PHOTO-SURPRISE Part 2

Hi everyone,

Well, I was sent here by Internos to expose the "problem" :

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I won't ask you anything right now...your first impressions & questions are important to me.


Thank you in advance.
Europa aka Buck the ever unsatisfied

[edit on 11-3-2008 by Europa733]

Hi Jeff,

I am assuming, it's good news, if it takes you so long to respond on
this one...

Just to tell you, that this is probably one of the best if not the best daytime 21st century UFO shot, I've seen so far.

Thank you in advance for your time spent on it.

Cannot wait to hear from you, even if you end up saying it's a pigeon.


Peace,
Europa

I wont have time to go over it for about another 3 days. First impression? Interesting. One of the best? No.

The blurred section on the underside says wing to me, however I've issues with the hazing and apparent gleam of the upper surface if it's in fact a bird of some sort.

I'll figure it out, gimme a few days.

Originally posted by jritzmann
One of the best? No.

Hi Jeff,

Lucky you (guess you got some good ones, are they here on ATS ?)

Actually, once that we'll be done with this, if it is possible, I'll
have something else for you, something that was filmed, photographed with a Canon A1 with 800 ASA film and a grating filter + it was also caught on a low frequency radar...with multiple witnesses.

Thanks in advance.

Peace,
Europa


[edit on 25-3-2008 by Europa733]

Hey JRitz, be sure to check out the cone shaped shadow the object seems to cast as well. There is a lot of enhancements if this anomaly in the thread Europa posted previously.

I'm 90% sure that "cone" may be a wing(s), but I'm not finished yet. It definitely isn't any kind of shadow. It's motion blur.

its a bird. there have been plenty of posts on that ....

the simplest solution is almost always the correct one .... in this case ... its a bird

Also

Why have you created two threads on the same subject !!!!!
Seems to me that this thread should be closed .... im sure there must be a t&c's thing with doing that !

What do you think Mod's ???????

[edit on 27-3-2008 by scepticsRus]

Originally posted by scepticsRus
its a bird.

the simplest solution is almost always the correct one .... in this case ... its a bird

[edit on 27-3-2008 by scepticsRus]

Hi there,

I appreciate your help.

Few questions, as you seem to like science (I didn't say respect, did I ?)

-You're saying you can tell what X is just by using your eyes, Occam's razor and maybe a little bit of pareidolia on top of it, right ?

-Why do you think that your arguments about X's identification are credible and acceptable ?

-Why would you use Occam's razor in this case ? Please develop.

-What is (are) T&C' ?

-Are you a photographer ?

Enjoy !

Peace,
Europa





[edit on 27-3-2008 by Europa733]

-You're saying you can tell what X is just by using your eyes, Occam's razor and maybe a little bit of pareidolia on top of it, right ?

no, i can tell what X is because the same images have come up on ATS before and have been "debunked" as a simple bird image.

Why do you think that your arguments about X's identification are credible and acceptable ?

1. common sense
2. see first comment above
3. occams razor

-Why would you use Occam's razor in this case ? Please develop.

kinda like saying why use E=Mc2 isnt it !!! Occams razor is a generalistic term that can be applied to anything ..... and from what i have seen in 99.999% of cases its the truth

What is (are) T&C' ?

Terms & conditions of this site !

Are you a photographer ?

nope im a software developer who likes to 'dabble' in these kind of things .....


my responses are only based on common sense, analysis of the provided facts (in this case a bured image of a bird)

I would love it to be something more than what it is ... but the facts just dont add up ...

ATS - UFO over Cornwall

This link says it all really

Originally posted by scepticsRus
no, i can tell what X is because the same images have come up on ATS before and have been "debunked" as a simple bird image.

Hi,

Same image...That is some pseudo-scientific reasoning you got there buddy, I kinda of knew you would fail to answer this one correctly.

So, you said :

1. common sense
2. see first comment above
3. occams razor

I'll answer :

1. Because you own common sense ? Is your "common sense" safe enough ?
2. Comment above just failed
3. We'll see that next

Answerig my question about Occam's razor, you said this :

kinda like saying why use E=Mc2 isnt it !!! Occams razor is a generalistic term that can be applied to anything ..... and from what i have seen in 99.999% of cases its the truth

I'll answer :

In no way Occam's razor can be used in any situation, Occam's razor is the worth & last thing you want to do while using the scientific method. Occam's razor is like an ejection seat for a fighter pilot, use it only when everything else fails.

Oh, by the way, in this picture below, two things, 1st, it sure looks like a bird, 2nd, comparing pictures like you do is a pseudo-scientific method to
go on with this subject.

You can try to reproduce the "same" thing by using a rigorous protocole (same equipment, weather conditions, Sun position, camera position in regards to the Sun, etc...) This is a good method.

ATS - UFO over Cornwall

My skeptic friends would not appreciate the fact that you promote
skepticism while using pseudo-scientific reasoning.

Peace,
Europa


[edit on 27-3-2008 by Europa733]

Three Words for ya ....... Show Me Proof

firstly, Since picture analysis is the only method of determining what is in that picture the only thing we can do is compare like for like.

Secondly, Occams Razor CAN be used as a generalistly. Agreed its normally the last thing you would turn to .... but what else do we have here to go on..... a blury image ... no idea of the scale of the object no idea of the distance from the camera. The whole thing is like looking at a cloud and seeing a face... you can examine the image all you like and see a ghosting of something you think looks like a window etc when in actual fact its probably nothing more than pixelation or something else like a marking on the feathers etc .....


again ... i ask ... show me proof that its anything other than a bird.

Did you read the original thread? There's quiet a bit of anomalous evidence present, should one care to actually research or try to prove something other then use...oh I don't know, Occam's Razor?

Cone shaped shadow man; bring me a perfectly defined cone shaped shadow picture around a bird diving. Then do a comparative analysis of the conditions present during the original picture to see if it's even applicable let a lone possible as proof of it being a bird. That's how I would start to prove it was a bird...oh yeah I did, and haven't found one yet. Care to help?

there is a lot of data on this one, I'm surprised more people haven't checked this picture out before honestly. My first "skeptic" answer to this picture is fake well before "bird" entered my mind, knowing full well what birds look like photographed in all sorts of manners & conditions.

Well, as much as I'm sure it wont be welcomed, I'm of the full educated opinion that this is a bird.

The right leading edge shows quite well a "beaked" area, and puffy style neck area. The overall lightness of the UO image is due to motion blur, and not distance, the bird is likely within several feet, and not yards or more.

The specular highlight seen is most likely a color variant of the surface, coupled with light direction, making it appear reflective. We've see much the same effect in other swept birds shots in the past.

There is also to the rear edge, what appears to be appendages, or lateral legs.

The much (apparently) discussed cone shape is an effect of beating wings. Due to the angle of the bird to the shooter, the far wing is seen only in close proximity to the bird's body, as it's moving there the least, but still quickly enough to blur. It moves less towards the body, and more as it moves down the wing, giving a triangle appearance.

The lower base of the "triangle", is again the same idea: The wing is beating wider at the farthest point, and closer towards the body, giving a wedge shape. Howeve ron this side the shooter has a wide and more "frontal" area to see, and therefore more surface area is exposed to blur. The opposite wing is away from the shooter, giving less opportunity for exposure, and less of an image.

The triangle is really an effect of 2 blurring wings, not a whole triangle.

There is also a very clear area towards the back end, that appears very much like bird body, and is slightly more dark.

It's really quite the illusion of a metallic surface though, so I can see where people would be fooled.

Originally posted by jritzmann
There is also a very clear area towards the back end, that appears very much like bird body, and is slightly more dark.

Got a close up or enhancement of that we can analyze ourselves on that one? We have seen one example of this that did not satisfy the visual perception analysis argument before, maybe you where able to pull something else out of it...

Originally posted by jritzmann
Well, as much as I'm sure it wont be welcomed, I'm of the full educated opinion that this is a bird.

Hi Jeff, thanx for your time spent.

I just expected a little more than an opinion (no offense)

Originally posted by jritzmann
and puffy style neck area.

Carefull with pareidolia on that one so I reject this argument.

Originally posted by jritzmannThe overall lightness of the UO image is due to motion blur, and not distance, the bird is likely within several feet, and not yards or more.

I agree, motion blur could create this absorbtion like "effect", this is probably why we did get mostly blue while testing the channels

Originally posted by jritzmannThe specular highlight seen is most likely a color variant of the surface, coupled with light direction, making it appear reflective. We've see much the same effect in other swept birds shots in the past.

Preen oil is what creates the reflections : en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by jritzmannThere is also to the rear edge, what appears to be appendages, or lateral legs.

Same thing, pareidolia, I cannot accept this.

Originally posted by jritzmannThe much (apparently) discussed cone shape is an effect of beating wings. Due to the angle of the bird to the shooter, the far wing is seen only in close proximity to the bird's body, as it's moving there the least, but still quickly enough to blur. It moves less towards the body, and more as it moves down the wing, giving a triangle appearance.

Do you have any exemples to show taken with similar characteristics (same shutter speed, "cone" or "triangle" effect & "transparent" effect) ?

This picture was taken with a 1/400 sec shutter speed and a pigeon for example (adult size : 0.61 m wide) doing stationary flight has a tip of the wing speed of 6 m/sec or 5 moves (flapping) / sec, smaller birds have a higher flapping frequency but mostly while doing stationary flights, like this one : fr.treklens.com...

I assume this bird is not doing stationary flight (body's inclination < 45 °) and this could be easyle demonstrated by ornithologists. This is why I do not understand why it is blurred like this with a 1/400 sec picture with such a slow flapping frequency.

Originally posted by jritzmannThe lower base of the "triangle", is again the same idea: The wing is beating wider at the farthest point, and closer towards the body, giving a wedge shape. Howeve ron this side the shooter has a wide and more "frontal" area to see, and therefore more surface area is exposed to blur. The opposite wing is away from the shooter, giving less opportunity for exposure, and less of an image.

How can you demonstrate this ?

A few drawings :





One other thing, how can you say it is a bird without doing any calculations
regarding the bird's distance estimation (closest & farthest) ? By doing this, we could know if it's maximum angular velocity would be fast enough to make it hard to identify (motion blur), don't you think ?

One last thing, I want to make something clear. My goal is to identify
X, if X is a bird, fine with me, I will not be frustrated but I want to see a demonstration so that I will be able to demonstrate it myself to others
and get over with this case. In other words, if it's a bird, it's demonstrable.

Peace,
Europa


[edit on 29-3-2008 by Europa733]

Originally posted by scepticsRus
Three Words for ya ....... Show Me Proof

firstly, Since picture analysis is the only method of determining what is in that picture the only thing we can do is compare like for like.

Hi there,

Well, I sure have proof that your are using pseudo-scientist arguments.

First, I cannot show proof it is a UFO as we do not know what is a UFO to start with. Oh by the way, is a UFO a ET ship for you ?

Now, if you say it is a bird, have it demonstrated to back up your claim because it has to be possible regarding all that we know about them and not by comparing which is not a viable method. It's interesting, but cannot be used as empirical data.


Peace,
Buck

I was looking into a guy named Ralph Ring who used to work on Tesla-based technology and theory with Otis Carr(who used to work with Tesla himself). In one of the diagrams, very clearly you see a cone shaped field around the disc originating from the top of the craft.

Tesla-inspired flying disc technology(top left)

Occam's Razor/pareidolia in favor of the disc theory a bit more yet?

[edit on 30-3-2008 by Shakesbeer]

Look guys you asked for my opinion, and I gave it. I don't have all the information needed, such as location measurements, etc. If I had all the contact and information, or possibly a trip to the actual shooting site, I'd get more involved.

Right now, Biedny and myself have both looked at this and it's our *educated* opinion that it's most likely a bird. Niether of us have the tons of time to do full exams on every internet photo that comes around...ya have to pick the perceived best ones to examine and devote time to.

I'd say truthfully, that the majority I look at are explainable. I've got an handful from doing this for two decades that I cant explain. None of them are blurry.

I don't get any guff about the unexplained ones, I get them from the ones that just don't pan out. The explainable ones, and usually the ones people want to be "real".

In years past I have done a crapload of work to explain away misidentified stuff, film aberrations, and hoaxes...far more then was needed to explain the photo/video, because some just don't want to accept it.

As I've gotten older, I just don't have time for that. You can look at my track record, and respect my opinion or not. It's really that simple. By now I'd assume (maybe wrongly) that you people know I'm honest and not just the type to blow off interesting data...if I thought this was worth further exams, I'd do them.

But here's what *you all* have to realize: it's a blurred object, and IF it was a disc, then what? It's just another blurry disc photo...that to a skeptic, will easily make you look like a fool.

You guys don't have to stand behind anything here, I do. My work on O'Hare is listed in the NARCAP report, with my name. They arent going to list acknowledgments/data from "mongoose56" or some such username.

And this shot? I wouldn't stand by, because it's blurred, not enough info, and likely a bird.

So, my answer at that point is:
"Next?"

UFO photos are not just about interesting shots...they're ones that you'd stand by, and go head-to-head with a skeptic on. You *better* have your stuff together for that. They're also ones that have corroboration, and other deciding factors.

This one just ain't worth it. Like I said, even if it was a disc, it's not very solid. Kinda, sorta, maybe just doesn't work. If it takes a lot of work to determine what it is at face value, it isn't going to help the issue of UFO reality. It's another the public and skeptics will beat you with.

reply to post by jritzmann


Hi Jeff,

Well, I want to thank you again for your opinion and I am actually working on the pigeon hypothesis. I'll get back to you when I can with new data to show you. Like I said, if it is a pigeon, it can be demonstrated and I will. (I hope to)

Take care.

Europa

Originally posted by jritzmann
Right now, Biedny and myself have both looked at this and it's our *educated* opinion that it's most likely a bird. Niether of us have the tons of time to do full exams on every internet photo that comes around...

I like how you assume that we are *not* educated or experienced in photography, digital imaging, photo-manipulation etc by your tone. I am a working creative professional as well and don't like to waste my time on BS either. Since you don't have time for your "full exam" we atleast spent ours doing a lot of work & research to demonstrate quite a few anomalies. Did you even take time to read the FOV:Size analysis done in the original thread? Or do you not have time for that either?

I'm not taking a stab or flaming honestly, I really want to know. Because where ever these "more important" UFO pics everyone claims to be working on that are solid proof, I still haven't seen any that go beyond "good fake" to a hardened non-believing skeptic. Or maybe the really solid corroborating pictures being worked on by "our own" are being kept secret which is hypocritical to no end.

If you're just Rorschaching us with your opinion without even trying to support your hypothesis with any data...who's really being the scientifically impartial professional ones in this case?

Originally posted by jritzmann
This one just ain't worth it. Like I said, even if it was a disc, it's not very solid. Kinda, sorta, maybe just doesn't work. If it takes a lot of work to determine what it is at face value, it isn't going to help the issue of UFO reality. It's another the public and skeptics will beat you with.

Okay one more time something for the skeptics to actually *do*: Explain the perfect cone shaped field around the object with a pertinent & applicable example to at least prove it is a viable theory beyond opinion. And I do not mean blurred wings that are in a obtuse triangle, I mean ones that are a perfectly shaped equilateral(even an isosceles) cone. I find the majority of the time "Skeptic" is synonymous with "lazy" & "opinionated", and in some cases "uneducated", "uninformed", "egotist", "self deluded", & "igornant" just like every other label out there. So of course there will always be someone saying "that doesn't exist!" or "I don't see that!" just because they can...people are strange. So please, define what "worth it" means...

As far as standing by a flying disc; Well if you got any pictures of people BBQ'ing with the Zetan Greys from 4000CE or the US pilot hanging out of the triangle waving..by all means share.