Is the following analysis of Ed Walter photos of the Gulf Breeze sightings accurate?
(The Gulf Breeze sightings are one of the best-documented cases in the history of ufology. Llinks of the photos and other figures will follow. I MUST premise that the analysis shown after the brackets is NOT mine. It comes from “Not of This World” by a respectable aerospace engineer, Mark J. Carlotto, which deduces, by the way, that the photos are likely real. I just modified some words for readability purposes.)
The first photo to analyze is this:
Then, compare it to THIS Histogram equalized image:
This photo by Ed Walters (Ed and Frances Walter. 1990. The Gulf Breeze Sightings, Avon Books.) occurring years before photorealistic CGI technology existed, and is a clear example of how difficult it would have been to fake a UFO photo by double exposure using a Polaroid Instamatic camera. Normally an Instamatic camera automatically ejects a photo after it is taken. It is possible, however, to manipulate the camera so that it does not. In this way, one could add a second exposure to the first. Notice how the cedar tree obscures the right edge of the UFO in the photo. A model of a UFO would have to be precisely cut to match the silhouette of the tree, photographed, and the camera positioned so that the image of the previously exposed UFO, which is inside the camera and not visible to the photographer, would match the tree.
But even if one could accomplish all of this, there would be another problem for the hoaxer to overcome. Double exposure adds the light intensities of the two photographed scenes: the model of the UFO photographed on a black background and the outdoor scene. In a double exposure, the darkest pixel value within the UFO cannot be darker (lower in value) than the scene background. As shown in this link (multiple photos, the intended order is from top to bottom);
As I was saying, as shown there, cross-sectional plots indicate pixel values within the window of the UFO are lower in value than the surrounding scene suggesting it is not a double exposure.
(N.B. FROM ME: Although this analysis does not prove that this is a real physical object in the sky, it does suggest that it is the most likely explanation.)
Topics:
photography,
computers,
air travel,
technology,
photo,
Photoshop,
light,
cameras,
air,
UFOs,
shadow
Composing members: 0
Answers
)“Great Answer”
(3)
)“Great Answer”
(7)
)“Great Answer”
(1)
)“Great Answer”
(0)
)“Great Answer”
(1)
)“Great Answer”
(1)
)“Great Answer”
(1)
)“Great Answer”
(2)
)“Great Answer”
(2)
)“Great Answer”
(1)
