[HOAX]Real spirit photos from my neighborhood![HOAX]

Internos

I've been trying to figure out how to argue against your conclusion ( I'd say this is more about general detective work now that proving the specific hoax).



Would a dust particle or paranormal object be reflective or large enough to show up in the reflection of the car?



[edit on 23-8-2008 by Parabol]

reply to post by Parabol


Hi, Parabol: let me say that i would like to see you often in Aliens and UFOs forum, becuse you could provide some excellent contributes also there: i'll try to come here more often also because i find this forum interesting

The search for possible reflections in an image is always an extremely important step, well done on focusing also to it.

In order to evaluate the consistance of a reflection with the scenario, we should know, more or less:

position/s of the light source/s
type/s of propagation of the light source/s
position of the object allegedly being reflected
its shape
features of its surface (especially if it's reflective)
features of the surface to which the object is allegedly being reflected, its position and its orientation.

The list would be longer, bt this is more or less what we would need in this specific image: we know the position of the light source (the camera itselfs, its flash) and also its propagation (radial, decreasing with the distance).


We don't know the position of the object: in order to know it for sure, we would need to do a triangulation, and it can be done only if the same object is photographed from two (or more) points.
In this case we can tell for sure that the object is not very far, since it's between the camera and a definite background (the soil), but it's not enough though:
there are some empyrical methids to estimate the distance of an object, but it's out of focus, so there's no way to make any valid assessments on its actual position: we can only guess
While we know all about the car.

There are some reasons that would make me rule out that the white dot in
the car is a reflection of a ball thrown in the air:

the first one is the position of the light source:


If it's a ball, or some other reflectant body, then it's strange that it's out of focus, as we have seen its appearance can't be explained only with a motion blur: but let's assube that it is: the light source (A) hitting a spherical object should cast a reflection roughly to the point B, while in order to cast a reflection in the point indicated on the car (D) the light source should be located more or less at the point C.
Keep in mind that this is a very rough calculation, (it would be worthless to spend too much tima on a single photo, it's just because your point is good and because you have been the best contributor in this thread).
Besides, in order to cast a reflection so small, the object should have a concave surface, so it couldn't be a sphere:
.
Finally, how can we explain the absence of motion blur in the reflection?

It's REALLY nice to discuss with you, i hope to meet you often in the board mate

Ed: spelling


[edit on 23/8/2008 by internos]

... and we continue ...

While I can't refute everything you've said (again, i'm debating for the sake of learning) I did have another observation. Your angle of reflection would be correct if the light struck a flat plane, but the roundness of the ball could change the direction the light is reflected.

The angles and degrees are a bit off but I didn't want to spend forever on this, just trying to check it out.



The black lines are 45 degree angles, and the red is the assumed reflection. If the surface of the 'ball' is angled, due to striking the closest point on the ball, the reflected angle would also change. Or so I think, I may be wrong which is why I'm asking.