423 replies to this topic

[Euphorbia]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

No, I don't think anyone is OK, but I see evidence that someone has analyzed these pictures for fraud in more detail than usual, and no one on here has done any better.  They are just talking about bugs, birds and bags, based on their own whims.

But how do you know this guy is reliable? You're taking him on his word yet dismissing anything anyone else has to say?

Why is this guy so damn reliable to you?

[booNyzarC]

thewonderman, on 04 October 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Well first off it the object clearly looks like it is behind the rock which is in front of them and I have never known a bug to be that big ever before.

Infact lets take a look at the goats head in the bottom right corner compare that to the size of the 'BUG'. OK so we can safely say its not behind the goats and infact past the rock.

There is no way to determine the actual size of the object without knowing the actual distance it is from the camera.  Likewise, there is no way to know how far away it is from the camera without knowing the actual size of the object.  Saying that "it looks like it is behind the rock" doesn't confirm the assertion with anything verifiable.  It could be a very small object close to the camera or a larger object some distance from the camera.  Neither can be determined without the other.

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

There is no way to determine the actual size of the object without knowing the actual distance it is from the camera.  Likewise, there is no way to know how far away it is from the camera without knowing the actual size of the object.  Saying that "it looks like it is behind the rock" doesn't confirm the assertion with anything verifiable.  It could be a very small object close to the camera or a larger object some distance from the camera.  Neither can be determined without the other.

Once again, that's not one the person who analyzed the pictures said--not at all--and no one on here can claim to have done a similar analysis--not even close.

They haven't checked his work in any way, shape or form, just questioned his integrity and disagreed with his conclusions.  Of course, if they had agreed with the conclusions, the Septic Septics would  all be on here in a chorus saying he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.  LOL

[White Unicorn]

Euphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

He presented EXIF data, data which can be altered. That is a fact! I don't know about all manufacturers, but Canon makes special software that does guarantee that the raw file hasn't been altered.

You're trying to compare a robber breaking into a store with a UFO? Apples to oranges.....

The reality of this is much like a robber breaking into a store and a person takes a photo as evidence.   All data can be altered so are we not to believe any data or testimony presented? It can be proved wrong but it can't be proved true. All the witnesses also can also be lying but can you prove they are not?  The robber would like you as his defense witness!


If this is true about Canon I would say the word needs to get out to serious people in gathering edvidence!  
Point is with UFO's no witness testimony is taken serious even from astronauts, common people et al. then if there is any edvidence its is thrown out because is could be altered.  

Maybe UFOs should be taken to the courts to establish the truth of the UFO occurrences LOL
At least then we would focusing on what each UFO really is instead of trying to defeat anything that is presented as evidence just like the case of a robber!

Edited by White Unicorn, 04 October 2012 - 07:13 PM.

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 04 October 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Once again, that's not one the person who analyzed the pictures said--not at all--and no one on here can claim to have done a similar analysis--not even close.

They haven't checked his work in any way, shape or form, just questioned his integrity and disagreed with his conclusions.  Of course, if they had agreed with the conclusions, the Septic Septics would  all be on here in a chorus saying he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.  LOL

What are you talking about?  He said this:

Without the ability to travel to the location and do specific measurements of stationary objects to compare with focal lengths and other triangulation points, I cannot determine the distance of the object. However, it's level of atmospheric haze indicates to me it is of some distance away and of substantial size (perhaps even the legendary 40ft diameter is not out of the question)

What does that mean exactly?

By the way, how different from motion blur is atmospheric haze?

You're hanging your hat on this guy's supposed qualifications without knowing anything about him unless I'm mistaken.  I haven't spent any time looking into him or his qualifications.  I don't really care that much about this picture to bother with such things.  I just find it fascinating that you seem to be jumping all over the 'defense' of this picture when nobody knows what it is.  Are you incapable of understanding what I mean when I say "this is what it looks like to me, but I don't claim to know whether this is actually what it is." ?

By merely presenting the possibility of it being an insect I am now a Septic Skeptic in your opinion?

Please also point out where this Jeff Ritzmann supposedly says that it isn't a bug and his reasoning for that statement.  So far I've seen him say that it isn't a bird, and his reasons are:

-Object does not resemble a bird in any way whatsoever
-While birds can appear to have highlights, they do not reflect the light per this object, nor have reflective properties

Oh, well gee.  I guess it can't possibly be a bird then, because he said so.

If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious.

[Euphorbia]

White Unicorn, on 04 October 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

The reality of this is much like a robber breaking into a store and a person takes a photo as evidence.   All data can be altered so are we not to believe any data or testimony presented? It can be proved wrong but it can't be proved true. All the witnesses also can also be lying but can you prove they are not?  The robber would like you as his defense witness!

You're being ridiculous! If I told you I took a picture of a tree, you would probably say "so what". If I told you I took a picture of Bigfoot, you would probably want to examine the picture (unaltered) to try to discern what was in the shot. It comes down to degree of probability....UFO's and cryptids require more scrutiny!

Quote

If this is true about Canon I would say the word needs to get out to serious people in gathering edvidence!  
Point is with UFO's no witness testimony is taken serious even from astronauts, common people et al. then if there is any edvidence its is thrown out because is could be altered.  

Maybe UFOs should be taken to the courts to establish the truth of the UFO occurrences LOL
At least then we would focusing on what each UFO really is instead of trying to defeat anything that is presented as evidence just like the case of a robber!

It's called the "Canon DVK-E2 Data Verification Kit".
http://www.bhphotovi...cation_Kit.html

What we really need is a downed UFO in the public's hands. Until then all we will have is back and forth bickering.....

[synchronomy]

Seems to me that ufo was there when the photo was taken.  The pixelation of the ufo and the goats head are identical.
Here's a couple of blowups:

Edited by synchronomy, 04 October 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[White Unicorn]

Euphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

You're being ridiculous! If I told you I took a picture of a tree, you would probably say "so what". If I told you I took a picture of Bigfoot, you would probably want to examine the picture (unaltered) to try to discern what was in the shot. It comes down to degree of probability....UFO's and cryptids require more scrutiny!



It's called the "Canon DVK-E2 Data Verification Kit".
http://www.bhphotovi...cation_Kit.html

What we really need is a downed UFO in the public's hands. Until then all we will have is back and forth bickering.....

I agree with on this. Thank you for the link
It shouldn't be ignored that if you eliminate the probable the answer lies in the improbable no matter how impossible it seems.

Create several scenarios when researching , when it's fake toss it aside. If it might be real research to discover what it is as well.

[Euphorbia]

synchronomy, on 04 October 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Seems to me that ufo was there when the photo was taken.  The pixelation of the ufo and the goats head are identical.
Here's a couple of blowups:

*Snip*

Even if the photo is unaltered, it still doesn't explain what it is.....just that something was between the sensor and the view of the lens.....

[Sweetpumper]

Euphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

it still doesn't explain what it is.....

It's a UFO.

[synchronomy]

Euphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Even if the photo is unaltered, it still doesn't explain what it is.....just that something was between the sensor and the view of the lens.....

That's what I said:
"Seems to me that ufo was there when the photo was taken"

There's not enough detail, even in the blowup to determine what it is.  It appears to be a highly irregular shape.  There's no symmetry at all.  There appears to be two "arms" sticking out to the right.
My conclusion is simply that this photo is inconclusive.
I think it's pointless arguing about it when it's impossible to even get a detailed shape.

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

What are you talking about?  He said this:

Without the ability to travel to the location and do specific measurements of stationary objects to compare with focal lengths and other triangulation points, I cannot determine the distance of the object. However, it's level of atmospheric haze indicates to me it is of some distance away and of substantial size (perhaps even the legendary 40ft diameter is not out of the question)

What does that mean exactly?

If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious.

You invariably have a snappy little comeback no matter what, but once again you "forgot" to mention everything he said:

"Overall, the object does exhibit atmospheric haze one would expect to see in a solid object of some distance away - note the existing weather and atmospheric effects in the rest of the photo. The UO appears for all intent and purposes to this examiner as highly reflective, and "chrome-like", as it appears to be reflecting it's surrounding environment. However, the darkest areas are effected by atmospheric haze which soften this "chromic" effect. While the reflective quality seems quite prominent, it would be even more so without the hazing environmental effects of distance."


The photo exhibits:
-atmospheric distance haze consistent with the rest of the photo which indicates an object of some distance from the shooter
-channel specific data relating to the UO - one cannot overemphasize this point
-appropriate lighting, and shadows consistent with the rest of the photo
-accurate focus in relation to stationary objects
-clean and unfettered EXIF data, and files obtained directly from the camera
-correct pixelation across the image


http://www.abovetops...hread886584/pg1

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 04 October 2012 - 08:23 PM.

[Euphorbia]

Sweetpumper, on 04 October 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

It's a UFO.

No *#&%!

synchronomy, on 04 October 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

That's what I said:
"Seems to me that ufo was there when the photo was taken"

There's not enough detail, even in the blowup to determine what it is.  It appears to be a highly irregular shape.  There's no symmetry at all.  There appears to be two "arms" sticking out to the right.
My conclusion is simply that this photo is inconclusive.
I think it's pointless arguing about it when it's impossible to even get a detailed shape.

Agreed!

[TheMacGuffin]

Euphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

Even if the photo is unaltered, it still doesn't explain what it is.....just that something was between the sensor and the view of the lens.....

I can easily explain what it is NOT, but even if I were to say it was an ET spaceship obviously I wouldn't know where or when it was from.

I think the two pictures show a flying object of unusual appearance moving at very high speed and a considerable difference from the camera.  What more could I say about it unless it come in for a landing or we communicated with it?

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 04 October 2012 - 08:33 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

synchronomy, on 04 October 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

I think it's pointless arguing about it when it's impossible to even get a detailed shape.

It has a shape, albeit a very peculiar one, but we've seen all we're ever likely to see in these pictures.