1. Mihai

    Mihai Closed Account

    You may play with contrast as long as you want on a blurred image(s), you cannot revert it to sharpness.

    Clouds are distorted, don't take them into account because i shifted the entire frame in order to overlap the object, so the background is messy, only resembles reality. Only the shape of the object is centered and stacked from multiple photos with "multiply burn" between layers.

    You clearly are ignoring the fact that overlapping multiple frames with the same object resulted in a clearer image. This would be impossible if the optics would be out of focus. (The Hubble couldn't be fixed by software also it could make repeated exposures to the same object)

    I think everyone here can see the facts ads up in favor of a solid object.

    Blurred dots cannot explain why image got crisper after stacking (stacking is an astronomy technique). Also cannot explain different thickness of the wings nor sharp angles from the tip of the wings.

    You are in love of blurred dots, it's your reputation in stake and i suppose i will have a ban for saying this but i already invested too much time in a cause that is not mine.
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  2. Mihai

    Mihai Closed Account

    I will remove my account from this forum, it's pointless to continue.
  3. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Multiple examples in this thread show that your camera was out of focus. Stacking a bunch of square pixels proves nothing.

    you are fixating on whether your camera was in focus or not. It is irrelevant, as your branches are transparent either way.

    And if your camera was in focus, then your 'craft' is made up of little heat dots. because everyone can see the dots in your film. Now is it possible for an alien craft to only show heat at its 'engines' which are placed like dots? sure. So I don't understand what your stacking argument is meant to prove.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. EricL

    EricL Member

    Your conclusions about what your video shows have been based primarily on belief, and your conclusions about other evidence presented has been based primarily on disbelief. Only toward the end of the discussion did you make any real attempt to provide evidence addressing a specific point (this was your stacked image, and unfortunately, good reason has been presented to cast doubt on whether that tells us much). For the most part, you made statements which you believed without evidence, or when pressed, provided evidence which was either nonsupporting (additional out-of-focus images as "proof" that the original images were clear) or just irrelevant. You ignored a couple of very obvious reasons to doubt that this was a plane, rather than try to find a way to explain those points. Look at the site's guidelines and see what it says about providing evidence to support statements of conclusion and you'll see that the moderators actually allowed you break these rules over and over again. I think such rules become even more important when a person makes an extraordinary claim, but really, such rules should always apply in any science- and logic-based discussion.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    A drone, someone faking a UFO?

    As for the speculation.
    1. Not our tech? Who belongs to the set, "not our tech". Whatever it is, it originated on earth, by man or beast, or lens reflection of something; but no, it is not ET tech.

    2. The object is heated cloud, if true, what is seen is not solid.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2017
    • Like Like x 1