UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2010 > Oct > Oct 22

Re: Balloons? I Think Not

From: Jeff Ritzmann <jeff.ritzmann.nul>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:21:54 -0400
Archived: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 05:47:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Balloons? I Think Not

>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:33:51 -0400
>Subject: Re: Balloons? I Think Not

>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:34:29 -0400 (EDT)
>>Subject: Re: Balloons? I Think Not

>>>From: Greg Boone<Evolbaby.nul>
>>>To: post.nul
>>>Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:07:33 EDT
>>>Subject: Balloons? I Think Not

>>>There are pathetic explanations and there are beyond pathetic
>>>explanations for UFO sightings but to regress to balloons again
>>>after watching this video:


>>>just takes the cake.

>>My guesses:

>>Daylight in NYC - balloons

>>Night in El Paso - falling pyrotechnics (like fireworks) with
>>parachutes (to arrest the fall before they burn out)

>Bruce, since you don't go into detail, I assume your guesses are
>not based on an analysis beyond the obvious.

>I would like to show readers of the List that all is not as
>simple as it seems. I've placed images of an orb triple from an
>NYC video on my web site for discussion.







>Pic0 is an original image extracted from the video. Pic1 zooms
>in on the orb triple. Pic2 is a transformation obtained by
>equalizing Pic1 before it was enlarged.

>Notice in Pic1, the brightest areas tend to be in the center of
>each orb with a relative shadow around the entire periphery of
>the orb. If the sun were behind the camera, the bright centers
>could be a reflection. Otherwise, the orbs would need to be

>Further, in the equalized Pic2, an asymmetry in the brightness
>of individual orbs can be seen. That is, the brightest areas are
>not circular. This suggests that these orbs are not exactly
>spherical. Another possibility is that this asymmetry is an
>artifact of the image compression algorithm. The objects' bright
>spots may not have fallen on the center of an element of the
>grid used to encode the image.

>But notice also in Pic2, that there is a lighter area in the
>upper right quadrant where the fourth of a quintuple of orbs
>might have been positioned in a square arrangement. This light
>spot is not visible in the original photo, and so is not a
>reflection from a fourth balloon. However, this hint of a fourth
>orb could be the beginning of a plasma ball as I suggested in an
>earlier contribution.

>Perhaps a more thorough analysis along this line could address
>more completely the utility of the balloon hypothesis. From what
>I've seen thus far, there is reason to question it.



You're banking quite a bit on Internet stills based off what was
likely a video dubbed to CBS - and that's completely absurd. Not
only is image compression in play (which you mention) but
there's also other direct issues of scaling and color values
that are completely inaccurate and result in more false data.

You also don't take into consideration the  CCD parameters and
how that CCD chip reacts to being excited by light - which can
vary by manufacturer, make of camera and then add in whatever
varied optics are employed.

I can go on, but what's the point. You don't have decent imaging
data to start with. It's a web compressed image that has been
passed around from it's inception like a whore on Saturday
night. Artifacts are just that - added "data" that doesn't
belong, but is a product of media type and transmission.

I've talked to more than a few people who saw the event. None of
them said the objects they saw exhibited anything unusual in the
way of flight. They didn't blink out or shoot away, nor stay
stationary in any way. They floated off until they were no
longer visible. Like, oh I dunno... balloons.

Not everything is suspect or worthy of "investigation", and a
whole lot of time in UFOLogy is spent in wasting time examining
visual data that isn't of a decent quality to even bother with -
especially now in the days of the Internet. If these objects
were closer and better defined, we'd have more to work with.
But, they aren't - and we also have plausible, explainable data
on the table.

More often then not, putting up this sort of contention on the
marginal, largely worthless data is a nice open door to allow
fundamentalist skeptics a way to make this subject - and those
involved in it -  an example of "the desperate to believe"

We've got enough of that without adding to it.

Jeff Ritzmann

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.