Does a glitches occur on photos taken by digital camera?
Offline Hello!
You surely know the effects what appears on photographs, in shape of beams of light, foggy shapes or figures (for example, a white sphere with a trail behind it) or similar glitches. People says, that it's a manifestation of spirits or blessings of ascended masters. I won't argue about that now. It was common, that such effects on photographs were considered as a result of badly prepared photographic solution, or such a technical problems. Now, I really don't know, if it's possible with digital cameras. I have one at home, rather a good one, and I never saw a slightest glitch on the photo. It displays precisely every detail, every acne, hair or vein on people's faces.
A friend of my mother recently sent a photo, she took last sumer not far from there, near a village of Lomna. It's in a big format (these high quality reflex cameras takes a big photos) and it's a photo from a hike in nature. Some people walks on the road, a forest in background, a nice, clear sky, a sunny day. When she recently uploaded a set of photographs from the hike to an internet album, she noticed one small detail. On the sky, above the forest, there's a hovering silver, longish shape, like a cigar, or a disc, seen from the side.
I have seen a lot of UFO photographs and videos, and this one is no different. I'd like to see, what you rational people here think about it. I'm sorry I won't post the photo now, but I don't think I have a permission to publish the lady's private photograph. My mom already asked for an original version, with a better resolution, where the ufo would be more visible in detail, if it still exists about the half year, I could risk it and show this specific part.
What would you think, if such UFO would appear on your photo from a hike in nature? What should I think?
I don't believe in UFOs, unless I see some. last time I saw it, I was about 6 years (my brother watched it with me, so it wasn't my imagination) and seeing it in a daylight (not glowing) is quite different.
I mean, it can hardly be a technical problem in the digital camera, or a data transfer glitch, it doesn't happen in this way with digital technology, nowadays it would be rather squares and "ghosts" as seen on some bad DVD's. Also, I don't think the woman's son would play with Photoshop to alter this photo, he's about my age and messing with family photographs would be already quite a boring kind of entertainment.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
- Login to post comments
Yes. Optics are optics. Glare and lens flare get recorded on digital media just as well as they do on silver nitrate.
Digital media can even be worse than celluloid, and it's almost always compressed and the compression can generate artifacts that sometimes look like part of the picture.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
My cousin had an entire folder on her computer devoted to "orbs." She always used the flash, and had a dusty lens, but I'm sure they were really the magical and life-affirming phenomena she wanted them to be.
Magilum: yeah, a dusty lens can do wonders. I also once saw how some guys got pretty mistaken with a hair over their lens, it got a light green glowy color, was photographed in dark, and they wanted to believe.
My attention goes mainly to these light streaks or beams around people on photographs, I once saw some, where the streak went over people, but at the same time, was partially covered by others, so it really looked like a stream of energy, passing between people.
All right, can't let you wait, this is the low resolution version. (I'm still wondering how it looked like on an original photo) The piece on the left is a bit resized and partial, to show you how it really looked like, and on the right is a piece of original photo's size, the greatest detail I could get,without zooming in. What do you think? Does it look like a glare?
Well, maybe there's an explanation, in this region are big ironworks, and there's always a lot of smoke clouds coming from there. It works like, into the machine they put an iron ore, smoke comes out of chimney and iron ingots comes out of the machine. I guess they once had a problem with machinery, it got somehow reversed function for a while, and thus instead of iron ingots there went out a smoke ingots and from a chimney flew up an iron cloud, which you can see hover on the photo, carried by wind around the countryside.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
That looks like a small winged insect on the camera lens.
It's enlightened by sun, there is a cupola-like top with a sun reflection, a metallic grey middle, and a dark, flat, bottom, which is in a shade. This is, what I see. Yeah, a few pixels got lost when I again saved it as JPG.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Compared to the effort it takes to imagine it as a silver aircraft?
You should be looking at similar photos of things of known origin, ways to replicate the same effect. Getting data on equipment limitations is a start, but it can only provide a possible explanation if a similarity to a glitch is found -- if one is not found, then a different route must be pursued to find the answer. But that's if you decide to be in the business of finding answers rather than preserving mysteries.
As to the particular photo, I concur that it looks like a winged insect -- but in-flight, not on the lens. It appears both motion blurred, and out of focus; since digital and video cameras tend to have a deep depth of field, the likelihood is that it's close to the camera (probably less than three feet, which IIRC is a typical focal length).
"Ok, Jeb. Let me count to three then you throw that there hubcap."
"One, two THREE."
Click.
"Good one!"
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
In choosing a basis for determining what something appears to be, it helps if what that something is is otherwise demonstrated. If someone took a photo of lightning hitting a tree, we would have several known things that make the situation plausible: we know lightning exists from widely shared and consistent visual confirmation, prior photographs, experiments in recreating it, detailed explanations of it, and the after effects of its strike. That a photograph shows "energy passing between people" is less plausible than something precedented, like artifacts of optics, of printing, or of digital processing. Since we don't have supporting evidence of "energy passing between people," it's not really on the table as an answer for a photograph's contents.
The object is out of focus as the camera focused on the near objects. The trees in the background also show less definition. The object is not close to the lens as a flying bug because of the loss of definition shown. It shows similar illumination from the sun as other parts of the photo. The high clouds appear to be behind it and it appears to be further away than the trees. The village of Lomna is this in Europe in the Czech Republic or Slovakia?
There are so few pixels to work with it is hard to determine what it may be. Possibly a blimp at a distance or anti-aircraft balloons. This probably is a barrage balloon, weather balloon, or a blimp. It is not moving with velocity, the loss of definition is from it's out of focus condition. It's not a flying hubcap as it would be better focused. Using only this poor photo the best guess would be a blimp.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
A camera can focus on a hubcap that is rapidly moving away from the camera? Damn good camera. They focused on the trees. Then the object was sent sailing. Obviously the flying object will stay out of focus because the camera is focused on the stationary tree line from the get go.
Hubcap. When are we going to get poll options, damn it?
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
And it would be fun to have a poll =^_^=
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
You may be right, but I wouldn't necessarily discount the possibility of a near object. UFO researchers have been burned many times by admitted hoaxers using objects near to the lens, as it's fairly hard to tell the relative distance of objects beyond a certain point. That's the basis of forced perspective effects used often in film before digital computer graphics matured.
I guessed that the object was out of focus in addition to being motion blurred, but I could be wrong about that.
Yes, the village of Lomna is in Czech Republic, near both Polish and Slovak borders. It's all around here a valley between the mountains and Polish border. There are two such villages, Upper Lomna and Lower Lomna. Upper Lomna (which is more probable place for where it was taken) in fact not in the valley, but rather between mountains surrounding it. It's a wilderness there, even about two wolf packs sometimes hangs around, but they migrate.
In this place, where I live, is a major mount we'd call Maple Hill, which is a favorite place for parachute jumpers and rogallo flyers, both also with motors. These sport devices are always brightly colored and people on them always goes down, into the valley, never elsewhere, otherwise they would probably get impaled on a tree, or thrown by wind on a side of a mount.
Except of that, here flies an emergency helicopters from a near hospital, and in the valley, where's an open space, an one-motor small airplanes.
This is all, what flies here. No aerostat or balloon was ever seen here, there are no airports, companies, or tourists, who would care about it. To be precise, local villages are unlike anywhere else in the country. They're just lines on a map, otherwise it's a landscape with houses scattered around, only sometimes gathered around a major road, such is the isolation here and was maybe for centuries. I really can't imagine, that anyone here would somehow get an airship (totally uncolored, without a sponsor sign) and fly with it over very monotone landscape, which consists mainly of forests and farm fields. Here's a lot of electrical lines around, so even these parachute flyers must be careful to dodge them. I also haven't ever heard of any military base in this region, the nearest I know about is a 100 km away. Anyway, this mountain is a registered protected nature area, I doubt there would be allowed any military maneuvers or civil flying vehicles. This is just not a place I would ever expect any greater aerial activity.
After all, it doesn't look like any vehicle lighter than air, because as you see, the shade on the bottom, is larger than the top itself and probably totally flat. If it would be convex, as any airship is, the sun is in such a direction, that it would enlight it, which didn't happen.
I'm a bit speculating now, but it looks like it's flat and has angles. Maybe it's such a triangular ship, which was once photographed from above by satellite in Australia, and appeared on Google Earth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdEodxG-3gU
Anyway, every time I flip through these hundreds of recent UFO sightings from all around the world, I wonder why this joke isn't already too old, where is the nest all these UFO deceivers are swarming from, and why these meteorologists lets out so much colourfully bright glowing balloons.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I live in Orlando Florida where blimps are nearly an everyday occurance. Several years ago I was driving toward the beach at night and saw something I couldn't identify. It was floating with small lights far in the distance. When I got closer it turned out to be a blimp. They come in all colors now not just gray. I have seen blimps at a distance many times and they look like your photo. See google photo link below.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=jTm&q=blimp+photos&um=1&ie=UTF-...
Take one of the photos into photo shop and blur it to make it out of focus. Next pull back from it until it is very small. Most of them look identical to yours.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
*note to self*
Stop playing with RC Saucers >.>
(fyi; disk shaped space craft dont exist, they are inferior to the almighty cube!)
What Would Kharn Do?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
The least you could do is link to the good stuff.
Ooh! The authenticity of it all! Lots of people saw things in the sky that they couldn't identify, ergo aliens are visiting the planet! Well, at least the term UFO is being used honestly, if taken in the literal sense of Unidentified Flying Object.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Of course, being the willingly ignorant moron you are you jump at the space ship idea. Have you actually looked at it through google earth or google maps? Click on that link, look for yourself. Nicely zoomed in. It's there. I have no idea what so ever what it is, but one thing I DO notice, is that all vehicle tracks travel AROUND it, meaning it isn't a spaceship but rather something on the ground. Most likely some sort of structure, outcropping or field which we cannot see from the perspective shown in google maps.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/