Not so High Strangeness is all around us but do wee see it?

syldan

Dagobah Resident
The other day, i picked a random photo to create an album cover. I cropped it and took myself out of the picture, then when i played around in Gimp to change the colours, as the cloud cover disappeared a solid disk shaped object appeared, hiding in the clouds. The picture was taken in Oregon in 1990. What do you think, are these things around us nearly all the time? Here are the pictures:

1_ab-2_ida-daniel-oregon-1990.jpg


Above my left shoulder over the bridge railing in the clouds?

1_ab-2_hiding-in-the-clouds-above-us2-oregon-1990.jpg


I found more too?! High Strangeness, or ordinary Strangeness???

NB: Does anyone on the forum know where this bridge is? It was on a road trip from Vancouver to California, I say Oregon but it could be Washington State?? From the date, I now it wasn't California for sure!
 
Could very well be strangeness... To me it just looks like a break in the clouds :D

But maybe that's just how easy it is to miss them if they camouflage so well. There's a saying that goes, if you want to hide something, put it in plane site.
 
@Solie, when using Gimp, which is the same as Photoshop, but on Open Source platform (free) we can manipulate the filters in such a way as to check these things out with near absolute certainty, within the parameters of the 5 senses, of course. Which is what i did, forward, backwards, sideways, etc and there is definitely a solid object there, in the clouds.

I could improve my original post by putting 5 or 6 filter adjustments (i can do that if you wish?), but i didn't think it was that important. And anyone doubting can check for themselves by downloading the original digital photograph, i am by no means an expert in this field, or any field for that matter. I just tend to do my homework before jumping to any conclusions.

My point, with this new topic, is that i, and my feeling is that many on this forum, have had this Strangeness around us our entire lives, to the point where we do not even notice anymore. Whereas another person would stop in their own tracks, we just become oblivious to many of these happenings near and around us.

It is not so much about this specific picture, but the fact that we do not pay attention when it is ever present! IMO /

Thank you for your reply @Solie! I really like your quote: "Not all who wonder are lost" - I was 'wondering' if you didn't mean to write WANDER? Cause both metaphors are quite cool! Thank you... And i agree that we are confronted with many things so 'in our faces' that we just don't flinch after a while. The use of TeeVee as a tool of total manipulation is but one of many examples, and I notice it because I have not had a TeeVee since 1998. Whereas, when I go to anyone's house who have them, I see what they don't see, by just looking at how subjugated they are by the flickering screen. I was a video artist, from 1977 to 1998, and I knew how powerful the screen could be. A weapon of Mass distraction for sure, and in a Museum or Gallery context was something I truly enjoyed messing around with.

It is mentioned in the recent transcripts that it might be a good idea to install some surveillance cameras near our houses, and apartments for the times ahead, and I am going down that path too! Maybe we can start sharing our experiences on this or another thread on the forum, I am curious as heck as to what will start showing up on these cameras. There are some cheap easy to install, movement triggered cams today that may set some hair raising precedents here!

There were many High Strangeness events in my life for a long time, yet maybe 20 years ago, things sort of died down, and recently a lot of stuff re-occurred and i have a 'présentiment' (french for: pre-cogni-sense) that we are about to live a lot of these events very near us. If not in our surroundings, at least in the surroundings of those we know, and love!

Thank you!

(NB: Something just occurred to me, and i don't know why, or if it is even connected, but during the road trip of the photo, my then lover and I were 6 months pregnant with my youngest, her only, son! Etienne is his name, he is a true prince to me, and has had many experiences to the point that he is still, at age 25 petrified by the grays. I posted somewhere a picture of him and some girls in Mexico showing us pictures they drew of Greys they said visited them the previous night. Is this all connected? I'll find the picture of the kids, when we were in Mexico, when Etienne was like 5 years old, and post it here as a follow-up connection to this thread.)
 
Not sure if this is helpful, but I vaguely recall a reference to UFOs and the like being able to disguise themselves as clouds or other things that fit into our normal perceptual range. It was in either Vol. 3 or 4 of the Wave series but I can't remember where it was specifically. If anyone manages to find it though, feel free to let us know :p
 
It looks to me like there is a mountain range or hills in the background of the original picture and the image you are curious about is a higher up piece of this range that doesn't have the fluffy cloud cover in front of it. When you filter out the clouds and you are left with the bluish green areas, the "UFO" is very similar, again suggesting it is merely a continuation of the lower image. Just a guess, but perhaps the simplest explanation....?
 
Thank you for being so helpful! I willl pull some more pictures out of the magic hat soon! :cool2:
 
Read this posting a couple days ago. I've been self learning Gimp and it's an amazing tool. Based on what little I do understand I would also have to agree. There's solid objects in the clouds.

Interestingly, it's pretty much forbidden to fly through clouds in light aviation. There's good reason without UFO's but maybe the knowledge that UFO's can also cloak as clouds has something else to with the practice as well.
 
KJN said:
It looks to me like there is a mountain range or hills in the background of the original picture and the image you are curious about is a higher up piece of this range that doesn't have the fluffy cloud cover in front of it.

I think the mountain range or hills above the bridge are just more sky, of a darker blue than the sky below the bridge. The "object" also looks to me of a similar colour to this sky. I am curious how using Gimp could make it so convincing that it is an object and not a break in the clouds.

The second enlarged photo in the original post seems to have less information in some ways than the original photo, as the original photo shows variations in the darkness of the clouds around the object, while in the enlargement the clouds have been "over-exposed" by the processing to a more uniform whiteness.
 
Mal7 said:
KJN said:
It looks to me like there is a mountain range or hills in the background of the original picture and the image you are curious about is a higher up piece of this range that doesn't have the fluffy cloud cover in front of it.

I think the mountain range or hills above the bridge are just more sky, of a darker blue than the sky below the bridge. The "object" also looks to me of a similar colour to this sky. I am curious how using Gimp could make it so convincing that it is an object and not a break in the clouds.

The second enlarged photo in the original post seems to have less information in some ways than the original photo, as the original photo shows variations in the darkness of the clouds around the object, while in the enlargement the clouds have been "over-exposed" by the processing to a more uniform whiteness.

I feel romochar probably has a much greater understanding about Gimp in the area you've asked about. I've been self teaching for a few months, maybe half a year, not real seriously but slowly gaining.

Gimp allows you to detect all the available colors in an image, isolate the colors ranges, and these then give you an indication of the density of objects. A cross correlation between like matter should remain with in a reasonable spectrum. This is flying by the seat of your pants mind you, but the same principle is involved in determining the composition of matter/gas on other planets in a much more refined way.

Light is going to interact with an object and logically a group of similar objects should contain the same range of colors. You wouldn't expect that when reducing or eliminating colors in photo, that one object would become significantly changed from a similar object.
For example, an image with two people in it should be altered in equally when color changes are applied to the image.

Romochar or anyone else should feel free to add or correct any of the ideas I've presented. Like I said, this is my fly by the seat of your pants explanation.

http://astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s2.htm
 
Hello @gambeir, @Mal7,

Thank you for you replies, i agree with gambeir, and yes you have a good grasp of what Gimp can help us do. And after using the Photohop 4 (the first editions), i can say for sure that it is a solid object, just as much as Nasa can say this and that about planets and stars, for we are basically using the same techniques.

Also, it was that point that was important to me, but the fact that some of us know, and feel that these 'presences' have been around us forever. We've learned to live with them and now we would like to know more, about how this works, and how much influence this phenomena has on us!

Thank you!
 
Well we do have a virtual invasion going on.

This image was supposedly taken at lake marble in Texas about a year ago and just recently turned into Mufon. I extensively worked on this image with Gimp. If the photo is taken at face value than the image is real.

Lake Marble is part of the Colorado River.


Link original image: http://www.mufoncms.com/files_jeud8334j/72432_submitter_file1__20140318182919.jpg

http://ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.com/2015/11/ghostly-glowing-green-figure-walking-on.html
ghostly%2Bglowing%2Bgreen%2Bfigure%2B%25281%2529.jpg
 
romochar said:
NB: Does anyone on the forum know where this bridge is? It was on a road trip from Vancouver to California, I say Oregon but it could be Washington State?? From the date, I now it wasn't California for sure!

Hi, I believe the bridge in the pic is the Siuslaw River Bridge on the Oregon coast in Florence. Earlier this week I visited the town. While taking a few pics along the waterfront of what I believe is the same bridge, I remembered this thread (when you originally posted about this, I was trying to figure out the bridge as it looked really familiar). Well, now I believe I figured it out but this time not when I was trying!
 
Thank you @Cleo,

The name Florence rings a bell indeed, even though it as been a long time. I believe you are right. I'll have a look at area with Google maps to try and remember more of that trip.
 
Back
Top Bottom