Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Another released video


stereologist

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, stereologist said:

When we go back through the thread we notice that you went with a 1x zoom. We notice you claimed that the zoom was 1x but it was already established in the thread that this was a highly magnified image. The question is why you and you alone were unaware of that. You repeated that the source said it was 1x, but as you so often state you gave no details.

1 more time Stereo.., then I am going to have to ask your peers for advice on how to handle this situation. I cannot keep repeating myself.

I got the information from here: https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/2015-go-fast-footage/

11 hours ago, stereologist said:

I was not aware that the TTSA was what you were referring to as the source. The source to me is the video. The video itself showed it was a narrow or 1.5 degree field of view.

That's fine. Here is where I referenced the 1x zoom.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/316365-another-released-video/?do=findComment&comment=6439938

I hope this is finally sorted out.

11 hours ago, stereologist said:

There is plenty of information there to get the size of the object. The angle each pixel subtends is knowable because the FOV is known to be 1.5 degrees for the image. The distance is known. It's a simple matter of trigonometry to determine this is small, not large. The exact size is not well known due to limitations in the imaging system, but an approximate range is knowable.

Yes, if you re-read my post.., you will see I am saying the same thing. Once we know the camera specs.., we can get an estimated size. I simply showed the process. You don't seem to understand this. You keep claiming I am arrogant, when all I am trying to do is work together.

I am going to have to ask a forum moderator for advice on how to deal with this situation. Please have a good weekend.

11 hours ago, stereologist said:

So why did I wait so long to post the answer? Because you never once stopped to ask what was the matter. This thread is a great example of how you bluster on about something even after being told or shown how you are wrong. Had you not exhibited this blustering behavior in thread after thread after thread I would have simply posted the data. Frankly, I believe you'd have disregarded the FLIR info in this thread had I posted the information earlier simply because You may take note of the datethat is what you do - you disregard the evidence in favor of some half baked idea you already have.

Very simple. I don't get onto this web forum very often. You can notice the dates. The original post that is causing so much hatred was posted in March. The following post (my reply to you) was in May.

One month later I am back online, and replying to you in June.

I have been very busy, but will not go into details about my personal life. You can look into it more, and accuse me of whatever you like. I am kinda liking the hatred actually. It is a big indicator that I am getting somewhere.

Hopefully we are all done with this finally.., and can get back to discussing the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fila said:

1 more time Stereo.., then I am going to have to ask your peers for advice on how to handle this situation. I cannot keep repeating myself.

I got the information from here: https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/2015-go-fast-footage/

That's fine. Here is where I referenced the 1x zoom.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/316365-another-released-video/?do=findComment&comment=6439938

I hope this is finally sorted out.

Yes, if you re-read my post.., you will see I am saying the same thing. Once we know the camera specs.., we can get an estimated size. I simply showed the process. You don't seem to understand this. You keep claiming I am arrogant, when all I am trying to do is work together.

I am going to have to ask a forum moderator for advice on how to deal with this situation. Please have a good weekend.

Very simple. I don't get onto this web forum very often. You can notice the dates. The original post that is causing so much hatred was posted in March. The following post (my reply to you) was in May.

One month later I am back online, and replying to you in June.

I have been very busy, but will not go into details about my personal life. You can look into it more, and accuse me of whatever you like. I am kinda liking the hatred actually. It is a big indicator that I am getting somewhere.

Hopefully we are all done with this finally.., and can get back to discussing the case.

I know where you were misled but in the thread it took you a long time to provide that TTSA was the source of your mistake. You posted that after being asked many times.

But here is the problem. Why did you continue to bluster on about big when the thread had already established the object was small? Why didn't you bother to find out why you were going for large and the matter of being small was already established?

No, you did not show the process. You showed other things which were not known and frankly did not need to be known. You were off on a tangent.

If you were going to work together then  you would have stopped the mistaken blustering and would have asked about the small vs large issue. You didn't and you don't. Chrlzs informs you about cameras and optics and you completely disregard his valuable input. I'm not the only one to which you disregard input.

You don't need to ask a moderator. You simple need to listen and learn.

It's not hatred. It is frustration dealing with someone blustering on in a mistake manner post after post after post that from my position seems unable to get even the simple things right and then challenges others with their completely wrong ideas that have already been shown to be wrong such as the object being large.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2018 at 5:17 PM, Fila said:

The source claims the video to be only 1x zoom.., and the object is around 5 miles away. This would make the object much larger than a bird.

As described above, that zoom figure is *only* the zoom level from one aspect of the imaging system.  To make any proclamation about the size of the object, you MUST know what the camera and lens was doing, along with any other factors.  Just from my knowledge of cameras and the first look at the footage, it was clear that it was a distant object highly enlarged.  You also need to be clear about the distance (and include any potential error range).  The distance is directly proportional to how large the object will appear - more on that a bit later.   Note that Stereo has already covered a lot of what follows, but maybe it will help to have it from a slightly different perspective

On 3/31/2018 at 5:17 PM, Fila said:

For the camera to register a bird sized object with 1x zoom.., it would need to be much closer. I am guessing within less than 1 mile depending on the cameras sensor and aperture size. But even the worlds best camera would not be able to detect a bird 8 kilometers away at 1x zoom.

OK, this is a really good example of a completely unwarranted guess/calculation.  You should NEVER do this sort of a 'calculation' based on guesses, especially when you are clearly not familiar enough with cameras and imaging systems.  The fact is that you were already told about the 1x figure not being the total zoom very early on, yet you ignored it and ploughed on to make a very misleading and utterly wrong claim.  Let me repeat that the camera is using a lens of ~1500mm effective focal length, ie 30x zoom...

Using that information (1500mm lens / 1.5 degree field of view), it's pretty easy to work out what the size of things would be.  The first and simplest calculation we can make is to work out just how wide the field of view is, assuming the distance really was 5 miles (8km or 8000m).  Here's how - we draw a little picture (not to scale, would really be longer and thinner..) - we'll  use some simple trigonometry:
fov_simplified.jpg.2d06a5c11824538d1b17cf761596f7d9.jpg
We have near enough to a right angle triangle, so we can use any of the basic Sine, Cosine or Tangent formulas - I'll use the Tan formula:

Tan(angle) = Opposite / Adjacent  (where angle = field of view, Opposite is the distance across the field of view, and Adjacent is the distance from the camera)

We want to calculate the Opposite, ie distance across field of view), so we simply multiply both sides by Adjacent:

Tan(1.5)*8000m = Opposite

The answer is 209 metres, in other words, at 8 kilometres away, the width of the scene is ~209 metres.  Now, before we proceed, let's consider the potential error range.  If the range was actually 6 kilometres, the width would be ~157m.  At 10 kilometres, it would be ~261m.

As you go through each step of these sort of calculations, THINK about the potential error ranges and everything else that might affect the results, and also see if they pass the common sense test ie, "does that seem sensible and does it match what we are seeing?"  In this case when you view the footage, the view is obviously (well, it is to me) a highly magnified view, so the results seem be in accord with what is shown.  Error ranges and bad guesses or logic can really screw the results badly.

The thing is Fila, you made a series of errors (and the 1x zoom problem was pointed out to you very early).  

On 3/31/2018 at 5:17 PM, Fila said:

Its possible to get the size of each pixel in meters or inches if we knew the camera type.

But what for?  I'd suggest introducing pixel density is a waste of time here, particularly in imagery that is not hi-resolution.  To add to the poor resolution, IR images are very well known for 'blooming', in other words bright areas get blurry and expand to much larger than they actually are.  So, a small bright object may be shown as much bigger than it is.  Countering that, judging by the blurry images, the camera seems to need 3-5 pixels (maybe more) to resolve any detail or an edge.  A good non-IR camera will only need 1.5-3 pixels.  Anyways, pixel density/resolution is just not that important in this case...

On 3/31/2018 at 5:17 PM, Fila said:

Or perhaps we could just run the math against a variety of different camera stats and see how big 1 pixel is for each.., then go from there?

No.  Never complicate things without good reason - we are interested in *this* camera, and as it has associated systems that might affect the outcome (like the digital zoom thing AND it is not really comparable to 'normal' cameras (given that huge focal length and the tracking features and the IR), we have plenty enough complication without introducing useless distractions.

 

So, to summarise so far, the field of view is about 200 metres across, subject to verifying how they arrived at that range (it's not clear yet whether the ranging is being done by some other system and we need to know how accurate that system is.  A large bird, eg albatross or eagle could be resolved at that sort of resolution especially if it's IR signature was significantly different to the background temperature.  So could a weather sonde or balloon, and this was allegedly in a region where they do a lot of military testing..  There is simply nowhere near enough clarity to positively identify the thing.  It';s worth noting that footage does not in any way match the verbal descriptions given, and it is still not clear how/when/if this footage relates to the anecdotes.

 

OK, that's some of the post addressed.  Be back later to finish it off..  Any questions?  Stereo, if you're around, I'd appreciate your additional comments and checking of my work - it's late on a Friday, work is boring .. and my brain is going into standby mode.....

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the good write up ChrLzs. The figures look good.

It should also be pointed out that the object was at around 11,000 feet IIRC. That means that the motion we see in the video is really due to the motion of the camera traveling with the jet. The altitude can be roughed out by knowing the altitude of the jet and the orientation of the camera and the distance to the object. The distance was radar based I believe. One of the discussions had been about the altitude and if it was too high for a bird. The answer to that is no. Birds do fly up and over 20,000 feet during migration.

The object is actually moving slow. The fraction of the view suggests that the object is in the 3m range or less. Thanks ChrLzs I forgot about blooming effects. Good reminder.

I would suggest that the 1.5 degree angle of the optics is best measured on the diagonal of the image. The image is projected onto a square or rectangular sensor that captures the image. I checked it out and the computations show the dot to be roughly 1% of the image. Using the figures from ChrLzs we get a value of 3m for the dot. That's bird sized. It is more likely to be a balloon released by the fleet due to the fact that larger birds such as albatross tend to fly closer to the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

As described above, that zoom figure is *only* the zoom level from one aspect of the imaging system.  To make any proclamation about the size of the object, you MUST know what the camera and lens was doing, along with any other factors. 

ChrLzs.., before we continue.., can you PLEASE re-read my original post that is causing so much drama. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/316365-another-released-video/?do=findComment&comment=6413737

You NEED to understand that I only provided the forumla.., and I made i VERY clear that I did not know the camera specs. Its written very clearly. I made it very obvious MANY times.

I know I have proven you wrong in other threads.., and you feel the need to attack me in any way possible.., at any chance you get. But come on buddy.., stop making up lies about me.

If you wish to continue implying that I ave no idea what I am talking about.;., you must provide quotes and examples, and explain why and how. If you cannot.., then its obvious you are making up lies in attempts at defamation.

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

You also need to be clear about the distance (and include any potential error range).  The distance is directly proportional to how large the object will appear - more on that a bit later. 

Again.,. if you re-read my original post you will see I have said the same thing. Zzzz.

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

OK, this is a really good example of a completely unwarranted guess/calculation.  You should NEVER do this sort of a 'calculation' based on guesses, especially when you are clearly not familiar enough with cameras and imaging systems. 

Excuse me.., but I am allowed to make a guess. Especially if I clearly state it is a guess. There is nothing wrong with that.
You are not the boss of the forum. I will ask a moderator if this is an accurate guideline for their forum. Or if they have rules forbidding guesses and estimates.

Please refrain from setting forum rules in the future.

If you re-read my post.., you will see that I am simply providing information on how to get the objects size. I make it VERY clear that I do not know the camera specs.., and that its an example. E.X.A.M.P.L.E. Do you comprehend? 

Can you please address this instead of ignoring me.., and spamming the same accusations?

 

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

The fact is that you were already told about the 1x figure not being the total zoom very early on, yet you ignored it and ploughed on to make a very misleading and utterly wrong claim.  

Hahah, dude. Nice attempts at defamation. You just keep repeating the same mantra.., hoping I will quit. But bad news bro.., I am open to being wrong. and my posts are attempts at getting us to work together.

Its obvious I have remained neutral.., while you and Stereo use my neutrality and openness as proof I am.., whatever you are attempting to prove.

I don't recall being told about the zoom. As mentioned to Stereo.., I do not get on this site much. The original post was in March. Next post in May. And now again in June. If I have overlooked a piece of information.., then just tell me. Simple.

The fact that you constantly repeat this.., and use this as an excuse / proof I should stop is obviously an attempt at defamation. When really.., my post was just describing the formula we could use to get the size.., once we found out the camera specs. So yea.., keep twisintg it around all you want.., but its just highlighting your hidden agenda to stop me from looking into it.

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:


We have near enough to a right angle triangle, so we can use any of the basic Sine, Cosine or Tangent formulas - I'll use the Tan formula:

Tan(angle) = Opposite / Adjacent  (where angle = field of view, Opposite is the distance across the field of view, and Adjacent is the distance from the camera)

We want to calculate the Opposite, ie distance across field of view), so we simply multiply both sides by Adjacent:

Tan(1.5)*8000m = Opposite

The answer is 209 metres, in other words, at 8 kilometres away, the width of the scene is ~209 metres.  Now, before we proceed, let's consider the potential error range.  If the range was actually 6 kilometres, the width would be ~157m.  At 10 kilometres, it would be ~261m.

Finally. Yay. Can you please stop with the personal attacks now?

I will wait for a new post before I start getting back into the maths. I will just spend this post wrapping up everything else so we can move on to more productive things.

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

As you go through each step of these sort of calculations, THINK about the potential error ranges and everything else that might affect the results, and also see if they pass the common sense test ie, "does that seem sensible and does it match what we are seeing?"  In this case when you view the footage, the view is obviously (well, it is to me) a highly magnified view, so the results seem be in accord with what is shown.  Error ranges and bad guesses or logic can really screw the results badly.

Does it feel sensible.., (guess) as a potential error range? I am not the type of person to use my feelings and guesses to help form conclusions. I will just go off what the maths tells me. Thanks for the suggestion though.

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

The thing is Fila, you made a series of errors (and the 1x zoom problem was pointed out to you very early).  

Heeey, here we go again. Nice. :)

A series of errors. Can you please provide a list? Otherwise you are just repeating the 1x zoom thing over and over.., which probably makes it seem like more than 1 problem.
 

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

But what for?  I'd suggest introducing pixel density is a waste of time here, particularly in imagery that is not hi-resolution.  To add to the poor resolution, IR images are very well known for 'blooming', in other words bright areas get blurry and expand to much larger than they actually are.  So, a small bright object may be shown as much bigger than it is.  Countering that, judging by the blurry images, the camera seems to need 3-5 pixels (maybe more) to resolve any detail or an edge.  A good non-IR camera will only need 1.5-3 pixels.  Anyways, pixel density/resolution is just not that important in this case...

Because I saw this is how NASA does it. We can get the size of each pixel. Then we can get the size of the object because we know the distance.

Okay great. You seem to know all about it..., So what is the minimum resolution this will work with?

Blooming is an issue.., but not a death sentence. Even if the object was not clearly defined.., and had an outline border of "blooming".., we can still get an estimate. Just exclude the obvious "bloom" pixels that are blurry and don't match. If that is the case.

Why isn't it important? How is it wrong? Why can't it be used.., yet your formula can? Why is the image resolution too poor for this technique.., but not for your technique? Wouldn't there still be the same issues with pixels and "blooming" etc?

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

A large bird, eg albatross or eagle could be resolved at that sort of resolution especially if it's IR signature was significantly different to the background temperature. 

Can you go into more detail how you concluded this? (Not a personal attack.., just asking mkay?)

How big is a "large bird". Perhaps we could work backwards if we know the size of the object (bird) and distance. We could get the camera specs and see if it matches.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Fila said:

Can you go into more detail how you concluded this? (Not a personal attack.., just asking mkay?)

How big is a "large bird". Perhaps we could work backwards if we know the size of the object (bird) and distance. We could get the camera specs and see if it matches.

It's at moments like this that I have no ask what are you on about?

Essentially you are questioning this: " A large bird, eg albatross or eagle could be resolved at that sort of resolution especially if it's IR signature was significantly different to the background temperature. "

We have already provided sufficient camera specs to work out the problem. If you don't understand that then please reread my post and ChrLzs' posts on the matter and do it with your thinking cap on.

The object is likely in the 3m range. What part of the math are you confused about? What part of 1.5 degree view are you not understanding? What part of fraction of image are you not understanding? Is the trigonometry confusing?

The bird named was albatross. Did you not realize it was a large bird? Are you unaware of pelagic birds?

Perhaps we could work backward if we know the size of the object? It's 3m or less in size.  What can't be understood about that?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, stereologist said:

It's at moments like this that I have no ask what are you on about?

Stereo. I think I cannot have rational discussions with you. No offence but you seem illogical, and full of anger. I have tried hard to communicate with you.., but you fail to understand basic communication skills.

You get offended by people asking questions, and seeking information. I have no option but to ignore your anger, rants and false accusations from now on. Feel free to keep posting.,. hopefully one of your peers can rephrase and elaborate for me.., but I simply don't have the time to explain life's basics.

This was a question for ChrLzs. If he reads your post and finds something relevant.., I will ask him to rephrase it for me in his own post. If you wish to provide actual information, and details to back up your claims (or counter mine).., then go for it. But I doubt you will.., so yea.

Have a great weekend.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some more information about focal length versus "zoom", for everyone else who may not be familiar with cameras.

 

200mm (wide) Lens: productimage_8291.jpg?width=500&height=5

1300mm (telephoto) lens: 29m6des.png

red-barn-sequence.jpg

Lenses that have a fixed focal length are called prime lenses and they cannot "zoom".

If the lens element can move back and forth.., we can adjust the magnification of the lens (I.e. 18mm - 300mm)

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, stereologist said:

It's at moments like this that I have no ask what are you on about?

Essentially you are questioning this: " A large bird, eg albatross or eagle could be resolved at that sort of resolution especially if it's IR signature was significantly different to the background temperature. "

We have already provided sufficient camera specs to work out the problem. If you don't understand that then please reread my post and ChrLzs' posts on the matter and do it with your thinking cap on.

The object is likely in the 3m range. What part of the math are you confused about? What part of 1.5 degree view are you not understanding? What part of fraction of image are you not understanding? Is the trigonometry confusing?

The bird named was albatross. Did you not realize it was a large bird? Are you unaware of pelagic birds?

Perhaps we could work backward if we know the size of the object? It's 3m or less in size.  What can't be understood about that?

I think fila is being deliberately abstruse about this issue.

Every kind of nail has been hammered into the coffin of this video, and given that even a semi-idiot like myself can understand the points yourself and Chrlzs are making it must be some kind of cognitive dissonance. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon101 said:

I think fila is being deliberately abstruse about this issue.

Every kind of nail has been hammered into the coffin of this video, and given that even a semi-idiot like myself can understand the points yourself and Chrlzs are making it must be some kind of cognitive dissonance. 

On 06/06/2018 at 7:14 PM, Jon101 said:

Fila, you are either not reading what you are being told or are misunderstanding. 

Hey Jon, I have asked you to go into more detail and you refuse.., yet keep repeating the same thing. Why?

Why shouldn't we check the sensor size? I think that has a lot to do with the image size, and affects focal length and zoom.

Is this the Raytheon Advanced AN/ASQ- 228? https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/G_Advanced_Targeting_FLIR_(ATFLIR)

Where did I make this bold proclamation about the image size? If you re-read my post.., you will see that I am simply providing information on how to get the objects size. I make it VERY clear that I do not know the camera specs.., and that its an example.

Can you see this?

Its funny how Stereologist complains UFOlogists don't look into cases properly. Its unscientific.

This is a fine example of people jumping to conclusions, and labelling it.
Its the same as a UFO witness saying its ET. No.., its a UFO. Well the same logic works both ways. Its just that neither side likes it when proof is asked of them.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Fila said:

Stereo. I think I cannot have rational discussions with you. No offence but you seem illogical, and full of anger. I have tried hard to communicate with you.., but you fail to understand basic communication skills.

You get offended by people asking questions, and seeking information. I have no option but to ignore your anger, rants and false accusations from now on. Feel free to keep posting.,. hopefully one of your peers can rephrase and elaborate for me.., but I simply don't have the time to explain life's basics.

This was a question for ChrLzs. If he reads your post and finds something relevant.., I will ask him to rephrase it for me in his own post. If you wish to provide actual information, and details to back up your claims (or counter mine).., then go for it. But I doubt you will.., so yea.

Have a great weekend.

Total rubbish.

The size of the object has been established mathematically. What part of that trivial exercise do you not understand?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fila said:

Here's some more information about focal length versus "zoom", for everyone else who may not be familiar with cameras.

200mm (wide) Lens:

1300mm (telephoto) lens:

Lenses that have a fixed focal length are called prime lenses and they cannot "zoom".

If the lens element can move back and forth.., we can adjust the magnification of the lens (I.e. 18mm - 300mm)

Completely irrelevant to the issue of determining the size of the object.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fila said:

Hey Jon, I have asked you to go into more detail and you refuse.., yet keep repeating the same thing. Why?

Why shouldn't we check the sensor size? I think that has a lot to do with the image size, and affects focal length and zoom.

Is this the Raytheon Advanced AN/ASQ- 228? https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/G_Advanced_Targeting_FLIR_(ATFLIR)

Where did I make this bold proclamation about the image size? If you re-read my post.., you will see that I am simply providing information on how to get the objects size. I make it VERY clear that I do not know the camera specs.., and that its an example.

Can you see this?

Its funny how Stereologist complains UFOlogists don't look into cases properly. Its unscientific.

This is a fine example of people jumping to conclusions, and labelling it.
Its the same as a UFO witness saying its ET. No.., its a UFO. Well the same logic works both ways. Its just that neither side likes it when proof is asked of them.

The size of the object has been established. What do you no understand?

More rubbish. I didn't suggest this: 'Its funny how Stereologist complains UFOlogists don't look into cases properly. Its unscientific." Why do you make up stories about me?

The issue is the size of the object. It is small, not large as you stated in several posts after it was determined it was small.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The size of the object has been established. What do you no understand?

More rubbish. I didn't suggest this: 'Its funny how Stereologist complains UFOlogists don't look into cases properly. Its unscientific." Why do you make up stories about me?

The issue is the size of the object. It is small, not large as you stated in several posts after it was determined it was small.

13 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Total rubbish.

The size of the object has been established mathematically. What part of that trivial exercise do you not understand?

 

12 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Completely irrelevant to the issue of determining the size of the object.

I like how you can say so much about someone.., yet provide so little information as to why. I noticed you avoided answering my first post. Nice job picking cherries.

Have a great weekend :)

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fila said:

 

I like how you can say so much about someone.., yet provide so little information as to why. I noticed you avoided answering my first post. Nice job picking cherries.

Have a great weekend :)

I see you are unable to challenge the size. It appears to stand unchallenged. I asked several times what you do not understand. Maybe you just don't know what you do not understand.

It is also clear that the nitwit stories you make up about other people are imaginary stories.

What question did I overlook?

Edited by stereologist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2018 at 9:27 AM, Fila said:

ChrLzs.., before we continue.., can you PLEASE re-read my original post that is causing so much drama. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/316365-another-released-video/?do=findComment&comment=6413737

Why?  Why don't you just specify which part of it is important?  Or are you deliberately trying to waste time and distract?

Quote

You NEED to understand that I only provided the forumla.., and I made i VERY clear that I did not know the camera specs. Its written very clearly. I made it very obvious MANY times.

So why did you CONTINUE to repeat the silly claim about 1x zoom?  That topic was over as soon as it was explained.

Quote

I know I have proven you wrong in other threads..

Please post your best example of that.

Quote

, and you feel the need to attack me in any way possible.., at any chance you get. But come on buddy.., stop making up lies about me.

If you feel you are getting attacked, report the post and stop whining on thread.  As you did not quote the alleged 'attack', it seems you are using the old "I'm being bullied" technique.  That won't wash here.  QUOTE the attack or report it to the mods or just toughen up.

Quote

If you wish to continue implying that I ave no idea what I am talking about.;., you must provide quotes and examples, and explain why and how. If you cannot.., then its obvious you are making up lies in attempts at defamation.

WTH do you think my last post was?

Quote

Excuse me.., but I am allowed to make a guess. Especially if I clearly state it is a guess. There is nothing wrong with that.

What, the guess you made while still repeating the 1x zoom silliness?  Here's what you said, just one page back:

On 3/31/2018 at 5:17 PM, Fila said:

The source claims the video to be only 1x zoom.., and the object is around 5 miles away. This would make the object much larger than a bird.

For the camera to register a bird sized object with 1x zoom.., it would need to be much closer.

So you were still hanging onto the 1x zoom bit.  That 'guess' was at least 30x out.  That's a 3000% error.  A little high, don't you think?

Quote

You are not the boss of the forum. I will ask a moderator if this is an accurate guideline for their forum. Or if they have rules forbidding guesses and estimates.

You do that, and make sure they read my comments above...

Quote

I don't recall being told about the zoom.

Seriously? - if we post the numerous times you were told, it will get embarrassing....  Thing is, the date you post something is rather irrelevant, IF you do not correct the error and acknowledge it.  People come to this site expecting to find helpful information - if they look at your old posts, they will be 30x wrong....

Even here in this post, you still haven't acknowledged that the 'guess' was 3000% in error - perhaps now would be a good time to do that, and for a bit of humilty...?

Quote

As mentioned to Stereo.., I do not get on this site much. The original post was in March. Next post in May. And now again in June. If I have overlooked a piece of information.., then just tell me. Simple.

The fact that you constantly repeat this.., and use this as an excuse / proof I should stop is obviously an attempt at defamation.

The reason we repeat this is that you clearly don't learn.  You need to fully acknowledge that sort of error.

Quote

Because I saw this is how NASA does it. We can get the size of each pixel. Then we can get the size of the object because we know the distance.

Please CITE where NASA used that technique on a similar analysis.

Quote

Okay great. You seem to know all about it..., So what is the minimum resolution this will work with?

For heaven's sake, we have now give you the numbers for the actual field of view.  We have given you rough numbers for the number of pixels that this camera seems to need to resolve any detail.  You now have the resolution...  Do you not understand what resolving something means?  No amount of maths will help if you do not know what you are doing.

Quote

Blooming is an issue.., but not a death sentence. Even if the object was not clearly defined.., and had an outline border of "blooming".., we can still get an estimate. Just exclude the obvious "bloom" pixels that are blurry and don't match. If that is the case.

Why isn't it important? How is it wrong?

Just look at the blob.  NO DETAIL IS SHOWN.  Calculating an exact resolution figure and then agonising about the number is just mindless - the actual resolution capability depends on way too many variables, including the optics, the sensor, the blooming effects, the exposure settings and light level, the accuracy of the focus, just to get started.  Here, let me give you a big hint - when a camera test site wants to check resolution, they MEASURE it using a resolution chart, and they then quote all the provisos.  However, given the circumstances, such 'technical' resolution will almost certainly not match the actual achieved resolution of the camera when working in the field, and on small distant targets.  The best we can do is what I and Stereo and others are doing and giving some basic figures of how big an object might begin to be resolved.

Quote

Why can't it be used.., yet your formula can? Why is the image resolution too poor for this technique.., but not for your technique? Wouldn't there still be the same issues with pixels and "blooming" etc?

READ what we are saying, in,particular that last paragraph...  Mate, I'm sorry, but you are out of your depth.  No shame in that, but you need to understand a lot more about the topic before arguing your case.

Quote

Can you go into more detail how you concluded this? (Not a personal attack.., just asking mkay?)

It's all covered above.  If you don't get it, I can not help further.  And reposting silly examples for NON-comparable consumer cameras is just wasting bandwidth.

Quote

How big is a "large bird".

How old are you?  You really need to ask that?

Quote

Perhaps we could work backwards if we know the size of the object (bird) and distance. We could get the camera specs and see if it matches.

Gee, what a great idea, someone should so do that...

Sigh.  I was going to return and add a few things, but it's clearly an utter waste of time.  If anyone *else* has any questions or isn't getting this, feel free to chime in.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, stereologist said:

I see you are unable to challenge the size. It appears to stand unchallenged. I asked several times what you do not understand. Maybe you just don't know what you do not understand.

It is also clear that the nitwit stories you make up about other people are imaginary stories.

What question did I overlook?

You like twisting things around hey. Mr Twistie man. Good luck with that.., as I mentioned earlier I am not playing this your way anymore. Re-read my previous posts for more info.., I simply don't have time for you anymore.

Life's pretty straight without Twisties. I think I will be able to accomplish much more now without having to deal with you.

Feel free to keep spamming. If one of your peers finds anything worth merit.., I ask them to decipher it for me, and post information in a sensible manner.

Goodbye Stez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Why?  Why don't you just specify which part of it is important?  Or are you deliberately trying to waste time and distract?

I already have explained... you are just as bad as Stereologist. I think you just too much pleasure from proving people wrong. You drag things out so much.

When someone makes a mistake.., I post a correction with as much detail as possible, with no attitude or belittling. You constantly bring it up in each post.., even when I mentioned

1) I am learning about cameras

2) I did not know the camera specs

You are using 1 and 2 as some kind of example that Fila is a liar. When really.., its the opposite. I have said many times I am trying to get people to work together.

Why you cannot comprehend this.., shows your reasons for being here imo. You don't want to work together. You don't want to inform others. You enjoy being a big fish in a small pond. Well that ends now I am here. I have the capability to learn anything.., and I question ever post. Strap yourself in.., its gonna be a long year.

Can you please make an effort to answer my questions? This is not demanding.., just common courtesy. I even bolded a question hoping it would work.

Do you know what an example is?

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

So why did you CONTUINUE to repeat the silly claim about 1x zoom?  That topic was over as soon as it was explained.

lol, because you and Stereo keep bringing it up. lmfao. You okay to drop it now? Your attempts at defamation failed.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Please post your best example of that.

Sure. I'll make a list hey.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

If you feel you are getting attacked, report the post and stop whining on thread.  As you did not quote the alleged 'attack', it seems you are using the old "I'm being bullied" technique.  That won't wash here.  QUOTE the attack or report it to the mods or just toughen up.

Nah.., I prefer to highlight the agendas here than have them deleted. Keep spamming your attacks bro. Its kinda funny now.

ChrLzs and Stereo = Attacks.., not facts. Can you please stop ignoring my questions.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

WTH do you think the last post was?

Your attempt to stop me looking into it more. Do you notice that the majority of my posts are about facts relating to the case.

The majority of your post is personal attack. Obvious bias is obvious.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Seriously? - if we post the numerous times you were told, it will get embarrassing....  Thing is, the date you post something is rather irrelevant, IF you do not correct the error and acknowledge it.  People come to this site expecting to find helpful information - if they look at your posts, they will be just 30 x wrong....

Haha, yea. I noticed you were getting hard over that. Stereo explained it well when he said he likes to drag things out, hoping to make people think. Makes you guys feel smart for a while. But once I know the same information you know.., you have nothing. So you try to keep it confusing.

I post concisely and to the point. I suggest you try it sometime.., makes threads much easier to read. Makes issues much easier to sort through. Its just that you won't get much of a chance to belittle me.., so I can see the dilemma.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

The reason we repeat this is that you clearly don't learn.  You need to fully acknowledge that sort of error.

Haha, no. You repeat "You are wrong.., we told you why" is not helpful. Its more to do with your emotions.., and how you react to issues.

I have tried explaining this sooo so many times.., but you can't comprehend. I think your need to feel important is clouding your judgement.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

For heaven's sake, we have now give you the numbers for the actual field of view.  We have given you rough numbers for the number of pixels that this camera seems to need to resolve any detail.  You now have the resolution...  Do you not understand what resolving something means?  No amount of maths will help if you do not know what you are doing.

I now have the resolution.., from the field of view? Dude.., can you go into some detail here. How is that achieved?
You spent so much time with personal attacks telling me that I am always wrong.., but do you see how little information you provide.

Kinda like you are just dragging this out to buy time to find something. Its just dragging out so much........, omg. Yawn zzzzzz. Can you explain anything?

You just keep making blanket statements and saying I am wrong. Then when I ask for more information.., you get angry and say I am stupid. Then repeat the 1x zoom thing.., and that I lied about camera specs. Yeesh. Its been mind numbing, and painfully slow.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Just look at the blob.  NO DETAIL IS SHOWN.  Calculating an exact resolution figure and then agonising about the number is just mindless - the actual resolution capability depends on way too many variables, including the optics, the sensor,

"Look at the blob.., must be a bird." lol. I love science-ing.

The sensor...., Great.., now we are getting somewhere. This is the angle I was wanting to take.., but we can discuss this more later. For now I just want to get past all the anger, and accusations. Just so information about the case doesn't get lost random in posts.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

READ what we are saying, in,particular that last paragraph...  Mate, I'm sorry, but you are out of your depth.  No shame in that, but you need to understand a lot more about the topic before arguing your case.

I did read. Again.., this is just more time wasting imo. An attempt to drag it out longer.., yawn.

Here's what I am replying to. How about you point it out for me.

"But what for?  I'd suggest introducing pixel density is a waste of time here, particularly in imagery that is not hi-resolution.  To add to the poor resolution, IR images are very well known for 'blooming', in other words bright areas get blurry and expand to much larger than they actually are.  So, a small bright object may be shown as much bigger than it is.  Countering that, judging by the blurry images, the camera seems to need 3-5 pixels (maybe more) to resolve any detail or an edge.  A good non-IR camera will only need 1.5-3 pixels.  Anyways, pixel density/resolution is just not that important in this case..."

Why is getting the FOV enough? Why is finding "pixel density" less effective than your approach? Why is "blooming" a reason against my approach.., but your approach is acceptable.

Why is it better to give "some basic figures of how big an object might begin to be resolved." rather than attempting to find the actual answer.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

It's all covered above.  If you don't get it, I can not help further.  And reposting silly examples for NON-comparable consumer cameras is just wasting bandwidth.

Oh no. My internet bill will be astronomical this month, lol. Damn those 3 images.

The bird conclusion is kinda weak isn't it. Sounds even more silly if you try and retype it. Must be one fat bird. 3 meters long, and just as wide, lol.

I think the information I post is relevant..., and concise. It is an example of how you should post. Rather than trying to over complicate things.., and keep the "mystery".., I prefer to do the exact opposite and bring everyone up to speed.

Life is pretty simple. People just make it hard.

Why are they non-comparable? Is this an assumption? Or have you looked into how their cameras work.., and they have different techniques? Can you share this information? If not.., (for whatever reason) please understand why I would be dubious of such claims.., and why I ask for more information. I just can't accept someone anon coming onto a webforum making claims without backing them up.

Especially when they keep getting angry when asked to provide deets. Kinda a big red flag for me.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fila said:

You like twisting things around hey. Mr Twistie man. Good luck with that.., as I mentioned earlier I am not playing this your way anymore. Re-read my previous posts for more info.., I simply don't have time for you anymore.

Life's pretty straight without Twisties. I think I will be able to accomplish much more now without having to deal with you.

Feel free to keep spamming. If one of your peers finds anything worth merit.., I ask them to decipher it for me, and post information in a sensible manner.

Goodbye Stez

There is no twisting. That's just more nonsensical whining.

What is it that you do not understand about the object being small?

And yes we proved you wrong dozens of posts back. So buck up, put your big boy pants on, and move forward. The real issue is whether or not you learned something. Your constant crying tells us no.

You say you are in a university. Start acting like you are. You posted " "Look at the blob.., must be a bird." lol. I love science-ing. " Stop the childishness. I expect that sort of behavior from an early teenager.

Here is another thing no one has suggested " I'd suggest introducing pixel density is a waste of time here, particularly in imagery that is not hi-resolution."  The issue is the size of the object. All of this jabbering about thing you want to introduce has not changed the size of the object.

 

Edited by stereologist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, stereologist said:

There is no twisting. That's just more nonsensical whining.

What is it that you do not understand about the object being small?

And yes we proved you wrong dozens of posts back. So buck up, put your big boy pants on, and move forward. The real issue is whether or not you learned something. Your constant crying tells us no.

You say you are in a university. Start acting like you are. You posted " "Look at the blob.., must be a bird." lol. I love science-ing. " Stop the childishness. I expect that sort of behavior from an early teenager.

Here is another thing no one has suggested " I'd suggest introducing pixel density is a waste of time here, particularly in imagery that is not hi-resolution."  The issue is the size of the object. All of this jabbering about thing you want to introduce has not changed the size of the object.

I have been very nice this whole time. Its okay for me to have a laugh now. In fact.., its kinda healthy as its releasing my stress. If you feel like I am breaking the forum rules and attacking you.., then as ChrLzs says.., inform the admins or toughen up. Be a man etc etc.

I am no longer responding to your questions. You are allowed to ignore what you choose.., so I am allowed to do the same until you realise although its not breaking any rules or laws.., it is morally wrong.

You may wish to review these posts.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/316365-another-released-video/?do=findComment&comment=6467145

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318447-the-inherit-bias-regarding-ufos/?do=findComment&comment=6467143

The fact that you keep going only strengthens the reason why I cannot converse with you. I don't want to flood the thread with nonsensical arguments.., nor do I want to risk having the thread closed.

You need to understand what my issue is with you. If you cannot come to the table and talk normally.., then we are done. I am simply wasting too much time on you.., and I am getting nowhere fast.

Its just non-stop; "Why would you think 1x zoom, Its OBVIOUSLY zoomed in. You said 1x zoom, where did you get 1x zoom. I didn't see you reference the 1x zoom." And now the new one. "Why do you keep bringing up 1x zoom?"

Umm, I don't. You keep asking me.., and then you keep accusing me of lying. Do you not see this?

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fila said:

I have been very nice this whole time. Its okay for me to have a laugh now. In fact.., its kinda healthy as its releasing my stress. If you feel like I am breaking the forum rules and attacking you.., then as ChrLzs says.., inform the admins or suck it up. Be a man etc etc.

I am no longer responding to your questions. You are allowed to ignore what you choose.., so I am allowed to do the same until you realise although its not breaking any rules or laws.., it is morally wrong.

You may wish to review these posts.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/316365-another-released-video/?do=findComment&comment=6467145

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318447-the-inherit-bias-regarding-ufos/?do=findComment&comment=6467143

The object in the video is small. You have not proposed anything at all that suggests otherwise.

Have you learned how to determine the size of an object  in an mage?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fila said:

Sure. I'll make a list hey.

Do that.  Or apologise.  And next time, have your ammunition BEFORE you handwave.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Fila said:

The fact that you keep going only strengthens the reason why I cannot converse with you. I don't want to flood the thread with nonsensical arguments.., nor do I want to risk having the thread closed.

You need to understand what my issue is with you. If you cannot come to the table and talk normally.., then we are done. I am simply wasting too much time on you.., and I am getting nowhere fast.

Its just non-stop; "Why would you think 1x zoom, Its OBVIOUSLY zoomed in. You said 1x zoom, where did you get 1x zoom. I didn't see you reference the 1x zoom." And now the new one. "Why do you keep bringing up 1x zoom?"

Umm, I don't. You keep asking me.., and then you keep accusing me of lying. Do you not see this?

The fact that you keep going only demonstrates your unwillingness to learn. You are flooding the thread with nonsensical arguments. You always flood the thread with nonsensical and irrelevant arguments.

You refuse to accept simple logical constructs such as the size of the object is small.

Where in this simple, rather trivial, math have you not understood that the object is small?

I'm not accusing you of lying here. That is just another of your fantasies. Maybe you don't have any big boy pants to put on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Do that.  Or apologise.  And next time, have your ammunition BEFORE you handwave.

lol, omg. I think you are next ChrLzs. I cannot have a normal conversation with you either.

Accusing me of handwaving now. Haha, fine. I guess that's what Stereologist does all the time. Handwaving, and cherry picking.

I asked you the same thing and you overlooked it btw.

On 07/06/2018 at 8:13 AM, ChrLzs said:

Fila. ANY image may be resized at ANY point in the process, so hanging your hat on one of the zoom settings as if it gives you the object's size, is simplistic in the extreme.  If you don't understand the complications of doing real photogrammetry, you really should not make bold proclamations....

Ask questions and learn - don't blithely make assumptions.

When did I make any bold proclamations about image size? Where is your example BEFORE handwaving? Showing double standards again.

Also.., I do ask questions. The post that caused so much uproar clearly states I don't know the camera specs. Once we did.., etc etc. So if you are going to accuse me of not asking questions.., then back it up like you said or apologise.

I have repeated this so many times.., yet you ignore when I ask if you comprehend this or not. If not, why? Why do you keep claiming otherwise? Why did Stereo necrothread this claiming I am a liar?

Why didn't you "like" my post when I asked him to show proof where I lied? Why isn't he 'handwaving' by accusing me? Why aren't you "handwaving" for accusing me? Showing bias here.

Why am I "handwaving" because I said I'd make a list? Its a big task.., and I want to wrap up single posts quickly. I can get back to it. Just like the maths. I would rather keep going on and on with this crud until its finally sorted. So no handwaving. What's handwaving is you avoiding the rest of my post, and picking what you can in the hopes that the conversation will lead that way.

Also.., what are assumptions.., compared to making "blithely assumptions"? Can you back that up with an example? If not apologise and stop handwaving.

I said the source claims the video was 1x zoom and went from there. So what are we doing... What's next? We gonna go over it all again? Is this an attempt to get the thread shut down? Can we get back to confirming the objects size?

*EDIT: Judging from your post below.., we are done.

In an effort to preserve the information that has been posted in this thread.., I am no longer responding to accusations that I have lied or mislead the forum from any member. I will no longer respond to claims I am wrong, without a detailed explanation. Otherwise we could all do that to each other.., and simply get defensive when asked to provide details.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I know I have proven you wrong in other threads..

I'm waiting...

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.