the top of the thread, or perhaps preferably by following up on:
and splitting off the discussion of the picture from the discussion of the pre-release marketing hype? At the very best, these seem separate discussions.
Which picture is best? There are a ton of them.
can't find it?
everything above post #48 should be in a separate thread. 48 onward is the analysis of the photo (im assuming...didnt read like 2 pages as i stopped listening long before the photo was released..so was like 3 pages behind)
Without the clouds and other distractions, this is already a bit better. It's easier to see that it's in the sunshine above the plants.
I tried using Photoshop clone tool to darken the distant trees, but there's so little resolution in this version, the "orb" gets kind of lost.
The band of sunlit forest -in which the house roof is visible - is between the dark band of cloud shadow, and the more distant, and thus darker, forest. Therefore that band of sunlit forest is perceived as brighter than it is. It appears to be as bright as the sunlit plants.
Luminance-gradient-dependent lightness illusion*
*The term "Luminance-gradient-dependent brightness contrast" is also possible.
The left square appears to be darker than the right one, though they are identical in luminance gradient.
Counterphase brightness induction
The left bar appears to be darker than the right bar in each image.
I tried a different approach: The bottom up approach. To eliminate the distracting and misleading cloud shadow, I used the Photoshop clone tool to make the brightly sunlit plants taller. I did nothing to the butterfly/Orb. I did not move it, make it brighter, or anything. This is a rough and ready 'shop, but I think this should show more clearly that this is a sunlit butterfly above or near the sunlit plants.
The original photo was an accidental forced perspective photograph. An important factor was apparent brightness. The two separate bands of brightness were misleading. It made it look as if the butterfly belonged with the bright, distant trees, instead of with the bright nearby plants. If there had been no cloud shadow on the forest, this photo would not have been nearly as misleading.
This version shows more clearly that the distant trees, even though lit by the same Sun, have a lower apparent brightness than does the butterfly. The distant trees also have a slight blue cast. The even more distant trees are darker with a more noticeable blue cast. The reason is atmospheric scattering. (Not Rayleigh scattering! That's something different.) The trees look darker than the butterfly.
The butterfly has the same apparent brightness as the plants. The white stripes on the Orb/butterfly wings do not have a blue cast. This is evidence that this is a small object close to the plants, not a large object above the distant trees.
I did not mess around with the brightness of the plants. Just cloned them. I didn't change the brightness, contrast, white point, etc. in any part of this photo downloaded from the UAPMax Twitter account.
Done
i dont think its the "same" distance. its further back than the grass but before this first line of tree tops (highlighted in purple)
I mean, yeah, it sort of has that look -- but I wonder if we'd be seeing a butterfly trap if we were not already talking butterflies. As you say, it is hard to tell when there is so much visual clutter, but I suspect we're seeing some of these leaves, just back behind some of the taller grass...
That's a very good point.
It's a bird feeder ...or a yellow flower with three blooms. But that's a diversion we don't need to have, what with it being in the LIZ.
unlike every single one of the thousand UFO threads...
So the hoax was premeditated, and involved waiting for a butterfly to come by and taking its picture hoping it looked like a UFO? I'll admit that is more likely than Space Aliens happening by in a vehicle that resembles local butterflies, but it seems an odd plan -- tossing a Frisbee(tm) or hubcap, or the ever-popular thing on a string, would seem to be better plans.
it doesnt look like a ufo. maybe he read our devil dog thread and saw how easy it is to mistake a butterfly for not-a-butterfly. just saying.., that's why i said it would be funny.
We've already gone through the discussion of aerial perspective, and here it's very obvious that the receding hills become lighter and more blue with distance. There's nothing here that would tell us that the thing is any further away than the tree on the left.diamond shaped ufo. how far away would this be..like a half mile, like UAPMax's ufo?
the "half mile" claim is based on "ground tracking data" that is not in evidence, and not likely to ever be in evidence. It's not an established fact.
diamond shaped ufo. how far away would this be..like a half mile, like UAPMax's ufo?
Looks like a wide angle with Monarch butterflies to me, you can see 4-5 butterflies in the upper branches, largish numbers like this are usually indicative of a migratory species like Monarchs.
its an example for outside readers (and UAPMAX) who believe UAPMax's photo shows a thing half a mile away. I dont know how many such readers would be on board with the sunlight issue as they might think if the orb is high (vs the distant trees) it too might still reflect sunlight.
This implies that UAPMax has not yet been given a higher resolution version. What does preliminary data mean? That sounds as if it's a fancy way of saying the low-resolution image. Or the info he got when he talked to... someone? Or... what? What does "assessment" mean? He's still analyzing the low-res image?
