Not another UFO?

  • 3 Replies
  • 1386 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Not another UFO?
« on: 10/04/2012 17:36:14 »
Take a look here:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ufo-video-seoul-south-korea.html

Looks a bit like flying hat to me.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2012 17:39:21 by Don_1 »
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
Re: Not another UFO?
« Reply #1 on: 10/04/2012 17:51:54 »
A flying hat which goes see-through @ 0:22 ...

[attachment=16290]


*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Not another UFO?
« Reply #2 on: 10/04/2012 22:13:22 »
It looks like an inverted ceramic bowl.

Your see-through bowl is likely a compression artifact. 

If we assume the film was intentionally made to follow the "UFO", then why isn't the UFO centered at the beginning of the film? 

Later in the film, the photographer seems to zoom in on the object just before the object departs to the top left.  Yet, there is no attempt to search for the UFO in the direction it disappeared. 

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
Re: Not another UFO?
« Reply #3 on: 11/04/2012 11:54:07 »
Image persistence, rather than compression artifact, can cause a double-exposure see-through effect.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=25113.msg271320#msg271320

However if there was a persistence problem the landscape would be smeared by the camera movement,
and the image of the UFO (if a real moving object) would leave a trail.
« Last Edit: 11/04/2012 11:55:47 by RD »