UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2010 > Oct > Oct 25

Re: Balloons? I Think No

From: Jeff Ritzmann <jeff.ritzmann.nul>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:10:24 -0400
Archived: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:05:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Balloons? I Think No

>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:14:55 -0400
>Subject: Re: Balloons? I Think Not

>>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 =C2 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 - =C2 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.

You're missing the point. By basing too much upon very little
you're opening the door for them to publicly humiliate you and
this field because it shows that you don't understand basic
imaging and that you have drawn hard lines without even the most
basic necessary data. This is what such fundamentalist skeptics
make an example of because you make it easy. It's bad enough
that the balloon release and the skydive team have both put up
false flags in the media close together. If this field beats the
dead horse then it's just silliness and will be shown up as

>Many of them have already decided that these are objects
>controlled by ET.

Who? Skeptics? Yeah I don't think so.

>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.

Again, you miss the point. You cannot trace it's lineage because
you don't know it. Number two, in as many times as it changes
hands or is posted it's going through a process - and again one
you cannot trace in a generational or contaminated sense. Ex: If
CBS say, got the video from a citizen, and the citizen's camera
was digital - then there's immediate compression, optics and CCD
matters. Then CBS takes that onto their web server. It's
compressed GREATLY for online viewing. Joe sees the footage and
recaps it onto his machine. Joe then uploads it onto his
website. Then someone takes it off Joe's site for "analysis".
The idea is absurd on the face of it.

There's also another issue. Emailing an image? Some email
services compress the data. Passing it around, yes, can degrade
the image. It's not only a question of linage. At pure transfer,
no there's no degradation - but that wasn't my point. The point
is uncertain lineage.

>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.

You assume that what the camera captured is what was actually
seen with the eye. Again, at this distance of the observed
object you're completely off the mark. You're also taking about
NYC - distance hazing (atmospheric and pollution) would have a
definite effect on subduing the actual image recorded. The same
comparison analogy can be made at night with low horizon viewed,
and distant lights - scintillation has a GREAT effect on what is
not only seen, but recorded with analog and digital media (each
having their own "issues").

If media were as accurate as you assume - we'd be able to video
tape a star and put what is recorded through spectral analysis.
That's silly. It's the equivalent of testing the Mona Lisa
looking for her DNA.

>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.

Morphing? Come on. Again, you're showing me you don't have any
idea how the data is getting onto the media. Dark background.
Bright objects. Distance, and lack of absolute focus. Know what
that equals? Blur and ill definition. Objects as described can
"kiss" or appear to conjoin when close, because the camera can't
make the focal leap of resolve. You're basing "morph" again
because you're not considering *many* factors.

> 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.

Are you actually listening to yourself?

>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.

Well you'll blindingly accept poor video footage as "evidence"
with all of it's aberrations as some sort of relevant data, so
I'm not seeing your sense of discernment. The videos shown
below, again, don't show objects stopping, changing direction,
zipping off, etc. They show thermal carry. Lets use a little
deductive reasoning where we can.

>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.

> William

Btw, nothing on CCD variants? Ok. Guess that fell upon deaf ears.

I'm sorry William, I've got 20+ years in digital and analog
imaging in my professional career as well as video editing and
CGI digital composite/computer 3D modeling. Sadly, this field
often decides to waste time and focus upon nonsense - and whats
even more sad is that people would probably far rather hear what
conclusions you'd draw then any explanation I'd give them based
on reality or image data.

My inserted comments into your reply above are my best attempt
to make you understand a few things, but based upon your last
reply it seems you've gotten a preconceived notion together, and
there's little I can do to help you there - so I'll exit the
conversation and not waste your time or my own. There's far more
compelling cases and far more compelling anomalous visual data
out there right now.

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.