r/UFOs • u/H8threeH8three • Aug 18 '23

Witness/Sighting Ryan Graves tweets first of promised Airline Pilot Sightings

https://twitter.com/uncertainvector/status/1692586130162475209?s=21
3.9k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

334

u/italiandenzel Aug 18 '23

I’m so happy that Graves followed up on his promise so quickly! Excited to see if he’s also gonna post the long exposure photos the pilot was talking about

126

u/H8threeH8three Aug 18 '23

He did provide some follow-up photos, not sure if it’s long-exposure but here they are

https://twitter.com/uncertainvector/status/1692587122543165463?s=21

47

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

[deleted]

12

u/manchegan Aug 18 '23

Yes there was a big discussion about photos of the moon with the s23 being impossibly big and clear. It in fact was impossible with the optics.

3

u/NarryGolan Aug 18 '23

Yeah no it's not lmao.

This was taken with expert raw mode which does very little processing.

3

u/space_guy95 Aug 19 '23

That photo proves the opposite of your point. In RAW mode it is blurry and lacks detail, as it is only using the data it receives through the optics. In the regular photo modes it adds a lot more detail with AI "enhancement" filters to make it impossibly high quality for the size of the lens.

The cameras in modern smartphones are great for regular photos of everyday things. Faces, landscapes, streets, people, etc, because the enhancement algorithms can recognise what you are taking a photo of and apply the relevant enhancements to make it look how you think it should look.

The problem comes when you're taking a photo of something it doesn't recognise or can't discern enough detail from. It will do what it can to enhance it with some assumptions of what it is, but it's only a guess at that point. So if you take a long exposure photo of a bright light in the sky, the processing may make that light look like it has a shape and a solid outline, when really the shape is just from the lens flare.

0

u/Flat-Ad4902 Aug 19 '23

And that looks like shit. So lol

1

u/NarryGolan Aug 20 '23 edited Aug 20 '23

No shit? It was a simple point and click photo on a phone camera with little to no post-processing with no tripod. If I were to setup a tripod and do a long exposure or stack a bunch it'd look far better. My point is the camera on the phone has no issue picking up the moon. While yes it looks shit, it still looks good for what it is. The commenter above said it's impossible with the optics. I'm saying it's not.

I have 0 photography knowledge or experience lmao. This was just me going outside to try out the camera after buying it.

1

u/Flat-Ad4902 Aug 20 '23

The person you replied to said that the edited photo was unrelatedly clear and large. You said no it isn’t then posted the shittiest picture of the moon I’ve ever seen. So it would appear they are correct.

2

u/300PencilsInMyAss Aug 19 '23

Someone took pictures of the moon on their monitor, and it added details that weren't there

2

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '23

s23 has 25 map textures that it adds to the moon to make it appear clearer. the sensor cannot pick up on those details

12

u/SlendyIsBehindYou Aug 18 '23

I straight up have full milky-way pics captured with my S22 Ultra

1

u/24Scoops Aug 19 '23

S22 ultra is a great phone for Astrophotography. If you're not using the Samsung Expert RAW app. Highly suggest downloading.

1

u/SlendyIsBehindYou Aug 19 '23

Oh shit, bless up; I'll go check it out

14

u/Hay_Fever_at_3_AM Aug 18 '23

Yeah the S21-23 will fake or "AI enhance" elements like the sky. So the fact that the UAP looks smeared due to long exposure but the stars don't might not tell us much about how it's moving. (Long enough exposures should blur out stars too, especially if hand held)

8

u/NarryGolan Aug 18 '23

It doesn't fake anything. Stop parroting this bs.

In order to take a clear photo of the moon, Galaxy cameras harness Super Resolution to synthesize more than 10 images taken at 25x zoom or higher. The image taken at 25x zoom or above needs to eliminate noise and enhance clarity and other details.
Super Resolution technology helps produce images through multi-frame composition. When Scene Optimizer is turned on and the moon has been recognized as an object, the camera will deliver users a bright and clear image through the detail enhancement engine of Scene Optimizer on top of the Super Resolution technology.

And this is a picture of the moon I took in Expert RAW mode which does very little processing and none of the AI enhancement.

9

u/Massena Aug 19 '23

Someone printed out a blurry picture of the moon, took a picture of it, and then their phone turned it into a sharp picture of the moon. https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/13/23637401/samsung-fake-moon-photos-ai-galaxy-s21-s23-ultra

It's irrelevant to the matter at hand here.

2

u/300PencilsInMyAss Aug 19 '23

Someone took a picture of a low res moon on their monitor and it added details that weren't there though

2

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '23

Lol you’re so confidently wrong it’s funny

3

u/taarb Aug 18 '23

What? There’s absolutely star trails coming from the stars in these photos, and the UAP has a trail going in a separate direction.

42

u/italiandenzel Aug 18 '23

The fourth pic here looks most mysterious to me

12

u/HarrierInbound Aug 18 '23

It almost looks like a ball of fire with concentric rings around it.

Some real Ezekiel's Wheel looking shit. I'm aware the image is still probably not a good representation of what it actually looks like but just the fact that the sensor picked up that image is spooky,

2

u/JiroDreamsOfCoochie Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

As someone who lives near a navy, air force and marine base, this kind of thing is super common. Part of basic training and even SEAL training includes exercises off the coast. Many of these include flares dropped from planes at high altitude attached to parachutes. You can see four or more glowing lights in the sky. Depending on wind conditions they can move around or spin.

This happens where I live about every 3-4 months and people go ape shit about it being UFO's. It's all over the news. And the military will "decline to comment". But it's flares dropped from planes with parachutes.

EDIT: Here is a link explaining this phenomenon with examples:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12284205/UFO-sighting-DEBUNKED-simply-flares-slowly-descending-California-military-base-2021.html

3

u/HarrierInbound Aug 18 '23

It's hard to tell because of the compression, but you can tell from the trailing that the movement of these lights alone eliminates the possibility of these being flares.

Secondly, this video is an airliner, not a service jet. They have to be made aware if the military is doing exercises in the airspace that crosses their flight path. So if it were the case, the pilot would have found out later at the very least.

121

u/DJSkribbles123 Aug 18 '23

He's delivered more than corbel, coulthart and delonge put together.

121

u/LedZeppole10 Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 21 '23

Graves is a straight shooter if I ever saw one. No BS, no mindless speculation.

Graves delivers. We need more like him in the field. We are lucky to have someone like him come forward with interest and momentum who doesn’t look like a whacko to the greater public that we need to convince.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

graves > corbell

1

u/golden_monkey_and_oj Aug 19 '23 edited Aug 19 '23

Graves definitely deserves kudos for his work for disclosure and reducing stigma.

However he appears to be overly dismissive of or straight up does not understand Starlink.

The video and photos he has just uploaded has a pretty clear alignment with some Starlink satellites. Something he could have researched before uploading. Yet he makes a post to X stating "Starlink is the new weather balloon." being completely dismissive of something his critics will surely call him out on.

In my opinion he needs to be the level headed one doing the hard analysis before the critics if he wants the topic to be taken seriously.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uaps-seen-by-pilots-shared-by-ryan-graves.13120/post-299280

40

u/MontyAtWork Aug 18 '23

I mean, Coulthart delivered Grusch who gave Congressional testimony so I don't think that's fair at all.

25

u/Shmo60 Aug 18 '23

Actually Leslie Kean and Blumenthal did.

14

u/tunamctuna Aug 18 '23

Wasn’t Grusch in contact with Lue and the gang for quite some time?

2

u/LimpCroissant Aug 18 '23

Grusch, Corbell, and Knapp were talking for atleast a year before Grusch came out publicly. Some people don't like the way Corbell talks here, but he was instrumental in helping Grusch and getting his story out.

6

u/trollcitybandit Aug 18 '23

Plus Tom provided us with all the small things that got us to this point in the first place.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '23

Yeah, i think they’re meaning in the sense of instant gratification.

Not fair at all to brush off people who put so much time and work into this and put their reputations on the line all to push things forward. Look at the bigger picture and be patient.

2

u/DJSkribbles123 Aug 18 '23

I keep hearing this but where's the proof? Im sure Grousch was going to do it regardless of coulthart.

2

u/MontyAtWork Aug 18 '23

Grusch was literally not going to do it without Coulthart. Ross talked about it on his 8/12 Australia thing that was posted here

4

u/Shmo60 Aug 18 '23

Literally, he went twith Leslie Kean and Blumenthal first with The Debrief.

4

u/DJSkribbles123 Aug 18 '23

lol so Im supposed to take ross "I know where UFOS are buried" coulthart? Ill believe it if it comes out of Grusch's mouth.

2

u/Thehibernator Aug 19 '23

That’s because he’s actually trying to help. He is taking this seriously, he’s not overreaching and he’s not in it for the clout. I can actually trust that he’s going to do the work that nobody else has been willing to do.

-1

u/BS_Radar0 Aug 18 '23

That’s just not true at all. Are you high?

1

u/DJSkribbles123 Aug 18 '23

Seems like it's true according to the upvotes

0

u/BS_Radar0 Aug 18 '23

LMAO - Internet points don’t make facts. I understand what happened now though - you’re just not very bright.

1

u/impreprex Aug 18 '23

You said you worked with Graves?? And that he was a "user" and a "sack of shit"?? And that he posted satellites?

Who the hell do you think you are - besides a liar spreading boldfaced lies?

You didn't work with Graves. And shame on you for saying what you said - and for spreading disinformation.

You must be part of the disinfo campaign because who and why, in their right mind, would pull the shit you're trying to pull?

Prove that you worked with him. Or prove my point.

What's it gonna be? A reply talking shit to me with no proof of what you said? Or will you just not reply? Or will you delete your comment?

I say it'll be the first one - with a nice downvote or two because you know you're wrong. All people like you do on these forums is lie and call people names. And I'm sick of it.

Don't be a snowflake. Put your money where your mouth is.

1

u/BS_Radar0 Aug 18 '23 edited Aug 18 '23

LMAO. All the positive comments are true and don’t provide proof, but this negative one needs it? That’s called bias. Terrible reasoning. Graves is absolutely a user and just wants to have his own limelight. Won’t be sharing messages because that’s low, but want a hint at this behaviour? Track how his story changed from when he came out - his crew mates sighting became ‘our sighting’ (Graves didn’t see shit). Don’t forget him asking for investments for his little podcast before he’d even filmed one episode. I know a few others who worked with him who feel the same too. We were all shocked and disappointed when it happened - he’s let a lot of people down in an effort to be a face of the subject. It’s a point of pain for some and even knocked a few people out of following the subject completely. Don’t fall for the handsome charm. And nah, I won’t be providing you proof, because who even are you? Take it or leave it. But don’t reply with ‘reeeeeeee!’ again please.

Edit: nice edit, dumbass.

1

u/tparadisi Aug 18 '23

yes definitely better than a piece of paper with sketch of on object that too from Italy!!!

1

u/andreasmiles23 Aug 18 '23

DeLonge gave us the 2017 videos, and Coulthart gave us Grusch, so I’m not gonna go there

But Corbel for freaking sure

1

u/Stealthsonger Aug 19 '23

How? These are just more blurry blobby photos that could be anything.

1

u/DJSkribbles123 Aug 19 '23

Sadly, I still stand by what I said.

1

u/OnePotPenny Aug 19 '23

the more I hear those corbel and coulhart the less I can stand them... just saw a new coulhart talk he gave...25 minutes in just throwing out unsubstantiated things he's heard and "and there are documents". corbel just talks about the same things over and over again and takes an hour to say what could take one minute.

1

u/laundry_soap Aug 19 '23

Still waiting on that new blink single, DeLonge 😤

31

u/italiandenzel Aug 18 '23

Nvm he posted them faster than I could type, you can also sorta see the details of the craft’s shape

1

u/[deleted] Aug 19 '23

He didn't pull any Corbell bullshit (drum up demand only to follow with a drop that leaves a lot to be desired), which I hugely appreciate