Willease, nice try with the spin but you know I meant no disrespect to you or the evidence you posted, I have been studying and searching imagery of anomalous objects for nearly 40 years, I have seen some of the most convincing footage of real UFOs plus some of the most convincing fakes too, I have also viewed images where the poster has misinterpreted the simple for the complicated which is what has happened here including your "killing a thread and making a member feel unwelcome" comments.
I have followed your posts here and at other sites including your you tube channel (as I do with other members), and I must say you are consistent in both your approach and presentation, loosen up Willease and don't just jump to conclusions either with your evidence or the people you present it to.
__________________
"Creating a fiction when stating a fact destroys the credibility of the truth one are trying to convey"
Dont be a sensitive little flower. It does not do any good. The whole point for anyone to be on here is to learn stuff, and you wont learn anything if you run off to another site everytime someone says something you dont like to hear. Just accept that we all make mistakes sometimes. However, this image may show something, see below.
I downloaded the image 57 and looked at it. Then I downloaded image 58 and looked at it (by changing the 57 => 58 in the URL). I was going to compare whether the same cruddy bits appeared in both photos. Actually, in the top part of 58 there do appear to be some orb-shaped things which may be what they are photographing. They are at the top of the frame 58. Have a look and you will see they are a little different to the other stuff which I think maybe pieces of crud on the outside of the window or processing crud. It IS difficult to tell what is crud and what is really "out there" and it is easy to make mistakes. I blew up the cruddy-bits to 400 or 500 % and it looks as if the crud has a halo around it but the stuff which is not appears like any other piece of the photo. Thats how I think I can tell, but I am not an expert and can get it wrong too.
Sorry Willease , but all my instincts say this and most of the other objects in this image are processing artefacts, even in the inverted these objects look separate to the background image I usually find that real anomalies and the background are blended together (top and bottom of this image show this nicely), it will be interesting to see what others think about the objects (and my instinct).
They may very well be.
But at the same time, you are saying not to bother contributing my hard work to this website because that response is generic and can apply to any of the anomalies I find. Nice job killing a thread and making a member feel unwelcome.
Sorry Willease , but all my instincts say this and most of the other objects in this image are processing artefacts, even in the inverted these objects look separate to the background image I usually find that real anomalies and the background are blended together (top and bottom of this image show this nicely), it will be interesting to see what others think about the objects (and my instinct).
__________________
"Creating a fiction when stating a fact destroys the credibility of the truth one are trying to convey"
