This is not a new video, but just saw it and found it interesting. Maybe some of the sharp video analysts on this site can give this a look. It just looks very real to me. It looks like there is some movement around the bottom of the object, whatever it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Kj1edvwLs
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/u8h981VV8jE/hqdefault.jpg)
It almost looks like a "tear" in the sky.
Cosmo
Any ideas on the one above. Just looks odd...but real...whatever it is.
C
ah man am I gonna sound like a non believer after that last comment I made
Cosmo..
it looks like a helicopter that dropped off a skier to me..and the guy continually looking so pointedly back makes me suspicious. and makes me think it's a set up...
a snowboader with a selfie stick.....hummmmmmmmmmmmm
at 54 sec...it really looks like a helicopter to me
QuotePublished on Feb 2, 2016
UFO Sighting (Cigar Shaped) Filmed by Snowboarder in Aspen, Colorado (2013).
Date: March, 2013.
Location: Aspen, Colorado.
I find it amazing that the suns angle wouldn't be firing photons in our direction from them rapidly whirling light absorbent blades :D
hd too ,go protastic :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Kj1edvwLs
funbox
It looks like a helicopter.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/UFO%20Aspen.gif)
this one appears to have no tail fins or rotary blades
interesting , however does it prevent itself from spinning in circles :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on February 21, 2016, 02:05:02 PM
this one appears to have no tail fins or rotary blades
Are you expecting to see the tail propeller in those conditions?
As for the main propeller, I doubt the blades were in a position that would allow them to reflect the sun down to the camera, as they were (probably, I'm not a helicopter pilot) closer to vertical as possible to keep the helicopter hovering over the mountain.
But, even with the above, we can see that there's a brighter area on the side facing the sun that could be the result of a little reflection coming from the main propeller.
I don't see nothing no rotary of any sort , I do see that weird movement at its front , no landing gear though.
and where are the lights ? , surely there should be some flashing lights.. none
it looks like some kind of gnarly, old, gigantic sperm, sadly , about as close to a helicopter as I can compare :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on February 21, 2016, 02:24:15 PM
I don't see nothing no rotary of any sort , I do see that weird movement at its front , no landing gear though.
and where are the lights ? , surely there should be some flashing lights.. none
So, you are expecting to see the main rotor, the landing gear and the lights in those conditions?
I think you have seriously exaggerated expectations, considering the video we are looking at.
changed my mind..sorry...perhaps this can be totally wiped..
Quote from: ArMaP on February 21, 2016, 02:40:06 PM
So, you are expecting to see the main rotor, the landing gear and the lights in those conditions?
I think you have seriously exaggerated expectations, considering the video we are looking at.
I would also expect to see movement in the blue sky patch where the blades should be or anywhere around the edge,... nope, not much to speak of , just the general compression flux that happens in slight contrast changes and sometimes after re compression
full HD ArMaP , not some dodgy old security camera footage
as for conditions , I cant imagine visibility being any better , bright blue sky etc etc :D
funbox
Quote from: space otter on February 21, 2016, 03:56:57 AM
ah man am I gonna sound like a non believer after that last comment I made
Cosmo..
it looks like a helicopter that dropped off a skier to me..and the guy continually looking so pointedly back makes me suspicious. and makes me think it's a set up...
a snowboader with a selfie stick.....hummmmmmmmmmmmm
at 54 sec...it really looks like a helicopter to me
Space Otter, it seems to me that in this the actual GO PRO short video has been put in several times, and we are seeing the same "looking back" over and over.......and over. In every sequence, when he stops, his every movement is identical, including his hand actions and blowing out of his mouth, so it must be "repeating".
Also to me, this "UFO" doesn't seem to actually moving in any direction. But, there does appear to be some sort of dark object that comes out/drops out of the right end of this thing.
So, probably the logical guess, as you and ArMaP suggest, is heliocopter. :)
Quote from: funbox on February 21, 2016, 05:33:37 PM
full HD ArMaP , not some dodgy old security camera footage
Looking at an object 20 pixels long on a HD video or on a half-VGA video is the same thing, 20 pixels are 20 pixels (I used 20 as a random value, I didn't measure the object in the video), regardless of what the definition is you will always get things that do not have enough resolution to be recognised.
It's the same thing that happens with the Mars photos, why are all the "anomalies" far from the camera?
Quoteas for conditions , I cant imagine visibility being any better , bright blue sky etc etc :D
Conditions of the video, not weather conditions.
Quote from: funbox on February 21, 2016, 02:05:02 PM
this one appears to have no tail fins or rotary blades
interesting , however does it prevent itself from spinning in circles :D
funbox
Dragonfly close to the camera lense ;D ;D ;)
There certainly are a ton of kinds of choppers in Aspen dropping skiers. Does it matter his camera would be set to focus on him?
(http://s20.postimg.org/mgo36zjl9/chop.jpg)
(http://s20.postimg.org/6wgpgg9gt/images_4.jpg)
Quote from: Dyna on February 21, 2016, 06:37:43 PM
Dragonfly close to the camera lense ;D ;D ;)
There certainly are a ton of kinds of choppers in Aspen dropping skiers. Does it matter his camera would be set to focus on him?
(http://s20.postimg.org/mgo36zjl9/chop.jpg)
(http://s20.postimg.org/6wgpgg9gt/images_4.jpg)
indeed and if you turn the sound right up to mind buggering volumes you can hear the wudda wudda Wudda :D
funbox
QuoteLooking at an object 20 pixels long on a HD video or on a half-VGA video is the same thing, 20 pixels are 20 pixels (I used 20 as a random value, I didn't measure the object in the video), regardless of what the definition is you will always get things that do not have enough resolution to be recognised.
excuse me ? half -vga video :D
what is this gibberish ? :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on February 21, 2016, 07:01:46 PM
excuse me ? half -vga video :D
what is this gibberish ? :D
A VGA display has a resolution of 640x480, half-vga is 640x240. It was a common format for digital video in the previous millennium. :P
It had a higher resolution than the previous format, quarter-vga, 320x240 pixels, which I think was the first format for digital videos.
Quote from: space otter on February 21, 2016, 03:56:57 AM
ah man am I gonna sound like a non believer after that last comment I made
Cosmo..
it looks like a helicopter that dropped off a skier to me..and the guy continually looking so pointedly back makes me suspicious. and makes me think it's a set up...
a snowboader with a selfie stick.....hummmmmmmmmmmmm
at 54 sec...it really looks like a helicopter to me
Looks like a helicopter to me also. Looking straight into the sun your not going to get a clear shot of that helicopter Won't see rotors either
Quote from: ArMaP on February 21, 2016, 08:44:19 PM
A VGA display has a resolution of 640x480, half-vga is 640x240. It was a common format for digital video in the previous millennium. :P
It had a higher resolution than the previous format, quarter-vga, 320x240 pixels, which I think was the first format for digital videos.
what has this got to do with what the video was filmed in? we don't have that information , but what we do have is 1080p on youtube .. watch it on that its much crisper
but given its not 20 years ago , im going to take a phenomenally wild guess and say the camera has capability's far beyond 320X240 , ha I used to render such resolutions when I was first doing animation in 3ds4 :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on February 21, 2016, 09:57:21 PM
what has this got to do with what the video was filmed in?
It's obvious, if you read what I wrote instead of trying to find problems where there are none.
What I said was that the resolution in which the video was made is irrelevant, if you have an object that appears as 6 pixels wide (this time I measured the object ;) ) on a video, it doesn't matter if it was filmed in 1080p or QVGA, as it will always be 6 pixels wide, and that's too small to get all the details.
Quote from: ArMaP on February 21, 2016, 10:26:51 PM
It's obvious, if you read what I wrote instead of trying to find problems where there are none.
What I said was that the resolution in which the video was made is irrelevant, if you have an object that appears as 6 pixels wide (this time I measured the object ;) ) on a video, it doesn't matter if it was filmed in 1080p or QVGA, as it will always be 6 pixels wide, and that's too small to get all the details.
full hd is 1920 x 1080 im sure if it was filmed in that it would be bigger than six pixels wide given there's 1920 pixel along the horizontal .. and 6 pixels would all the object fills ? gibberish
the truth is we don't know what resolution the video was filmed in.. or did I miss an important piece of information ?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on February 21, 2016, 11:11:33 PM
full hd is 1920 x 1080 im sure if it was filmed in that it would be bigger than six pixels wide given there's 1920 pixel along the horizontal .. and 6 pixels would all the object fills ? gibberish
Here you go, measure it for yourself. I got 6 pixels as the maximum width of the object.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/UFO_Sighting_28Cigar_Shaped29_Filmed_by_Snowboarder_in_Aspen2C_Colorado_28201329_-_FindingUFO.png)
(don't forget to save the image or open it in another page or tab, the forum software reduces all images to a width of 600 pixels, if I'm not mistaken)
Quotethe truth is we don't know what resolution the video was filmed in.. or did I miss an important piece of information ?
Then why did you say "full HD ArMaP , not some dodgy old security camera footage"?
QuoteThen why did you say "full HD ArMaP , not some dodgy old security camera footage"?
because you can change the settings of the video to 1080, so im assuming the original footage is far beyond the minuscule resolutions you're suggesting..
lets say it was filmed in a high res..full hd at 1920 pixels width. are you still going to suggest its six pixels wide?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on February 22, 2016, 12:38:47 AM
because you can change the settings of the video to 1080, so im assuming the original footage is far beyond the minuscule resolutions you're suggesting..
Are you really reading what I write or are you imagining what suits you?
I suggested no resolutions, read what I wrote.
Quotelets say it was filmed in a high res..full hd at 1920 pixels width. are you still going to suggest its six pixels wide?
It's not a suggestion, it's a measurement. Do it yourself, if you don't believe me.
Edited to add that the 6 pixels width is only the dark part of the object, it doesn't include what I think may be the rotor and that adds some 8 pixels more on the image I just posted.
firstly make sure you take a screenshot at the highest resolution YouTube has to offer, or get the original video
many more than six pixel width
(http://i.imgur.com/K07yhZs.jpg)
funbox
Quote from: funbox on February 22, 2016, 12:49:56 AM
firstly make sure you take a screenshot at the highest resolution YouTube has to offer, or get the original video
How do you think I got that 1920x1080 image I posted on post 122348 (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=9125.msg122348#msg122348)? By magic? ::)
Quotemany more than six pixel width
Be specific, how many do you count?
Quote from: ArMaP on February 22, 2016, 12:52:51 AM
How do you think I got that 1920x1080 image I posted on post 122348 (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=9125.msg122348#msg122348)? By magic? ::)
I don't even want to know how you came to that insane number :D
I count around 56 pixels in width ,varying a few pixels for ambiguity in the start and end of the object
the exact dimension of the original footage isn't known, it was integrated in editing software and re-rendered, then re-rendered in YouTube , but ide say it was fairly high
resolution ..
do you notice there's less banding in my screen grab.. did you do a grab in 240p or something low ?
funbox
gnarly giant sperm , when you blow it up, wonder if it would smell like petunia's :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on February 22, 2016, 12:59:00 AM
I don't even want to know how you came to that insane number :D
What insane number? I was talking about the image I posted.
QuoteI count around 56 pixels in width ,varying a few pixels for ambiguity in the start and end of the object
I see, it's a question of definitions, again.
To me, the object has, in its longest dimension (that I call
length), around 56 pixels, and in its shortest dimension (
width), 6 pixels.
I thought everybody used the same definition for length and width, but it looks like I was wrong.
Quotedo you notice there's less banding in my screen grab.. did you do a grab in 240p or something low ?
No, I downloaded the 1920x1080 pixels version of the video and saved that frame from a video editing program (Avidemux) that allows me to move frame by frame, that's probably the reason for the banding. As the banding doesn't change the size of the objects in the video I wasn't worried about it.
Thanks for the feed back folks. I duuno...I have been looking at these:
https://www.google.com/search?q=helicopter+in+the+sky&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8-bXt04rLAhVE2D4KHfW9C-kQ_AUIBygB&biw=1024&bih=681
Seems more detail should be visible in that video and I can't figure out what that movement or "object" is underneath it. Chopper in the sunlight???... I still can't decide what the heck it is....
Cosmo
Quote from: ArMaP on February 22, 2016, 02:10:32 AM
What insane number? I was talking about the image I posted.
I see, it's a question of definitions, again.
To me, the object has, in its longest dimension (that I call length), around 56 pixels, and in its shortest dimension (width), 6 pixels.
I thought everybody used the same definition for length and width, but it looks like I was wrong.
No, I downloaded the 1920x1080 pixels version of the video and saved that frame from a video editing program (Avidemux) that allows me to move frame by frame, that's probably the reason for the banding. As the banding doesn't change the size of the objects in the video I wasn't worried about it.
I don't get how you're getting Six anything, the anomalies around 15 pixels high by 52 wide.. but , feel free to keep happily chatting nonsense :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on February 22, 2016, 11:53:11 AM
I don't get how you're getting Six anything, the anomalies around 15 pixels high by 52 wide.. but , feel free to keep happily chatting nonsense :D
If that's what you think I will just stop here.
now now, ArMaP :d it wasn't me who forgot to grab at the highest resolution :D
but it does bring into question the detail we are actually seeing .. im sure I could do a relatively good icon of a helicopter in one 5th of the number of pixels we see here .. I might even be able to get the tail and rotars in that significantly reduced gauntlet boast :D... unless you can do it in less :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on February 22, 2016, 08:22:54 PM
now now, ArMaP :d it wasn't me who forgot to grab at the highest resolution :D
It's useless talking to you, you ignore what I write and talk (write) as if what you imagined is the truth. ::)
Quote from: ArMaP on February 22, 2016, 08:55:55 PM
It's useless talking to you, you ignore what I write and talk (write) as if what you imagined is the truth. ::)
well I imagined earlier that you was saying that pixels are not related to resolution, I cast it away into the fiction bin , later you tried to say that it was 6 pixels something or other, I had to go to the video myself just to see if I hadn't got a delirium brought on by staring at sperm shaped helicopter.
ive been listening this whole time strangely and , well it appears that you have a misunderstanding about video , resolutions and pixels..
(https://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lq5uhuCMsj1qfqp2to1_500.jpg)
:D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on February 22, 2016, 09:09:30 PM
ive been listening this whole time strangely and , well it appears that you have a misunderstanding about video , resolutions and pixels..
That's why I said it's useless talking to you, you only read what you want to read and are unable to see that you are wrong.
This conversation ends here.
Quote from: ArMaP on February 22, 2016, 09:18:22 PM
That's why I said it's useless talking to you, you only read what you want to read and are unable to see that you are wrong.
This conversation ends here.
well you didn't put much else down to contemplate, I can only interpret what you put on screen..
why don't re explain what you mean , im not fond of seeing non fisherprice toy's befouling the air
*scurrilous m.f.b's hurriedly sucker collect the crasstic toys, their tentacles whiplashing them through hungry portals. finished, they stop an turn , expectantly *
funbox