It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by elevenaugust
Originally posted by nenothtu
It should be pointed out that "functional pixel size" isn't the same as the "physical sensor size" in CCDs, which is why you calculated using the actual pixel dimensions of the sensor.
Yes! And thanks for the full explanations and calculations, no doubt that it will be useful for future UFO photos.
Originally posted by amongus
Wish I could agree here. He had over 38 hours to reply to people's questions, after saying he looked forward to people's thoughts. Yet he chose not to say one word after being questioned. He posted five replies, then said nothing....even though he was posting on twitter.
So, I don't feel bad for the op. He had many chances, and crapped his credibility away. If you post a sensational thread such as he did, you BETTER be prepared to answer all questions.
Originally posted by nenothtu
It might be a good idea to open a thread laying out the technical details of photo analysis, for people who are of a mind to do the calculations themselves. It would necessarily be pretty involved, as there is a lot of ground to cover, and I'm not up to it, since my "explanations" are at times not all that clear, but it still might be a good idea for someone better versed at teaching concepts than I am.
Optics... CCD technology... Geometry and trig... even atmospherics, ALL figure into it, regardless of the technology visible in photos. "Alien technology" and how it works is irrelevant to what the observer SEES - those observations can be measured and quantified in human terms, since it is human eyeballs and human technology doing the observing and recording.
Those can be worked with and analyzed, independent of the technology under observation.
Originally posted by jaws1975
reply to post by whyamIhere
I agree with you on most of what you said, but he did respond for three pages! GEL from the first page was calling hoax before the exif data had even been listed. Its one thing to question the OP to try to get to the bottom of things, however that seems to be the blanket excuse for prematurely debunking most UFO threads. If I was the OP I would have bounced too! You can't expect to get answers to questions when you are calling him a liar from the beginning. On top of that people posted his home address! What would you expect the poor guy to do?
Originally posted by jaws1975
reply to post by whyamIhere
If I was the OP I would have bounced too! You can't expect to get answers to questions when you are calling him a liar from the beginning. On top of that people posted his home address! What would you expect the poor guy to do?
Originally posted by Cyanhide
reply to post by amongus
So what kind of argument is that " the op knew he was gonna get grilled" ?!? So This forum and the members here take pride in what they call an "intellectual" place. And You Think its normal people should expect to get grilled ?
My my what an upside-down world we live in. Yes I see allot of intellectual statements here.
And one more thing : I did some moderating in my time and rule number 1: A moderator doesn't take part of a discussion, that's not your job when moderating, rule 2 A moderator should have an objective voice.
The first is often forgotten on ATS
and the second i didn't see what so ever here.edit on 13-4-2012 by Cyanhide because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ThisToiletEarth
But I don't come on here for judgment of what I saw.