UFO in Sydney Australia

reply to post by TheMalefactor

Xtreme's demonstration doesn't provide any actual distance information. It compares relative movement of objects caused by movement of the camera. His point was that, since the reflection moves a different amount than the blob, they cannot both be in the same visual plane (the windscreen).

I don't think his conclusion is valid for several reasons:
1) Even though the reflection is caused by the windscreen it is not in the same visual plane as the windscreen so its relative movement will be less.

2) By layering the two images, it seems that the two images used do not have the same vertical alignment. In 0433, the camera has rotated counterclockwise relative to 0432. This rotation would skew the positional data.

3) The two images also have differing aim points. 0433 is aimed lower and to the left relative to 0432. This would also cause a difference in movement because the right (and upper) side of the frame would to be closer to the windscreen which would cause objects in that are to translate more.

With all the variables I don't know if it is feasible to try to quantify the movement of various elements of the images. But the animation I posted above shows a general consistency of movement between the blob, the reflection, and the two smaller blobs near the reflection.

I did not stabilize the "lens flare". As Charlz has pointed out. It remains fixed relative to the background in all the images.



[edit on 4/3/2010 by Phage]

Yeah, what Phage just said! But here's my take as well..

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
But if it were more than a camera shift, rotations or such, then wouldn't we see some objects moving in opposite directions by a big margin?

No, just *varying* margins. The closer the object, the more it will move relative to the background and to other objects. If the camera is held on a 'rail' and simply moved back and forth towards the screen, then a simple analysis would work. But the camera is hand held, there are *many* planes of movement possible.

I only have a minimal knowledge of this stuff, but as I imagine it in my head if I have a thing on a window and stuff in the background and then I rotate down. The thing nearby would go up and everything else would go down. So it seems to me like everything in the image just shifts due to movement in a single axis.

You need to go try it. Get some blu-tack or chewing gum and stick it on your windscreen (at least two small pieces, say 3-6mm), and then put your eye directly behind one, say 50-100mm (2-4") behind it.. Then move a little in all directions, then go over near the other noting all the while the relative positions as you move and also change your distance from the screen. If you can arrange this in a relatively dark scene, but with some light on the dashboard or trim, you can also test the reflection thing. You'll quickly discover that the positions do not move in a 'linear' way, simply because this is a 3D scene, with different objects at different distances, and possibly a reflection off a curved surface. (I am trying to remember that it is still an alleged reflection only!)

2. The reflection is *not* fixed to the screen, and varies *further* in location as per point 1.

But the dashboard is fixed in place right? So if the light that's making the reflection stays in place, the dashboard stays put, and the window stays in place then it move consistently between shots?

No, it moves in the opposite direction for a start, as it is a reflection! And then there's the doubled distance, the curvature...

3. The windscreen is curved, which means for the reflection there is a (non-linear) magnification factor in there as well.

I get this. So I saw that we're dealing with a camera with a 35 or 37 mm lens, right? That means to get the reflection to zoom out further it would have to change to what a 10 or 15 mm lens? How much curvature would that require for the window? Wouldn't that then also massively distort the dashboard?...

~37mm, yes. I'm not sure where you are going with the focal length guesses, but frankly, without knowing how curved the windscreen is, and without knowing how big, long or curved the dashboard/trim is, any wild guesses are... exactly that..


[edit on 3-4-2010 by CHRLZ]

How Fiona's 'orbs' might be thought to be emerging from streetlight.

I think I've identified three more blobs
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eff4dd91f9e6.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by Phage


well done phage. i think we can safely say mud on the windscreen now proven and case dismissed. next......

thanks

rich

reply to post by Phage

Wow interesting Phage! And the answer to your signature question is `Spooky action at a distance`

Well done Phage, I saw those early on and my first thought was that they are effects of the streetlight glare on the windscreen.
The blob is darker in appearance so I think thats dirt/debris/birdpoo or similar. Ive added two more in blue.

Its possible the 'blob' is a similar artifact, but Im personally more inclined to think its bug guts or similar and incidental to the glare artifacts.

I think its now proven that the photo above atleast was taken from inside the car. I dont think anyone can honestly doubt that.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5ffb4bcea5fd.png[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

Xtreme's demonstration doesn't provide any actual distance information.

Again I only have a basic knowledge of how cameras work at the math / physics level, but he mentioned the shift-distances at a certain point "converge" and from what I gather the nearest spot in the images that this occurs will be 37 meters due to the lens? The fuscia lines?

and it seemed like this was meant to explain It compares relative movement of objects caused by movement of the camera. His point was that, since the reflection moves a different amount than the blob, they cannot both be in the same visual plane (the windscreen).

Which makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't think his conclusion is valid for several reasons:
1) Even though the reflection is caused by the windscreen it is not in the same visual plane as the windscreen so it's relative movement will be less.

I get that. But since the two cameras share the same lens, and in the other shot he shows something 5 or 6 feet out, shouldn't that have a similar proportional translation distance of the blob to the dashboard reflection? Since we're assuming it's projected out, at most how far can it project? Obviously it can't exceed the length of the car yet distance for the blob is double the distance of the glare / reflection of the dash.

That just doesn't work in my head.

2) By layering the two images, it seems that the two images used do not have the same vertical alignment.

So we can say she either shifted the camera down in the y or rotated it down and into the y and depth axis, right?

In 0433, the camera has rotated counterclockwise relative to 0432. This rotation would skew the positional data.

This tell us she shifted the camera left in the x or rotated left and into the depth axis right? The way I'm feeling you, you wager it was rotated in the depth?

If it rotated in to the depth couldn't we check the scale of the blob? If it was supposed to be on the windshield wouldn't the leading edge get disproportionately bigger than the bottom edge on the blob, since the windshield goes inwards more towards the top and due to change in perspective?

I just did a test putting a sticky note on a window (per CHRLZ :up, rotated the camera down & in, and like I tried to describe before, the sticky close to the window went up and everything else far in the distance went down.

When I just moved left and right, up and down, without rotation in the depth axis, everything more or less moved in the same direction, but scaled depending on how far or close it was to my camera.

3) The two images also have differing aim points. 0433 is aimed lower and to the left relative to 0432. This would also cause a difference in movement because the right (and upper) side of the frame would to be closer to the windscreen which would cause objects in that are to translate more.

Wouldn't it be the bottom left that would be closest to the windscreen if the camera moved in the depth and to the left? If I go down in to the depth on the left that would cause the right side to go outwards making things on that side smaller and causing them to appear to move _less_, correct?

edit: don't have these quote things down quite yet.
edit: confusing wording.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]

reply to post by wayaboveitall


hi wayabovitall. im inclined to think its all the same mud maybe off the area the car was, and the bigger object just looks darker because its thicker and the light is penetrating it less, and if im correct then its even more proof that the blobs are between the streetlight and the camera for the light to penetrate them, although obviously i could be wrong!. either way i really do think this one is now dead and buried and no wild fantasies or speculation can save it. although maybe TwoPhish might come out of hiding and throw out another strange wild paranoid and delusional theory like her earlier "psy ops" one! haha

thanks

rich

[edit on 3-4-2010 by RICH-ENGLAND]

[edit on 3-4-2010 by RICH-ENGLAND]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheMalefactor
With all the variables I don't know if it is feasible to try to quantify the movement of various elements of the images.

Better to try than not.

I did not stabilize the "lens flare". As Charlz has pointed out. It remains fixed relative to the background in all the images.

I just flipped back & forth between the two images and I get where you're coming from. However wouldn't it be more correct to say it remains fixed relative to the lens? It's a lens flare after all. It's not going to move the same distance as something 37 meters on the horizon unless it's a giant attack light-blob LOL. It's just an illusion that they move at the same rate since the light is being recorded at one of the glass pieces in the camera, right?

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Phage, thanks for that animation - you spurred me on to investigate that area fully. The half 'hexagon' is not a flare nor reflection, it is simply the way the tree is lit up.

You can very clearly see it in this animation of the 5 images:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd63b198c857.gif[/atsimg]

I like your lateral thinking, but then why does it get dark in 0433 at the bottom?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4fe0122dcfb.png[/atsimg]

Some intresting photographs
but if she was in the car while taking the pictures it could of been something in the reflection or maybe a something on camera lens
and wouldnt the car in the picture have stopped if there was a UFO above it?
KB

Some intresting photographs
but if she was in the car while taking the pictures it could of been something in the reflection or maybe a something on camera lens
and wouldnt the car in the picture have stopped if there was a UFO above it?
KB

reply to post by TheMalefactor


i think thats because its the reflection at the bottom on one picture making part of it look lit up but the reflection is higher on the other picture. so basically the bottom bit was never lit up, its just an illusion brought by the reflection. but obviously thats just my opinion.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by TheMalefactor

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheMalefactor
With all the variables I don't know if it is feasible to try to quantify the movement of various elements of the images.

Better to try than not.

Actually... ... ...!

I know what you are saying, but there *is* a problem with 'trying' if you don't fully appreciate all the variables and do your homework properly.

Photogrammetry *can* be relatively simple, if you are talking about, say, a person walking along with camera held to eye and taking a series of pictures of things at a reasonable distance. That's a fairly linear situation where only 'z' varies significantly.

But here we don't have that. Just some of the problems are:
1. Here, x,y,z along with camera angle, are all changing.
2. The objects are at different distances *and* angles to the camera (just because they are on a wndscreen (allegedly) does not mean they are similarly distant)
3. There is a reflection adding different distance/angle/rate of movement
4. That reflection is via a curved surface, adding a (non-linear) magnification factor.
5. The objects are/may be very near, and non-rectilinear effects ('fish-eye-distortion' near the outer areas of each image) may also be occurring.
6. The objects are out of focus and possibly have depth, so measuring them may be problematic.

I could go on... (Don't I always! )

So performing a real, useful photogrammetric analysis would be incredibly difficult. And if it was done, all of those issues have to be properly addressed with numbers, examples and proof of concept, and all assumptions laid out before even starting.

If it was me, I'd simply hire a PT Cruiser and drive to that location to emulate the entire series of images. Much easier than this sort of 'blind' analysis.

And the problem with impressive looking demonstrations and lots of equations, is that it looks impressive and can be very convincing even though.. wrong. And who will the naive reader believe? The flashiest presenter, or the one who plods away, taking time to fully understand the problem and all issues, and tries to ensure that *everything* that is important is *properly* addressed?

Me, I go with 'flashy', dunno 'bout you...!!


Added - To answer your other question about why is it lighter/darker, I think it's simply because the reflections (the long streaks) are a separate (and variable (lit by headlamps?)) effect. The reflection that was causing the area to be lightened (under your left line), is about 15mm up and 15mm right from the bottom of the right line in the second image.. Hope that makes sense.

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

i think thats because its the reflection at the bottom on one picture making part of it look lit up but the reflection is higher on the other picture. so basically the bottom bit was never lit up, its just an illusion brought by the reflection. but obviously thats just my opinion.

Good thought, but if we're seeing more detail when a reflection is over it, then less when there's not doesn't add up.

Light in the foreground that's greater in intensity couldn't amplify the lighting of something in the distance it would overwhelm any light behind it. This guy seems to make that point pretty nice with the red / white light example,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TheMalefactor


yes but what im saying is the bottom part was never lit up, the reflection is just making it look that way and its just an optical illusion. and again thats just my opinion but CHRLZ seems to agree and he seems to be a photographic expert and very knowledgeable.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

yes but what im saying is the bottom part was never lit up

Exactly the problem! If it wasn't lit up how could a light shining of a dashboard a couple hundred feet away on to a window, which would make it harder to see the stuff in the background, make the blob in the background more clear? Just doesn't make sense.

reply to post by TheMalefactor

Lens flare does not remain "fixed" to the lens. It is dependent on the angle at which the light enters the lens. A slight change in the angle of view would cause lens flare to change its position in the frame and against the background.

We have two images (at least) with different angles of view but the bright area remains in the same location of the background. It cannot be lens flare.

Originally posted by TheMalefactor

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

yes but what im saying is the bottom part was never lit up

Exactly the problem! If it wasn't lit up how could a light shining of a dashboard a couple hundred feet away on to a window, which would make it harder to see the stuff in the background, make the blob in the background more clear? Just doesn't make sense.

You've lost me. Can you point to exactly what the problem is? The light coming from the shape in the trees is simply augmented/added to by the reflection. It's not 'more clear', just lighter. And the light levels are not clipping, so there is no 'overwhelming' happening.