Board Logo
« #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Truth »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jun 26th, 2017, 1:54pm


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16  ...  99 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Truth  (Read 114822 times)
DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #195 on: Dec 11th, 2008, 3:21pm »

Welcome to the forum 11 and a couple of great points/posts!! smiley

Hi Jedd, good to see you posting under your old name again wink (and of course Tuna, Radi, Marv, TP etc..... grin)

on Dec 11th, 2008, 11:44am, Latitude wrote:
Do you know of any photo analysts who use an unbiased, fool proof and scientific method? One that does not depend on judgement calls and guesses? The truth is there are none.

Hi lat, do you believe such a method will ever exist that would be recognised as beyond reproach?

As far as I know then for such a method to be implemented in this case would require many, many things so as to be deemed ‘conclusive’ or even admissible in a court of law. As unfortunately due to the (intentionally) evasive nature of the photographers a, “Fool proof, scientific method” could never be suitably reconciled with (what is currently accepted as) standard operating procedure as it apples to digital imaging forensics, i.e. post-capture processing, documentation (of image processing), verification of original and/or processed images, chain of custody, calibration etc. etc.

The current practices if someone were to submit a digital image/photograph as evidence of anything dictates that:

Quote:
The principal requirements to admit a photograph (digital or film-based) into evidence are relevance and authentication. Unless the photograph is admitted by the stipulation of both parties, the party attempting to admit the photograph into evidence must be prepared to offer testimony that the photograph is an accurate representation of the scene. This usually means someone must testify that the photograph accurately portrays the scene as viewed by that witness.

Hasn't this been the underlying point all along, i.e. the non-repudiation of EVERY witness? It's been a major hurdle (leap of faith?) as many who are now involved in this discussion have stated since the outset. However, this wasn’t enough to dissuade claims regarding the authenticity of the images so then those experienced in CGI added their (often expert) opinions.

So now you saying that apart from the various forum members who have shown that they are well-versed in CGI and stated that it’s a hoax that you can also readily dismiss the digital imaging experts who willingly stake their names and reputations on the fact? (For FREE!!) And of course contrary to what is often espoused about these experts, many of them are UFO believers and some have even personally experienced CE’s!!

So surely ‘debunking’ doesn’t enter into it?

And of all those who have stated their opinion (of hoax) then surely the chances of every single one of them having a ‘hidden agenda’ (as is often claimed) is about as likely as Chad’s ludicrous account being based in any kind of reality?

Cheers.....
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
newtothis
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 112
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #196 on: Dec 11th, 2008, 3:43pm »

on Dec 11th, 2008, 3:20pm, nekitamo wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that wider angle situation around pic16 looks like this:

User Image


Nekitamo, is this more than likely what the photo would look like at this wide angle? If so, doesn't the base of the telephone pole have a very similar shadow halfway point as the drone? If it does, does it matter any when it comes to determining if there are 2 separate light sources?

Thanks,
Tuna smiley
User IP Logged

Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #197 on: Dec 11th, 2008, 4:45pm »

on Dec 11th, 2008, 3:20pm, nekitamo wrote:
Let's assume for a moment that wider angle situation around pic16 looks like this:

User Image

Would you still use parallel lines to represent rays of light from the sun in PIC0016 in this case?




Nekitamo,

First, isn't that a huge assumption? At 5:42PM, the sun is getting close to the horizon... this “view” gives the illusion of the sun being in the location for 1:30 to 2:00PM. But let's accept the sun location and not question the shadows for the example.

Second, to answer your question, yes… light will be parallel, but shadows may not appear to be parallel depending on the direction of the shadows relative to the observer (to include perspective), and the shape of the object the shadow is cast on (you may include other factors if you are using a camera, such as barrel distortion). But in each case, they will indicate or point back to the light source.



The light source in question when compared to the earth...

User Image
User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
nekitamo
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 87
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #198 on: Dec 12th, 2008, 04:04am »

on Dec 11th, 2008, 4:45pm, Marvin wrote:
First, isn't that a huge assumption? At 5:42PM, the sun is getting close to the horizon... this “view” gives the illusion of the sun being in the location for 1:30 to 2:00PM. But let's accept the sun location and not question the shadows for the example.

The image I used is from one of my old perspective studies (that explains those lines in various colors) and although objects in inset pic are indeed lit by the "artifical" sun in the indicated position, it is only an experiment.
Quote:
Second, to answer your question, yes… light will be parallel, but shadows may not appear to be parallel depending on the direction of the shadows relative to the observer (to include perspective), and the shape of the object the shadow is cast on (you may include other factors if you are using a camera, such as barrel distortion). But in each case, they will indicate or point back to the light source.

I'm glad to hear that we agree about this. Although sunlight can always be considered parallel per se, when dealing with 2D images things are a bit more complicated and we have to pay attention to perspective, relative position of the sun and orientations of the observer (camera) and objects in the scene in order to be able to represent it correctly.

So, while talking about huge assumptions: how come everyone is using simple parallel lines to represent sunlight in pict0016?



But what I really wanted to say is this: IMO, we can't figure out what really happens with light in pic0016 without some kind of 3D analysis, either using CG or - even better - real models. Why do we still discuss some "lines" drawn on 2D images over and over again when we already have results of advanced 3D analysis from multiple independent sources? If I remember correctly, practically everyone who did 3D computer analysis (including myself) noted the following "problems":

1. There's a significant misalignment of shadows on the drone and the pole. Here's an illustration using two drones with the one on top tilted and rotated to achieve similar shadows as in Raj's image:

User Image

2. Even thus tilted and rotated, shadows on the top drone in previous example still don't quite fit those in Raj's images. In order to reproduce them correctly, we have to use a local (or "point") light source, like this:

User Image

3. Feel free to add other problems I forgot to mention here.

Please excuse my simple 3D models, but you can also find similar results from other 3D analysts in other forums with much better quality. As for problems I discovered using other methods of analysis, I'd also like to point out this thread at the DRT forum. Now, could we please move on from discussing "crude" 2D analysis methods and some reappearing issues that IMO seem irrelevant in light of the above mentioned research and continue our analysis from the (IMO) already achieved, much more advanced point where we left it?

Btw, note that I'm not offering any kind of conclusion here, just presenting facts as I see them.
User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #199 on: Dec 12th, 2008, 06:35am »

Everybody wants to talk about shadows and light sources but nobody wants to talk about why there is not one expert in any pertinent field, not one heavyweight in CGI or photo analysis that endorses these photos as authentic?

Instead of hiring PI's to drag the Drone case on and on, why is there no professional examination of these photos declaring that they are the real deal?

The lack of such an endorsement makes all other arguments a moot point, doesn't it. Its like two kids arguing over a ball that has already been lost....what is the point?
User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
Radi
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM


Posts: 176
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #200 on: Dec 12th, 2008, 06:44am »

on Dec 12th, 2008, 06:35am, Jeddyhi wrote:
Everybody wants to talk about shadows and light sources but nobody wants to talk about why there is not one expert in any pertinent field, not one heavyweight in CGI or photo analysis that endorses these photos as authentic?

Instead of hiring PI's to drag the Drone case on and on, why is there no professional examination of these photos declaring that they are the real deal?

The lack of such an endorsement makes all other arguments a moot point, doesn't it. Its like two kids arguing over a ball that has already been lost....what is the point?


I agree 100% Jedd.. After all this time and after hiring the PIs did they even submit and subject the photos to a professional analysts to declare these photos real or a composite image...They can be discussed all they want but they still remain HOAXED photos....
User IP Logged

Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #201 on: Dec 12th, 2008, 07:50am »

on Dec 12th, 2008, 04:04am, nekitamo wrote:
I'm glad to hear that we agree about this. Although sunlight can always be considered parallel per se, when dealing with 2D images things are a bit more complicated and we have to pay attention to perspective, relative position of the sun and orientations of the observer (camera) and objects in the scene in order to be able to represent it correctly.

So, while talking about huge assumptions: how come everyone is using simple parallel lines to represent sunlight in pict0016?

But what I really wanted to say is this: IMO, we can't figure out what really happens with light in pic0016 without some kind of 3D analysis, either using CG or - even better - real models. Why do we still discuss some "lines" drawn on 2D images over and over again when we already have results of advanced 3D analysis from multiple independent sources? If I remember correctly, practically everyone who did 3D computer analysis (including myself) noted the following "problems":

1. There's a significant misalignment of shadows on the drone and the pole.

2. Even thus tilted and rotated, shadows on the top drone in previous example still don't quite fit those in Raj's images. In order to reproduce them correctly….

3. Feel free to add other problems I forgot to mention here.

As for problems I discovered using other methods of analysis, I'd also like to point out this thread at the DRT forum. Now, could we please move on from discussing "crude" 2D analysis methods and some reappearing issues that IMO seem irrelevant in light of the above mentioned research and continue our analysis from the (IMO) already achieved, much more advanced point where we left it?

Btw, note that I'm not offering any kind of conclusion here, just presenting facts as I see them.



Hi Nekitmamo,

I have no real debate with what you are saying. I do want to add that one must use basic assumptions with certain tools.

When working in 2D, in the absence of enough data in quantifying an exact light source location, one must fall back on the physical behavior of the known medium (in this case, light) and point towards a basic direction (as in a compass direction). If one is able to draw non-parallel lines back to the source, then they must converge or intersect on the source.


*Click Here/On Image For Full-size
User Image



In the above example, I was not seeing convergence.

All one can do in a 2D environment is to follow the light source by “light and shadow” and draw a line through them.

In a CGI (3D) environment, you have much more advanced abilities. So I hope you are not admonishing me for not having the same type of tools you have. One must use what they have at hand, no?

In the end, is the analysis of two separate and non-interacting light sources correct? Are the basic directions indicated in the 2D analysis correct (plus or minus a degree or two)? Isn’t that what’s truly a stake here?

I am happy to drop out, if the criteria for the debate is the degree of technology applied in the argument (and logic has no merit). Then you good folks may carry on.

User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #202 on: Dec 12th, 2008, 07:57am »

Thanks, Radi.

My point is that the only ones who think the photos may be real are the ones who have been pushing this case for over a year....the DRT. There has been excellent research put into these photos including shadow and light source anomolies, depth of field anomolies, expert analysis from some big names and they all conclude the photos are fake. So the only ones that need convincing are the ones still proclaiming the photos as possibly real...the DRT.

Are they worth the trouble? It does make for interesting discussion but the endless debate of trying to convince them of hoax is falling on deaf ears.

Until the DRT presents some kind of professional analysis by a credible expert that these photos are the real deal, the drone case is just a wishful thinking case.

I could list the names of professional CGI artists that label these photos as hogwash but we all know who they are. The DRT needs to start their list of credible experts that endorse these photos. Until that happens, this case is a bust that has dragged on for way to long.
User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
TeachersPet
Guest
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #203 on: Dec 12th, 2008, 08:04am »


Enough to make one go like that Santa Cruz group, absolutely "Crackers".
smiley
User IP Logged

nekitamo
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 87
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #204 on: Dec 12th, 2008, 10:00am »

on Dec 12th, 2008, 07:50am, Marvin wrote:
In a CGI (3D) environment, you have much more advanced abilities. So I hope you are not admonishing me for not having the same type of tools you have. One must use what they have at hand, no?

I'm sorry if it looks like I was addressing just you due to the quotes at the beginning of my post - the rest of it was intended for general public. As for the tools I used - it was just an (11 years!) old, free version of trueSpace, nothing special.
User IP Logged

Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #205 on: Dec 12th, 2008, 10:56am »

on Dec 12th, 2008, 10:00am, nekitamo wrote:
I'm sorry if it looks like I was addressing just you due to the quotes at the beginning of my post - the rest of it was intended for general public. As for the tools I used - it was just an (11 years!) old, free version of trueSpace, nothing special.




I would love to learn CGI... just have not had the time to do it.

Maybe, some day in my free time (somewhere between 2 to 4AM maybe). wink


Do you have any issues with the basic directions of the two light sources in the 2D analysis?
User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
DrStern
Guest
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #206 on: Dec 12th, 2008, 12:46pm »

Guys, please calm down! wink

I asked a somewhat simple question...

And I never thought it to escalate in this way.

As I see it, the attack on the "believers" has now reached levels of almost horrifying levels.

Am I wrong?

I find, that the recent posts are biased as to whether this issue is true or not?

Is this not the thread of "investigation of the Drones" , and research of the "California Drones"?

I'm truly ashamed as posters here claim to "know" how this enigma has it's merits...and to see how it's introduced to new possible witnesses...

I truly think you believe in your findings, and I would be so more likely to believe it, if you present real evidence.

I know it takes some kind of funds, and as Latitude remarked, unbiased real (paid) investigation has to show irreversible evidence of a substantial reliable investigation, otherwise it will not satisfy your somewhat amateur investigation.

What makes you think, that this investigation wasn't applied before the detectives was engaged? Do you know the exact premises for starting a real scientific investigation?

I find it remarkable, that my simple question spawned these many posts, if you are so 100 % sure this is a hoax, if you all are sure, why not close this whole thread?

As I see it, the believers of this issue has lost their rightful say in here.

DrStern (Still on Christmas vacation)

« Last Edit: Dec 12th, 2008, 1:01pm by DrStern » User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #207 on: Dec 12th, 2008, 1:03pm »

on Dec 12th, 2008, 12:46pm, DrStern wrote:
Guys, please calm down! wink

I asked a somewhat simple question...

And I never thought it to escalate in this way.

As I see it, the attack on the "believers" has now reached levels of almost "not excistant".

Am I wrong?

I find, that the recent posts are biased as to whether this issue is true or not?

Is this not the thread of "investigation of the Drones , and research of the "California Drones"?

I'm truly ashamed as posters here claim to "know" how this enigma has it's merits...and to see how it's introduced to new possible witnesses...

I truly think you believe in your findings, and I would be so more likely to believe it, if you present real evidence.

I know it takes some kind of funds, and as Latitude remarked, unbiased real (paid) investigation has to show irrreversible evidence of a substantial reliable investigation, otherwise it will not satisfy your somewhat amateur investigation.

What makes you think, that this investigation wasn't applied before the detectives was engaged? Do you know the exact premises for starting a real scientific investigation?

I find it remarkable, that my simple question spawned these many posts, if you are so 100 % sure this is a hoax, if you all are sure, why not close this whole thread?

As I see it, the believers of this issue has lost.

DrStern (Still on Christmas vacation)



Hello Stern.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are numerous experts in pertinent fields that have labeled the drone photos as fake.Two big names that come to mind are:

Marc D' Antonio, president of FX Models has examined the photos. Result- fake

David Beidney, President & Technical Director of IDIG, Inc has examined the photos. Result-Fake

Also Kris Avery of Kaptive Studios, UK examined the photos. Result-Fake

Has any big name CGI expert labeled the pics as real?

When you combine a lack of an offical endorsement of authenticity with the anonymous photo witnesses who will not go on record or help any investigative effort, what you have is an internet hoax. And a small group desperate to keep the hoax afloat. Why is that?
User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
DrStern
Guest
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #208 on: Dec 12th, 2008, 1:13pm »

Mr Jeddyhi,

The investigaton is still going on, and I just pointed out that there still might be an alternate solution to this enigma.

I still need an answer to my question about the shadow, but if you can verify this to be a true hoax, I ask you to admit that you find the witnesses as true liars, and I suggest you to do it here:

earthfiles@earthfiles.com

Dr. Erik von Stern
« Last Edit: Dec 12th, 2008, 1:23pm by DrStern » User IP Logged

Jeddyhi
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 589
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #209 on: Dec 12th, 2008, 1:37pm »

Mr. Stern

May I ask just what the investigation is trying to determine? If it is trying to determine that the drone case is a real event sighting, then why will no photography experts or CGI experts endorse the photos as real, thereby justifying an investigation. If the photos are fake, then all that follows the photos is fake as well. The photo witness, Chad, lied about location. How can things like this be swept under a rug.

Is there anyone outside of the DRT forum that is willing to endorse these photos as legitimate? If the DRT submitted these photos for verification and the results were that they appear to be real photos, that endorsement would have been plastered all over a few different forums over the last year. That has not transpired. The drone case is a hoax in the sense that it is not based in reality. Whether or not it is a sanctioned dis-info campaign remains to be seen.
User IP Logged

"Nothing will ever claim ownership of the original Drone information, so copyright is not a question. Use it."- Masker33
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16  ...  99 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 18,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls