Search results

Yeah something that Ryan Graves seem to be actively interfering with, ironically given the name of his organisation. This Starlink/commercial pilot thing is to me an actual semi serious real world issue that UFOology is actively making worse.

It's the just the closest thing that they are familiar with to what they think they are seeing.

What's with with AARO and the seeming unwillingness to do characterisation, given NHI/aliens is part of the official wording, adopting a public position of either 'we identified the specific plane' and 'no idea' just leaves gaps for aliens.

A fun idea Mick takes his starlink app makes a mobile version that uses GPS location altitude and time as well as compass and orientation sensors to do an AR camera overlay of starlink flares in real-time.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/oregon/comments/17jbh36/anyone_see_this_over_clackamas_oregon/ More Starlink? No date/time/direction given in the OP though, I have asked.

Quadcopter drone are technically capable of getting to near airliner heights, but the regulations generally limit them to 120-150m (~400-~500ft) https://dronesurveyservices.com/how-high-can-a-drone-fly/#:~:text=But%20just%20how%20high%20can,as%20high%20as%2033%2C000%20feet.

They should publicly release the DICOM files so others can look at them

It's the doomscrolling final boss.

Yeah but it's specifically in the context of sensor artifacts, (Presumably IR cameras if RI is a typo for IR, why do AARO always seem to have some small mistakes in the reports.) Glare, flare and bloom etc are all often used as synonyms.

Looks like it's in a macroblock so more artifacts from edits/resizes etc. It's why seeing the original image is so key, it has the least artifacts from processing.

Yeah they are already there, but the processing bring out more macroblock artifacts, you are just not meant to edit JPEGs

The original JPEG has artifacts the repeated processing causes more rounding errors and recompression artifacts eventually the image "falls apart" JPEGs are not bitmaps or raw data,

In landscape photography it's called "foreground interest" a compositional technique to help with scale and draw the viewer's eye through the scene naturally. Here it could be intentional or accidental.

If in portrait mode the x any y are swapped in the metadata then the focus area was around here?

Any chance you can experiment with a vertical photo?

Looks like it was resized 3.15x down 2268/720 = 3.15 4032/1279 = 3.1524' etc

People sometimes mistakenly call the original file from the camera a raw file even though it isn't. Take the uncropped (if any of them are uncropped) rescale to match iPhone resolution if needed then you have the place the photographer had their finger placed.

People sometimes mistakenly call the original file from the camera a raw file even though it isn't.

There is no "raw format file" as far as I can tell from the exif just a HEIC from the phone. I think the original image was just taken with the standard iPhone camera app. As far as I know this refers to the area the user touched on the screen to set the focus and on phones this usually also...

Phones are pretty much always hyperfocal at around 1 meter.