Photo-Surprise

Originally posted by Shakesbeer


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

Point conceded: 1-1
And feel free to quote me whenever you want, especially in other threads:
I've also to add that in some cases, is possible to make a serious assessment basing it, for example, on other factors:
if we have a shot of a foggy environment, and we have an object too sharp
for being "inside" the fog, then we can reasonably state that it's most likely close to the camera.
Another case are the shadows: a shadow could indicate the aprox. position of an object: now, this could help in order to make an assessment of its size.
I mean, there are some cases in which a 2D image may give indications enough in order to make a valuable assessment. But in this case there's another factor which complicates a possible assessment: the motion blur.
The motion blur in fact changes the actual appearance of the object, and it complicates seriously every attempt to make an assestment.

[edit on 13/4/2008 by internos]

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?

VERY close
But you have made a very intelligent construction:
a construction in certain cases if far more valuable than a studdy of what the appearances suggest.
It's just a little smaller, but i'd say that your answer is, definately correct.
Nicely done

Thank you, it really was fun actually. That pic got me thinking about other reference points on the "birdy" pic too. I think I may see if I can use any markers in the scene that we know the approximate size of to at least narrow down the possibilities of it being "X big if it's close to the camera" & "Y big if it's in the distance" approximately...

Definitely metallic and NOT a bird. The ufo lacks the solidness that a diving bird would have. This object was moving very fast and that is why it is so faint. Much faster than a diving bird could ever attain imo.

Well I must say I'm definitely proud. I hadn't even read about the radar returns and the report by the French equivilent of NASA saying it was unkown and moving very fast on radar. That was one really big bird wearing a tinfoil hat with a turbo jet rocket strapped to his arse.

Originally posted by TH3ON3



Well I must say I'm definitely proud. I hadn't even read about the radar returns and the report by the French equivilent of NASA saying it was unkown and moving very fast on radar. That was one really big bird wearing a tinfoil hat with a turbo jet rocket strapped to his arse.

When there's some article to translate, you'd better to translate it by yourself, especially before lol.

Le 1er septembre 2006, un témoin prend des photos du tournage d'un film qui se déroule dans son village. Lors de l'examen des photos, alors qu'il n'a fait aucune observation visuelle, il constate la présence d'une tache inconnue sur l'un des clichés. Il contacte la gendarmerie des transports aériens pour faire une déposition. Une enquête minutieuse est menée par la gendarmerie qui permet d'écarter l'hypothèse d'un phénomène météorologique mais met en évidence une trace radar inconnue composée de 3 plots enregistrés par le radar primaire de Nice sensiblement dans la même période que la prise de vue et mettant en évidence une accélération fulgurante de l"objet présumé. Cette piste sera écartée (voir compte rendu) pour privilégier, dans un second temps,la piste d'un passage d'un avion commercial référencé 7637. Par ailleurs, la société chargée de l'entretien de l'horloge du clocher a précisé être gênée par les pigeons, qui, en se posant sur les aiguilles perturbent le fonctionnement de la pendule. Il y a donc une colonie de pigeons dans le clocher, dont la présence est confirmée par la photo sur laquelle de nombreux pigeons sont nettement visibles sur la corniche sous l’horloge. L'hypothèse d'un oiseau passant dans le champ de la photo est donc parfaitement recevable, le flou observé pouvant être provoqué par le battement d’ailes. Les éléments dont nous disposons ne nous autorisent pas à conclure formellement pour l’une ou l’autre des hypothèses, le passage d'un pigeon, malgré quelques incertitudes semblant être l’explication à privilégier par rapport à celle du passage du vol commercial référencé 7637. Quelque soit l’hypothèse retenue, une explication conventionnelle peut être apportée à ce cas qui doit donc être classé « B ».

While in the first part is mentioned a radar track, (anyway of a commercial plane), in the second time they ENDORSED the bird theory, precisely the pigeons one (and I LOL now).-

... Hence, the hypotesis of a bird passing in the visible field of the photo IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE, the motion blur observed may have been caused by the wings flap.

www.cnes-geipan.fr...
GEIPAN classified it as B:
Class B UAP: Observation where the selected hypothesis by GEIPAN is very probable.
while a UFO would have been classified as C or D ( a REAL ufo would be classified D)
Class C UAP: Observation that couldn't be explained, due to lack of information.
Class D UAP: Unexplained observations, in spite of the information available.

So GEIPAN does NOT consider it as UFO: in according to their conclusion, in the best case it was a plane, but most likely it was a bird: and they even mention, as WE did here before, the presence of the pigeons near the clock.
Of course, everyone is free to believe whatever he/she wants.



[edit on 18/9/2008 by internos]

reply to post by internos



Okay internos, have your laugh... I still say it was a really big bird wearing a chrome crash helmet testing out a turbojet engine for Geipan!

I have to side with Internos here, bird was the instant reaction I had to this photo it is a classic shape of a motion blurred bird.

just my 2 cents.

"acceptable" and "absolute" are two different things, and you're right Interos, people will just see what they want...like the way "they" might think you need two photographs to accurately tell the size of something too



You or GEIPAN didn't explain the cone shaped "shadow"

Birdies:


So what GEIPAN doesn't know how to explain what they're seeing & think it's easiest to call it a bird. That sounds more like laziness then good investigation. Oh I thought they're paid to look into space for some reason, not to do bird watching. So that makes them qualified to call it a bird? Okay!

Generally an object that is moving fast & out of focus that leaves that well of defined outlines will have information in the black & yellow channels:


But it doesn't for some reason -shrugs- But what do I know, I'm just a graphic artist who's been working with photos for 10 years now and know how to create illusions with light....

The skeptic crowd here seems to like to ignore evidence of an "anomaly" for the sake of their own visual perception(however admittedly unqualified it is) & decree. Very scientific guys...good job, and you wonder why you've been called "cool aid drinkers" & "tin foil hat wearers" for so long. Do you need to see the "made in Zeta-Reticuli 1 : inspected by kang" sticker before you say it might just be a "ufo" or "saucer"? All I hear from the "experts" is how it looks like a bird without any kind of evidence that would point to that being the case. Despite all of the work done to try to eliminate those possibilities....it still comes down to the all mighty decree of the ATS "experts" since it's easier to read just their posts then the rest of them.

So instead we get to dredge all of this back up and ultimately arrive at the same place, woohoo! If you think I want anyone to agree with me over anyone else, you're wrong. What I'm looking for is some true objectivity, not "experts" assuming something because they lack perceptual skills. And yes I can say that based on my own observations and after having passed Internos' little challenge

Originally posted by samureyed
For everyone saying that is a bird taken at slow shutter speed obviously doesnt realize that 1/400 of a second shutter speed is not a slow shutter speed. Take a picture of yourself flailing your arms as fast as you can at 1/400 of a second and see how much you blur. I vote not a bird, but possible insect close to camera.

I'm glad I only had to read half way through the first page to find someone with half an idea.

Exactly 100% correct. 1/400 shutter speed is too fast to make a bird look this blurred.

This is what a bird looks like flapping its wings at only 1/300 shutter speed. Hardly the same is it.




[edit on 19-9-2008 by Total Package]

I was just just pointing out that CNES GEIPAN said that it was most likely a bird.
The radar track was found to be the one of a commercial airline, and since it wasn't a primary return, i highly doubt that alien spacecrafts use transponders.
The association between the radar track and what we see in the photo would dismiss the photo as a commercial airplane: so in according to CNES-GEIPAN, in the best of the hypotesis what has been caught on camera was a commercial airplane: the alternative explanation is the one of a bird, which is VERY LIKELY even for CNES-GEIPAN.


reply to post by Shakesbeer


Hi again
I already gave you my opinion, as well as Jeff Ritzmann and MANY other fella members did.

Your friend cut off the part of the GEIPAN report which mentioned the BIRDS EXPLANATION: please, see THIS POST and show me where the birds, mentioned in the original report in french, are mentioned in the translation . Since our fellow member was being DECEIVED by a MISLEADING translation, i have pointed out the MISSING PART: i don't want in any way impose my view on this case, and i respect your view.

My challenge was passed by you: but you had the opportunity to base your calculations on external factors: you took in considerations the bushes that can be seen at the bottom of the statue, you made an excellent construction based on the environment of the subject, NOT a direct observation of an object. The construction was correct and VERY good, and indeed it worked. But the point is to determine the size of an object by just observing it: this cannot be done, what can be done is to guess. This is why researchers use triangulations in order to estabilish the size of an unknown object. There are also interesting softwares that allow you to esteem the size of an object caught by Mars Rover cameras, with a satisfactory approximation. But that one may know the size of an unknown object just looking at some photo is beyond my understanding capability, so perhaps i'm wrong...

Can you tell me the size of the red sphere in this photo?


The other points of reference in the photo of the OP, would have some value if something was passing in front and/or something else behind the object: i mean something which size was known. No one can tell conclusively wether the object is closer or further than the clock.
As well as for the motion blur: how can someone say that the motion blur shouldn't have that appearance if the speed and the shape of the object are UNKNOWN? In the other hand, even if it turns out to be very small, of course this doesn't rule out the alien spacecraft theory, because they could be very small, if they exist
If we had two photos taken from different angles, we would have been discussing facts: while all can be done here, is to guess. And i and many other people guess that it's a bird, someone else guess it's not. There's not much else to say, IMHO


[edit on 19/9/2008 by internos]

Sounds to me like you're only going to take the word of government agencies, while posting at a place called Above Top Secret....

I don't know how many people have came out and said that shutter speed is to fast for a blurred bird, the "shadow" or motion blur of the "wings" don't fit the description either.

So if I pass this test will you finally *SNIP* and give me some damn respect? Or are you going to do this ever chance you get? If I get it wrong are you going to act like a gloating child? Either way I don't feel like entertaining you anymore unless you're asking my opinion on a case, and not a red ball that's sitting in front of the camera which is about 10-12 inches in diameter. Or am I wrong? either way who cares, you're still ignoring evidence on this case -shrugs-

Oh and let me get this straight: You're accusing Europa of intentionally "misleading" people? That's a fairly severe charge there buddy, I hope you can prove that one.

====
Mod Edit: Please no profanity, not even abbreviations, Acronyms or stars.
Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Further, let's stay focused on the topic and not on angry replies to Members. Thanks, and happy posting.

[edit on 19/9/2008 by Badge01]

Originally posted by Shakesbeer
Sounds to me like you're only going to take the word of government agencies, while posting at a place called Above Top Secret....

I don't know how many people have came out and said that shutter speed is to fast for a blurred bird, the "shadow" or motion blur of the "wings" don't fit the description either.

So if I pass this test will you finally stfu and give me some damn respect? Or are you going to do this ever chance you get? If I get it wrong are you going to act like a gloating child? Either way I don't feel like entertaining you anymore unless you're asking my opinion on a case, and not a red ball that's sitting in front of the camera which is about 10-12 inches in diameter. Or am I wrong? either way who cares, you're still ignoring evidence on this case -shrugs-

Oh and let me get this straight: You're accusing Europa of intentionally "misleading" people? That's a fairly severe charge there buddy, I hope you can prove that one.

Whooooooops!
Wrong.

And you know why? Because it is impossile to know the size of an object if it's distance from the camera is unknown: as well is impossible to know the distance of an object if its size is unknown. I didn't want to prove you wrong, i just wanted to prove that to claim that one may determine the size of an object in a 3d environment represented in a 2d plan is simply IMPOSSIBLE. Besides, this object was even sharp and laying on the ground, while the BIRD in the OP was in the air and nose diving at unknown speed and at unknown distance.
I was quoting another member and YOU did quote me: i was pointing out something that has nothing to do with the photo by its technical view and you quoted and mentioned me: this is the result. Your calculation was so wrong that the technique that you use cannot be taken seriously.
Better luck next time.

Mine is not an accusation but a FACT proven in the link below:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
anyway, since you seem to have some short term memory,

Originally posted by Europa733
Hi everyone,

Well, French Official UAP (PAN in French) study group (GEIPAN) recently released the case. You can easily find it in their archives, just by clicking on "recherche" then click on the map in the South Eastern most region. Here is the direct link anyway :

www.cnes-geipan.fr...

Let me just remind you that the GEIPAN is a branch of the CNES which is equivalent to NASA in the US. Anyway, here is the most important part of the tiny report that I will translate for you :

"A rigorous study of this case has been conducted by the French Military Police (Gendarmes) and the meteorological phenomena hypothesis has been
excluded but brought to light the fact that an unknown radar trace composed of 1 object "buzzing" on the radar 3 times were recorded by the PSR (primary radar of the Nice Int'l Airport) more or less during the same time the picture was taken. This echo showed an "object" accelerating at an incredible rate.

Another radar echo seems to show that a military aircraft (Mirage 2000)* was "escorted" by another unidentified object."

Well, this is good news, I do not think one second that the French Military and the GEIPAN would have posted this case in their archives, if it would simply be a bird.

I am still working on the bird hypothesis and will keep you uptdated with this story...

* : I know it was a Mirage 2000 because the witness told me that his uncle told him about the fighter jet story. Just remember that the photograph called the Military Police and his uncle in the French Air Force.

Peace,
Europa

This was the original post

Le 1er septembre 2006, un témoin prend des photos du tournage d'un film qui se déroule dans son village. Lors de l'examen des photos, alors qu'il n'a fait aucune observation visuelle, il constate la présence d'une tache inconnue sur l'un des clichés. Il contacte la gendarmerie des transports aériens pour faire une déposition. Une enquête minutieuse est menée par la gendarmerie qui permet d'écarter l'hypothèse d'un phénomène météorologique mais met en évidence une trace radar inconnue composée de 3 plots enregistrés par le radar primaire de Nice sensiblement dans la même période que la prise de vue et mettant en évidence une accélération fulgurante de l"objet présumé. Cette piste sera écartée (voir compte rendu) pour privilégier, dans un second temps,la piste d'un passage d'un avion commercial référencé 7637. Par ailleurs, la société chargée de l'entretien de l'horloge du clocher a précisé être gênée par les pigeons, qui, en se posant sur les aiguilles perturbent le fonctionnement de la pendule. Il y a donc une colonie de pigeons dans le clocher, dont la présence est confirmée par la photo sur laquelle de nombreux pigeons sont nettement visibles sur la corniche sous l’horloge. L'hypothèse d'un oiseau passant dans le champ de la photo est donc parfaitement recevable, le flou observé pouvant être provoqué par le battement d’ailes. Les éléments dont nous disposons ne nous autorisent pas à conclure formellement pour l’une ou l’autre des hypothèses, le passage d'un pigeon, malgré quelques incertitudes semblant être l’explication à privilégier par rapport à celle du passage du vol commercial référencé 7637. Quelque soit l’hypothèse retenue, une explication conventionnelle peut être apportée à ce cas qui doit donc être classé « B ».

www.cnes-geipan.fr...

This is the original report: the part in bold is the one mentioning the birds:

rough translation:

In addition, the company responsible for maintenance of the clock tower said to be hampered by the pigeons, who, while posing on needles disrupt the functioning of the pendulum. So there is a colony of pigeons in the bell tower, whose presence is confirmed by the photo on which many pigeons are clearly visible on the ledge under the clock. The hypothesis of a bird passing in the field of photography is perfectly acceptable, the blur observed may be caused by the beating of wings. The elements we have not allow us to conclude formally to any assumptions, the passage of a pigeon, despite some uncertainties explanation seems to be preferable to the passage of the commercial flight referenced 7637.

please, prove me wrong and tell me where it has been mentioned.

THe truth is that CNES-GEIPAN endorsed the BIRD explanation, and that the post simply doesn't mention it. I've NEVER accused Europa to have omitted it deliberately, just pointed up the missing part, PERIOD.

Now, that we have assested that you are unable to calculate the size of an object simply looking at it and that the data related to the birds was actually missing, let me recall you one thing:

Originally posted by Springer
Europa and Shakesbeer:

I have some very good advice for you, when you come to someone's house and ask for FREE HELP and THEIR TIME you accept what you get.

Jeff doesn't have to answer any bloody questions, you asked him for an analysis and that's what he gave you.

I suggest you both move on before I get really disgusted and very mad.

Springer...

I humbly suggest you to follow the advices, especially when they are as good as the one quoted above, and leave the government agencies alone mate: i don't think that they are very interested in your BIRD.

reply to post by internos


especially when information is deliberatively withheld from the crop. You're absolutely right, I'd need another picture, I'd need the non-*SNIP* one. How does your little "experiment" have any relation to the situation with this case? Was the object in question cropped? You could have just said "hey dude, if the subject in question is cropped it would be difficult to accurately judge size by one picture."
and I would have said "oh hey! you're right, because of the forced perspective.."

But no, you just wanted to trick me to feel better about yourself again didn't you? Good job dude well done, I hope the intent of your challenge is apparent to most here. Feel good? Do you feel all tingly? good...gets me hot

You still haven't explained anything, or answered any major questions. Some "expert" . It's okay if you say "I don't know, but I think it's a bird" and just dropped it. But no here we are again. Even though some of us don't mind trying to find the answer to the cone, but no, here we are again. We get to hear you comment against evidence and testimonials of people who actually "do", but no...you're a "UFO" expert so obviously you know what everyone is seeing all the time in every picture and video. Does saying that get you that "expert" tag or do you have to just keep saying that long enough for people to believe you?

Or are you saying we need the government agencies to tell us what we're seeing? Because they always give us accurate information in regards to "ufo"s too huh?

Come into "your house"...blahblahblah

I don't know about the rest of you, I try to be hospitable to people I invite into my house, not constantly flex my power to let them know just where they stand in my house...

So yeah, here's my one finger salute in honor of your "house" buddy...

====
Mod Edit: Please no profanity, not even abbreviations, Acronyms or stars.
Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 19/9/2008 by Badge01]

I quote you entirely just in case you would edit your post, you know, i DONT trust you.

Originally posted by Shakesbeer
reply to post by internos

 

especially when information is deliberatively withheld from the crop. You're absolutely right, I'd need another picture, I'd need the non-bull sh!t one. How does your little "experiment" have any relation to the situation with this case? Was the object in question cropped? You could have just said "hey dude, if the subject in question is cropped it would be difficult to accurately judge size by one picture."
and I would have said "oh hey! you're right, because of the forced perspective.."

But no, you just wanted to trick me to feel better about yourself again didn't you? Good job dude well done, I hope the intent of your challenge is apparent to most here. Feel good? Do you feel all tingly? good...gets me hot

You still haven't explained anything, or answered any major questions. Some "expert"

. It's okay if you say "I don't know, but I think it's a bird" and just dropped it. But no here we are again. Even though some of us don't mind trying to find the answer to the cone, but no, here we are again. We get to hear you comment against evidence and testimonials of people who actually "do", but no...you're a "UFO" expert so obviously you know what everyone is seeing all the time in every picture and video. Does saying that get you that "expert" tag or do you have to just keep saying that long enough for people to believe you?

Or are you saying we need the government agencies to tell us what we're seeing? Because they always give us accurate information in regards to "ufo"s too huh?

Come into "your house"...blahblahblah

I don't know about the rest of you, I try to be hospitable to people I invite into my house, not constantly flex my power to let them know just where they stand in my house...

So yeah, here's my one finger salute in honor of your "house" buddy...

I don't need to take any action to fool you: this work is already being done exceptionally well by you.

Originally posted by internos
Thanks for sharing this one, and for presenting it in such a well documented way

.
In my opinion, it may be a bird, they can put on very odd shapes, while nose diving;

pheraps, he's a friend of this one:

Of course, i could be wrong. Just my two cents.

I've said since MY FIRST POST that in my opinion IT MAY BE A BIRD but you seem to misread almost everything.
What's wrong with the badge? Do you want one, so you will stop crying and spreading BS? Ok, let me ask to someone if they can give you one for Christmas Ohhh, these children...

Okay fine, so you think it's a bird, can you let it go? Or do you have to keep telling us that for no reason? Would you like a better bird animation to go along with restatements? I'm sure I could do that for you to...is your ego satisfied yet? Or do you feel the need to cram more redundant info down all of our throats?

Meanwhile, the same questions remain unanswered...thanks for playing though