UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2010 > Oct > Oct 23

Re: Balloons? I Think No

From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:14:55 -0400
Archived: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 05:55:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Balloons? I Think No

>From: Jeff Ritzmann<jeff.ritzmann.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:21:54 -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

Thanks for the comments, Jeff. I realize the visual data is
subject to interpretation, so other views are useful.

I have to say that I don't worry too much about opening a door
for "fundamentalist skeptics" when I think out loud in public.
Many of them have already decided that these are objects
controlled by ET.

Unlike in the days of analogue data, simply sharing digital data
by copying does not degrade it, so your comment that passing
image data around degrades it is a red herring. The main thing
affecting data quality is the initial image compression which
can create artifacts.

There are general characteristics in the video worth noting,
such as the shadows surrounding each disk, and the brightness of
the disks. In the absence of other known balloons in the sky, I
compared them to the image of the balloon released during the
City of Madrid tourism campaign. This balloon was not as bright
as the surrounding sky. In contrast, if the objects in the UFO
video were balloons, they were highly reflective across the
whole spectrum with the light source behind the camera. This
would be more characteristic of mylar than party-balloon rubber.
But they did not exhibit the glints and flashes one might expect
if they were reflecting balloons changing orientations in the
wind, unless they were perfectly spheroidal. On the other hand,
the light from self-illuminated objects would be non-specular
and less dependent on orientation.

As noted earlier in another post, starting at around 2:45 in the
CBS video, a single object comes into view and gradually morphs
into a set of three objects. Yes, one might say that this was
due to a change in perspective where the three balloons were
initially aligned so that two were hidden behind the third.
However, the morphing from one to three objects certainly does
not prove they are balloons, and could be used as an argument
against it.

I'm considering the possibility that these are man-made objects,
but not necessarily balloons. An EISCAT publication (2004) shows
that it was possible to create visible plasma objects in the sky
by HF stimulation of the ionosphere. Who knows what they can do
six years later? If the objects over NYC were balls of light
created by such means, why couldn't they also be manipulated to
behave like tethered balloons, perhaps simply by changing the
frequency and phase of interfering waves? We might need to look
carefully at the details of the display to tell the difference.

A reason why I don't blindly accept that these are nothing but
balloons is that these objects have appeared in the past and in
greater numbers. See the following videos, for example.

Flotilla of UFOS over Lima, Peru ~ May 2007


UFO Fleet Flotilla Ovni Mexico


If the technology exists, and it does appear that it might,
these masses of objects might be easier to create that way than
by releasing as many balloons.


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.