UFO in Sydney Australia

reply to post by InfaRedMan


InfaRedMan.....

I agree & I am looking forward to discussing this with Bill in person.

We've enjoyed our discussions by phone.....he seems like a very pleasant & knowledgeable guy.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

There's simply too much blur for it to be attributed to movement. There should be at least some sharpness to the object.

This is more likely a spot of dirt on the camera lens.

Originally posted by Beast Of Gevaudan
There's simply too much blur for it to be attributed to movement. There should be at least some sharpness to the object.
This is more likely a spot of dirt on the camera lens.

Beast Of Gevaudan.....

You may be interested in my summary report (site visit, meeting with witness, image analysis, etc...) on P55.

We've concluded it was debris on the windscreen of the witness's vehicle, not debris on the lens of the camera.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


For what it's worth when Maybe-dude says, "We've concluded..." he's using the royal "we."

I'll ask my question again because it seems those who've already made up their mind would prefer to brush these unanswered annoyances aside, dare I say, because they don't know how to explain it? If they _don't_ have an answer it would seem there's a legitimate argument the photos may in fact be legit...


www.abovetopsecret.com...
vvvvvvvvvv ORIG QUESTION vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

I get the impression if the line graph is correct it basically means the object has to be a far distant object.

So I'm clear Xtreme notes this first shot with measurements:

____
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8753b31e85b0.png[/atsimg]

... here's a shot taken with my iPhone showing a sticky note on my windshield (the red-line, which is the closest object in the scene), the wipers (green line, second closest), a "bike rack" sign about 5 to 6' away from the glass (blue line, third nearest), and about 35' ± 3' away is a recessed a pipe against the far wall (fuscia, furthest).
www.abovetopsecret.com...
____


Then he shows the shots from the sighting:

____

www.abovetopsecret.com...
____

What I gathered from this (though I could be wrong) is he's saying there's linear progression. So if the light reflected is glare from the dash, even if it's being cast in to the distance, it would only be about 4 or 5 feet from the windshield. So the "black object" should measure out to have the same ratios of distance to the "glare" as the "bike rack" sign distance is proportioned to the "sticky note" distance.

Am I making sense?

^^^^^^^^^^END QUESTION^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Seriously how the hell can something be debunked when the people in the skeptibunker-cheerleading section don't even have an answer for what's probably the most relevant question to determining the legitimacy of the photos?

Seems pseudo-skepticism's alive and well.

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

For what it's worth when Maybe-dude says, "We've concluded..." he's using the royal "we."

TheMaleFactor.....

I didn't mean to sound presumpuous when I said "we".

I used "we" instead of "I" because I didn't want to sound like I was in any way taking credit for the work of other people.

Regarding the question you have posed again.....

I will have another look at that & see if I can recruit some other ATS members who have specific expertise with such material.

I'll also have a think about anybody I might know externally who can look at that material.

For the record, I am also advised that in addition to members of ATS, external image experts have viewed the images & determined the "brown object" is debris on the windscreen of the witness' vehicle.

I also not the owners of ATS (who have looked at such cases expertly for a long time) are convinced of this.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by TheMalefactor


TheMalefactor.....

Upon reviewing that again, the fact the "object" moves more still indicates to me it is closer to the camera, thereby being consistent with my conclusion it is debris on the windscreen of the wtiness' car.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
I will have another look at that & see if I can recruit some other ATS members who have specific expertise with such material.

I looked at both pictures again.

If I understand the argument correctly, it seems like one of the variables that's not specified by either the original photographer nor Xtraeme is how far the iphone was from the windshield.

My guess is, the difference seen is because Xtraeme's picture was taken further from the windshield than the original photo by missfee.

If he doesn't take the photo at the same distance from the windshield, the comparison is not a good one, and it appears to me that's the discrepancy.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

For what it's worth when Maybe-dude says, "We've concluded..." he's using the royal "we."

TheMaleFactor.....

I didn't mean to sound presumpuous when I said "we".

Just to be clear I don't care either way if the photos are disproven or not. It's the way the whole thing's been handled. There's been a pretty strong argument showing how the negative position doesn't add up. Then the posts that actually have merit are buried with crap like, "Looks like dirt."

Wow no s#1* it looks like dirt. Sometimes an RC plane looks like a bird doesn't mean it damn well is. www.lsmodeltoy.com...

The amount of rushing to judgment and random speculation is a depressing example why people should never trust a mob.

Regarding the question you have posed again.....

I will have another look at that & see if I can recruit some other ATS members who have specific expertise with such material.

I tried some of the sticky tests that Charlz and the other people were talking about. While I don't have an iPhone or complicated image-editing software I was able to do some simple ruler/pencil stuff. From my primitive screwing-around I was able to see that things close to the camera moved roughly the same distances with just a slight rotation, not panning, while things in the distance moved in the _opposite direction_ as they got further out towards the horizon.

So I'd like to see someone take two shots and show how something 4 to 6 feet from a window can move half the distance between shots as proportioned to the thing real close on the glass. *And* show how they can get everything in the picture to move in the same direction with a rotation not a pan.

That would falsify the claim.

I'll also have a think about anybody I might know externally who can look at that material.

For the record, I am also advised that in addition to members of ATS, external image experts have viewed the images & determined the "brown object" is debris on the windscreen of the witness' vehicle.

Awesome can you name names? If they analyzed the photos can they tell us how they determined this? Did they do similar relative movement tests? Something more complicated? Or, pardon my sarcasm, did they just eyeball it like the majority of people here seem to be doing?

I also not the owners of ATS (who have looked at such cases expertly for a long time) are convinced of this.

Interesting, who? And why haven't they chimed in? If they know something why wouldn't the owners make their voices heard? The site's all about denying ignorance right? Keeping this information to themselves seems opposite that.

To be honest alarm bells go off in my head when I read phrasing like "experts." Reminds me of Wikipedia's policy:
en.wikipedia.org...:Who

On the whole I dislike when people tell me they have it on "good authority" they know something and I should accept it blindly. The posts I linked _explain_ things rather well. Phage, Charlz and others have provided explanations. So to them. To anyone else who just says "it's dirt" and that's the extent of the argument. I don't care if they're the site owners, image experts, or Stephen Hawking -- argument from authority is one of the oldest fallacies in the books.

edit: grammar

[edit on 4-5-2010 by TheMalefactor]

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

TheMalefactor.....

Upon reviewing that again, the fact the "object" moves more still indicates to me it is closer to the camera, thereby being consistent with my conclusion it is debris on the windscreen of the wtiness' car.

Haha ... that's like me saying since your avatar changed from Elvis to Ben Stiller you're a doppleganger. Loose associations don't mean actual causal links.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
I will have another look at that & see if I can recruit some other ATS members who have specific expertise with such material.

I looked at both pictures again.

If I understand the argument correctly, it seems like one of the variables that's not specified by either the original photographer nor Xtraeme is how far the iphone was from the windshield.

Appreciate you taking a stab at helping me understand this.

To be totally clear I'm talking about relative distance at different depths into the picture _not_ absolute distance. Here I just chopped up the picture in MS Paint to better show what I'm talking about:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/29bdddea99d5.png[/atsimg]

If you look at the image on the left (the shot from the incident) and create the ratio:

167 px / 86 px that reduces to 1.941'ish.

The 167 pixels indicates distance of movement of the "black blob" which is assumed to be on the windshield. The 86 pixels indicates movement of a reflection which we're guessing is about 2 to 3 feet somewhere in the interior being projected out to maybe about 6 feet?

Then in the right image (the test shot) there's this ratio:

153 px / 143 px that reduces to 1.069'ish.

The 153 px indicates distance of movement of the sticky on the windshield. And the 143 px is the sign that says "Bik" which is described to be about 5 or 6 feet away.

My guess is, the difference seen is because Xtraeme's picture was taken further from the windshield than the original photo by missfee.

So, at most if they're both in the car, the relative difference moving in the depth axis can be what at most about 6 inches from the windshield? If it was more we'd see the hood. Besides how would this change the _relative_ movement-distances of objects that are close to the camera? Especially since they're both described as iPhones?

That doesn't make sense.

edit: trying to explain myself better.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by TheMalefactor]

reply to post by TheMalefactor


TheMalefactor.....

Just to be clear I don't care either way if the photos are disproven or not.

When I decided to spend time investigating this case on site, with the witness, in collaboration with experts, etc... my strong preference was not to be able to debunk this case.

It's the way the whole thing's been handled.

I think the manner of handling of this case has demonstrated analytical thinking, strong discussion, teamwork & even friendship.

There's been a pretty strong argument showing how the negative position doesn't add up.

I respectfully disagree....the argument “against” is tenuous.

Then the posts that actually have merit are buried with crap like, "Looks like dirt."

It does look like dirt.

Wow no s#1* it looks like dirt.

Yup.....sure does

I tried some of the sticky tests that Charlz and the other people were talking about.

As did I....a few times. In fact, I did simulated “UFO” pictures at the sight which I believe confirm the “debris on the windscreen” explanation.

While I don't have an iPhone

I do & it is exactly the same as the witness’s iPhone as shown by the EXIF data. i.e. I compared “apples with apples”, on site, standing in exactly the same place with the witness, checking everything with both her iPhone & my iPhone.

or complicated image-editing software

Nobody has used complicated imaging S/W during this thread.

I was able to do some simple ruler/pencil stuff. From my primitive screwing-around I was able to see that things close to the camera moved roughly the same distances with just a slight rotation, not panning, while things in the distance moved in the _opposite direction_ as they got further out towards the horizon.

In doing that, you have proved the point that myself & others have made. The closer the object is to the camera, the more it will appear to move relative to the objects further away from the camera. As you change the angle & the distance between the object & the camera, the relationship will change exponentially. It is not a linear relationship. That is inarguable geometry.

So I'd like to see someone take two shots and show how something 4 to 6 feet from a window can move half the distance between shots as proportioned to the thing real close on the glass. *And* show how they can get everything in the picture to move in the same direction with a rotation not a pan. That would falsify the claim.

We’ve already done that.

The amount of rushing to judgment and random speculation is a depressing example why people should never trust a mob.

Some might argue that visits to the sight, meetings with the witness, image analysis, GPS analysis, background checks on the witness & more than 1,300 replies is hardly “rushing to judgment”

Awesome can you name names? If they analyzed the photos can they tell us how they determined this? Did they do similar relative movement tests? Something more complicated? Or, pardon my sarcasm, did they just eyeball it like the majority of people here seem to be doing?

I was told a couple of things in confidence, from a source I trust. I was asked not identify names in the thread, so I didn’t. The reason for this is the expert in question does not want to have his/her name associated with this case, for their own reasons.

I also think the human eyeball / brain combination has a lot to offer

Interesting, who? And why haven't they chimed in? If they know something why wouldn't the owners make their voices heard? The site's all about denying ignorance right? Keeping this information to themselves seems opposite that.

You should feel very free to ask the owners of ATS yourself…..they are really decent guys who enjoy discussing this subject matter.

I have also discussed this at length with Bill Chalker, who is very knowledgeable in this area.

On the whole I dislike when people tell me they have it on "good authority" they know something and I should accept it blindly.

So do I.

The posts I linked _explain_ things rather well. Phage, Charlz and others have provided explanations. So

to them.

I agree & I would also include Internos, Chadwickus & WayAboveItAll in my thanks.

I am tempted to ask if you excluded me intentionally from your “thanks”. Your answer only matters insofar as it might help me to understand the position from which you are offering this commentary.

To anyone else who just says "it's dirt" and that's the extent of the argument. I don't care if they're the site owners, image experts, or Stephen Hawking -- argument from authority is one of the oldest fallacies in the books.

Sometimes it is…..sometimes it isn’t.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by TheMalefactor

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

TheMalefactor.....

Upon reviewing that again, the fact the "object" moves more still indicates to me it is closer to the camera, thereby being consistent with my conclusion it is debris on the windscreen of the wtiness' car.

Haha ... that's like me saying since your avatar changed from Elvis to Ben Stiller you're a doppleganger. Loose associations don't mean actual causal links.

TheMalefactor.....

I don't understand your reply from a point of view of the geometry we are discussing.

However I think I perhaps do understand your reply from a point of view of your tone.

I think your tone is dismissive, thereby indicating that you really don't want to discuss this with me anymore.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
I think your tone is dismissive, thereby indicating that you really don't want to discuss this with me anymore.

I was chuckling as I wrote that bit because the mental imagery of a doppleganger morphing between The King and Derek Zoolander tickled my sarcastic funny-bone.

My point was yes the blob moves in the right direction along with everything else in the picture. Yes it moves at a greater distance then everything else in the photo suggesting it may be close to the camera.

However the argument that the reflection/glare/whatever you want to call it on the right moves at half the movement-distance as compared to the blob, as I tried to better explain here: www.abovetopsecret.com..., doesn't work _geometrically_.

So even though some things characteristically correct with a default guesstimate other things are off.

Which was the reason for the whole sarcastic remark:

* similarity does not mean equality.

Also after tinkering with a few shots I realized that things in the far, far distance will move in the _opposite_ direction of something in the really close foreground. So the shot would have had to be setup carefully to get everything to align this way.

Hell I'll upload some pictures to demonstrate this myself.

edit: can't spell/ type worth crap apparently.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by TheMalefactor]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arbitrageur.....

If he doesn't take the photo at the same distance from the windshield, the comparison is not a good one, and it appears to me that's the discrepancy.

That's right.

The ratio of the apparent movement between the near & far objects increases exponentially as you place the camera closer to the object.

Once you get very close, small camera movements make a very big difference.

I photographed this effect several times, but I didn't save the images (doh!) as per my comments in the post.

Chadwickus & CHRLZ showed this effect via their pictures in the thread.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by TheMalefactor


TheMalefactor.....

Also after tinkering with a few shots I realized that things in the far, far distance will move in the _opposite_ direction of something in the really close foreground. So the shot would have had to be setup carefully to get everything to align this way.

Hell I'll upload some pictures to demonstrate this myself.

That would be very interesting, if you could do that. I think you might be surprised at your results, as was I when I first experimented with this.

You have motivated me to also conduct my own picture experiment again. However I am going away again on business for the next 5 days & my time will be very limited during that time. Upon my return, I will do this.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
For what it's worth when Maybe-dude says, "We've concluded..." he's using the royal "we."

He speaks for me... Do 'we' need to take a vote?

I'll ask my question again because it seems those who've already made up their mind

The answer was given earlier, you know...

I get the impression if the line graph is correct it basically means the object has to be a far distant object.

It ISN'T correct.

Xtreme makes much of pretty lines and lots of impressive looking mathematics, but if you don't understand the issue and address it properly, I'm afraid the conclusions can be worthless. In this case, may I simply point out one of the most important points that he does not even address, let alone try to quantify..

1. All the objects he has drawn little lines on, with ONE VERY IMPORTANT exception, are clearly being seen through, or on the windscreen.

2. For all of that type of object, a linear comparison can be reasonably accurate, for a given camera location and angle. That's because anything viewed THROUGH the windscreen only receives a very small refraction - that won't affect it's size in a significant way.

3. Now, it is the claim of many here (that royal 'we' ), that the pale 'stripe' is a REFLECTION. A REFLECTION ON A CURVED WINDSCREEN.

So it CANNOT possibly be used to determine sizes or distances, unless you can take into account the distorting effects of that curve.

Try this next time you are in a car with a reasonably curved windscreen - look at everything THROUGH the windscreen - is there much distortion, size wise? Now look at something reflected in the most curved part of the windscreen, and move your angle of view around - maybe check it against the view you get from a small, flat hand mirror.

This is REALLY basic photogrammetry - seriously - try that experiment above and see for yourself..

If you don't account for such stuff, then your results may look impressive, but be completely WRONG. Xtreme didn't account for it. I don't know if that was deliberate, or due to a lack of experience/understanding of the topic.

(though I could be wrong)

You are... , but so was Extreme, so it's not your fault.. Photogrammetry isn't simple.

is he's saying there's linear progression.

And that's the key - as above, if it's a reflection on a curved glass how could it *possibly* be linear? That object is obviously going to be distorted, and we do NOT know by how much. It is NOT the same as the others.

By the way, that issue is not the only one affecting the results, but it is enough to stop there.

PS - Geez, Malefactor - did you just heavily edit that post I'm replying to? I have no idea now if I'm answering the question/s you have changed it to...

I've got other stuff to do, so I'm posting it as is. If you mean something else, I may get back to it later.

reply to post by CHRLZ


CHRLZ.....

Thank you for visiting the thread again.....your expert photographic commentary is extremely helpful & interesting.

In view of your commentary regarding the reflection.....

Amongst many other things, let's also not forget the extremely similar reflection evident when one of the members posted a photo taken from inside another PT Cruiser.

To my mind, that proved the reflection was from inside the car.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by TheMalefactor

My guess is, the difference seen is because Xtraeme's picture was taken further from the windshield than the original photo by missfee.

So, at most if they're both in the car, the relative difference moving in the depth axis can be what at most about 6 inches from the windshield? If it was more we'd see the hood. Besides how would this change the _relative_ movement-distances of objects that are close to the camera? Especially since they're both described as iPhones?

Whether we see the hood or not is dependent on the angle the phone camera is aimed at. If it's aimed up enough so that the bottom edge of the frame is above the hood you won't see the hood. Depending on the slope of the hood this will vary by the model of car too.

The difference in depth could be a lot more than 6 inches and can make a big difference. I don't know the actual distances, but just to make a comparison, let's say when you lean back (normally ) in the seat you're 2 feet from the postit note, and if you lean forward just one foot, that will nearly double the apparent relative movement of the postit note. That's because the ratio has gone from 6/2 which is a ratio of 3, to 5/1 so it's a 166% increase. If you lean forward even more the effect of getting closer to the windshield becomes even more dramatic, MMN understands this:

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Arbitrageur.....

If he doesn't take the photo at the same distance from the windshield, the comparison is not a good one, and it appears to me that's the discrepancy.

That's right.

The ratio of the apparent movement between the near & far objects increases exponentially as you place the camera closer to the object.

Once you get very close, small camera movements make a very big difference.

Bingo. If you lean forward from 2' to 0.5' instead, then the ratio of the object that was 6' away goes from 6/2 which is a ratio of 3, to 4.5/0.5 which is 9, and the relative movement increases by 300%.

Move forward another 3 inches, and the ratio goes to 4.25/0.25 which is 17, now 566% of the original relative movement.

So yes, the distance from the windshield changes the relative movements dramatically and as you said, in fact exponentially as you get closer to the glass by just leaning forward in your seat to take the picture.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arbitrageur.....

Thanks for working through that.

Also.....the effect is further confounded when you start tilting the camera, etc...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Soooo....

It's still dirt on the Windscreen then?

Jolly good!

Carry on then!