Photo-Surprise

reply to post by rocksarerocks


So what bird in a dive creates a cone-shaped shadow at the same time?

My god what alot of posts

but here is yet another picture for you lot to gaze at for a while..

Removing the motion blur you get a pretty convincing image of a bird i think.

(i cropped the original down btw)
img155.imageshack.us...

reply to post by freakyclown


or a saucer....

oh and once again, what bird makes a cone shaped shadow while diving? I would expect to see an angular play of distortion if the wings flapped, but a perfect cone...highly dubious.

reply to post by freakyclown


Always the blue haze surrounding and a spark here and there.
A high potential craft. Tesla was always talking about high potential.

About the blue or the blue sky. Checking a Physics book, as we all
do at times except the paranormal and ET people, Lord Rayleigh
gave the reason for the blue sky. Some form of scattered light.
But why are clouds white. In optics class it was scattered light within
close index of refractions.

The potential must be very great, upwards to one million volts.
Now in High School we had pith balls flying around with static
electricity.

The flat coil behind Tesla was energized by one surrounding wire
of great AC potential of 10kva and one end tied to the outer strand,
while the inner is open. It just creates static.

One High School teacher had a small cone coil but I never asked
if the ends were connected or it was just an open ended coil of wire.

Hi everyone,

Like I said earlier, carefull with pareidolia.


Another thing :



Jeff Ritzmann is probably gone for a few days, I haven't seen him on ATS in a while but I am pretty sure that we will learn a few things with him.

Peace,
Buck

Originally posted by internos

Originally posted by Shakesbeer
reply to post by internos

 

Dude seriously a bird? I've taken pics of birds in flight on purpose and that's a stretch, especially considering size relation and position of the object(appears to be behind the tower) to the bird in the front. Neat gif though

Yes, seriously a bird, very seriously.
Pheraps you need to take some more pictures of birds.
But i'd be interested in HOW can you guess about the distance from the camera of an object when you talk about a 2D image showing different objects that are being hit in different ways by the sunlight: whow, much interested. Did you make a triangulation, pheraps? Do you have some more pictures of the same object taken from different angles?
If yes, then you're right, if not, then you're wrong, "Dude"

.

Hmmm...Don't most folks call it 'perspective'...it's how you know a tree in a painting, or a building, or an animal (such as a bird for example) is near to the viewer or far away from the viewer. Artists and most regular people have known about perspective in a 2D enviornment for centuries mate.

spikey


[edit on 8/3/2008 by internos]

messed that post up above. Please ignore the format, from 'Hmmm@ onwards it's me replying.

Ah, you know what i mean.

I dont think its a bird either and its a very very good post debunkers are people just jelous that they haven't seen one rofl just kidding dont get all roud up at me but this is a very well done post kudos

There's been an update about a the radar report of the incident in this thread HERE

as well as a reported opinion of an ornithologist(bird studier )... hmmm getting interesting yet?

reply to post by freakyclown



Precisely.

next...

Springer...

Originally posted by Springer
Precisely.

next...

Springer...

So at one point does it become hard to keep avoiding evidence and opinions other then your own, or is it always on cruise control?

reply to post by Shakesbeer


Well, when I am ill I go to an expert in Human health, usually an MD.

When I see fuzzy, non descript images being presented as UFOs or wilder yet, alien ships, I ask image experts for their professional opinion. The VERY professional opinions of this photo is that it's a bird.

IMHO this picture of a BIRD is only evidence of birds inhabiting the planet Earth and flying through its skies as birds are want to do.

Keep trying there's lots out there, it's just that birds aren't "it" though.

Springer...

reply to post by Springer


Uh, I think that's been going on...part of that "avoiding evidence" & "opinion other then your own" thing of my earlier reply. Unless you're saying you're the premiere and supreme authority on all things bird & ufo?

reply to post by Shakesbeer


Re-read my last, I ase my opinion on what my eyes tell me combined with what EXPERTS tell me.

End of story...

Springer...

reply to post by Shakesbeer


Re-read my last, I base my opinion on what my eyes tell me combined with what EXPERTS tell me.

End of story...

Springer...

[edit on 4-12-2008 by Springer]

Well thank you for your opinion then, you're obviously entitled to it.

Originally posted by spikey


Hmmm...Don't most folks call it 'perspective'...it's how you know a tree in a painting, or a building, or an animal (such as a bird for example) is near to the viewer or far away from the viewer. Artists and most regular people have known about perspective in a 2D enviornment for centuries mate.

spikey


[edit on 8/3/2008 by internos]

This has NOTHING to do with what we were discussing:
IF the size of a object is UNKNOWN
and IF its distance is UNKNOWN
then there is NO WAY to assest neither its size nor its distance from the camera: so all that you can do is to "guess", but a "guess" is NOT an assestment. If you know the size of an object, then you can calculate aproximately its distance from the camera.
Or
If you know its distance from the camera, then you can calculate aproximately its size: but in order to do that, you'd need at least TWO shots from TWO different angles: it does not look so HARD to get.

Originally posted by internos
but in order to do that, you'd need at least TWO shots from TWO different angles: it does not look so HARD to get.

Yeah for someone who has no sense of depth perception and doesn't know how to approximate by the foremention perspective & a technique called sighting. Spikey's point is indeed valid and is very much to do with assessing the possible position of the object in the scene(or any image for that matter).

If it's just a bird why are you guys wasting your time telling us over & over again unless you plane on proving it?

Originally posted by Shakesbeer

Yeah for someone who has no sense of depth perception and doesn't know how to approximate by the foremention perspective & a technique called sighting. Spikey's point is indeed valid and is very much to do with assessing the possible position of the object in the scene(or any image for that matter).

If it's just a bird why are you guys wasting your time telling us over & over again unless you plane on proving it?

I want to point out that i've been QUOTED: and when i'm QUOTED, i have to REPLY to the QUOTE. I'm not interested at all in wasting my time with a photo of a bird anymore, but IF someone quotes me, then i have to answer. If the people stops quoting me, then of course you won't see me again in this thread because i've already said what i had to say.
What does it mean "assessing the possible position?"
Nothing, indeed.
Ok: i know EXACTLY the size of the statue on the hill:
please, tell me the size of the statue:

If that technique works, you MUST be able to answer correctly, right?


Listen, don't quote me anymore in this thread: feel free to dream with your beloved bird but PLEASE, leave me alone.


[edit on 13/4/2008 by internos]

reply to post by internos

point conceded I brought up the bird thing, sorry

But the picture is a fun challenge, do I have an "over-under" margin? I never claimed to be able to get dead on accurate, but close. I think I can get it with in a foot or so though...or dead on I guess we'll find out. I'm trusting you on the measurement of the statue so if I'm wrong I won't ask for any more proof or anything. I honestly don't really care even if I'm wrong this time, because none of us have ever been wrong on anything before , but it sounds like fun to me.

Pretty interesting idea though Interos, like Spikey was saying, as an artist I use "reference calibration" in relation to proportions all the time. Sort of like measuring & recreating the proportions of a person based off how many of their head's they are tall & wide etc. I've never thought about breaking it down into a solid measuring technique.....hmmm I mean I can show you drawings that demonstrate the accuracy of the technique for creative purposes if you're interested too?

oh and if you post here, I'll quote you if I feel like it, thanks for coming by again btw

Anyways, give me a few on the pic and I'll get back to you.


[edit]
Without getting into what kind of plants/trees are present and how high they grow in a season etc: I would say from the base to the head of the statute is approximately 12-13 ft tall, and from the base to the finger is around 15-16ft tall.

Close or way off?

[edit on 13-4-2008 by Shakesbeer]