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

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Sep 21st, 2017, 12:52pm


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 ... 53 54 55 56 57  ...  99 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Truth  (Read 10256 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 #810 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 09:42am »

Hi again 11, you say there’s no need for insults yet Marv has told you he has done trig then in the next comment you effectively call him a liar by saying, “Maybe he can’t”.

He has said he has results but hasn’t shared them for the exact reasons you’ve displayed with the analysis of 1111 as it seems every piece of analysis posted that suggests hoax compels you to reply with cryptic, Yoda-like condescending remarks. (Visualise the truth you must and locate the hoaxers you will. These are not the drones you’re looking for but a path to the dark side you will find. The force is strong with this one….. grin)

You constantly allude to your (collective) ongoing research, aspects of which you can’t discuss and now you say: “I actually work on it and the results are interesting....”

It gets better, not only anonymous witnesses and secretive researchers, we now we have anonymous results!! grin

Still, I suppose if you keep demanding empirical evidence from others then perhaps everyone will forget that in eighteen months you and the DRT have collectively brought nothing to the table which proves that the Drones were a real-world event.

The members here don’t claim to be ‘Drone’ anything much less the ‘Drone Research Team’ yet several forums are full with their works, explanations, theories and hypotheses, not all of them are correct but they number so many there’s no way they ALL could be correct, but then again hypotheses and opinions don’t have to be 100% correct or even complete to be subjected to peer review. And every theory suggesting hoax that is posted on the popular forums there is a DRT member quickly on the scene, tending the victim, diverting traffic, conducting damage limitation and performing clean-up operations.

Yet not one of these non-DRT members has ever been so ‘precious’ as to consider setting up a forum that prevents everyone who doesn’t share the same core-belief from joining. In fact I can’t think of any other venue that is as biased as to employ this method of selection and then to pre-emptively ban the IP addresses of people who may have a dissenting point of view. laugh

Honestly though, I have NO PROBLEMS at all with this and as the much maligned Sys_config said it’s your house and your rules. But to then repeatedly visit other forums and espouse the ‘scientific method,’ ‘open mindedness,’ ‘unbiased approach’ and other such values is hypocritical to the point of being obscene when those who simply differ in personal beliefs are banned from viewing your “very friendly place to study the Drone case.”

Cheers. smiley

As you're so keen on linking to obscure references or quoting them then there are a couple following this post for you to mull over, consider, absorb and then disregard as you say, "Since you are so sure that the whole story is a hoax, it's doesn't matter..." wink
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
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 #811 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 09:43am »

Pseudoscientific Belief

Identifying pseudoscience

A field, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the accepted norms of scientific research; but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms, most importantly, in misuse of scientific method.

The following have been proposed to be indicators of poor scientific reasoning.
-----------------------------------------

Reversed burden of proof.

In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.
-----------------------------------------

Lack of openness to testing by other experts

Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference").


Some proponents of theories that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forego the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.

The science community expects authors to share data necessary to evaluate a paper. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claimed results is a lack of openness.

Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in response to requests for review of data or methodology.
-----------------------------------------

Personalization of issues - Tight social groups and granfalloons.

Authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.

Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.
-----------------------------------------

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.

Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.

Failure to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a scientific description of the operational means in which a range of numeric measurements can be obtained).

Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible.

Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
-----------------------------------------

Lack of boundary conditions

Most well-supported scientific theories possess boundary conditions (well articulated limitations) under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.

Lack of effective controls in experimental design.
-----------------------------------------

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

Assertion of scientific claims that cannot be falsified in the event they are incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant.

Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict.

Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true.
-----------------------------------------

Over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes.

Testimonial and anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery but should not be used in the context of justification.

Selective use of experimental evidence: presentation of data that seems to support its own claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.

-----------------------------------------

“A delusion held by one person is a mental illness,
held by a few is a cult, held by many is a religion.”


It is hypothesised that three ideas are essential to the concept of a cult.

1) Thinking in terms of us versus them with total alienation from "them."

2) The intense, though often subtle, indoctrination techniques used to recruit and hold members.

3) Charismatic cult leader.
Cultism usually involves some sort of belief that outside the cult all is evil and threatening; inside the cult is the special path to salvation through the cult leader and his teachings.

The indoctrination techniques employed by cults are many and varied but most notably include, “Social disruption, isolation and pressure,” and not surprisingly the, “Control of information.”
-----------------------------------------

Communal Reinforcement

Communal reinforcement is the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community. The process is independent of whether the claim has been properly researched or is supported by empirical data significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people. Cult leaders know the importance of communal reinforcement as when combined with isolating cult members from contrary ideas then the resulting environment is more conducive to achieving the desired results. Cults generally provide a safe haven completely insulated from the outside –and real- world and consequently shielding its followers from all opposing viewpoints and beliefs.
-----------------------------------------

Coercive Persuasion

Coercive persuasion comprises social influences capable of producing substantial behaviour, attitude and ideology change through the use of coercive tactics and persuasion, via interpersonal and group-based influences.

-----------------------------------------


Cheers. smiley
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #812 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 09:50am »

on Jan 4th, 2009, 09:22am, TeachersPet wrote:


I had four years of intellectual property law experience in a legal case with 13 different companies on 3 continents.. I think I know what I'm talking about..
tongue cheers..
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:36am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

elevenaugust
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

APPONO ASTOS


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 286
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #813 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 10:24am »

on Jan 4th, 2009, 09:22am, TeachersPet wrote:
We think hoax and we look for hoaxer..whether you like it or not. Not perfect for you, but good enough for us.
An imperfect solution in an imperfect world

Believe it or not, but we are also looking for hoaxers.
User IP Logged

IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line ! www.ipaco.fr
TeachersPet
Guest
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #814 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 10:29am »

Thank you Dr.Dil I had not seen that before, It certainly puts things into context clearer..especially with that reversed burden of proof.
Thats really brilliant and so important to everyone.

@Hi tomi! of course, but I thought you were just an IT person, like OTF, and Lat. When you said Linkedlin thats the only place you show up, and it doesnt say much, not even That E thing. I thought that curious. I'll change it right now.
smiley
User IP Logged

neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #815 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 10:30am »

Wow elevenaugust,
Obviously you are so worried about your precious hoax being dead that you totally didn't even understand my argument. You then proceeded to point out a "little detail that fits" because it supports your fantasy of these drones being real, when that "little detail" had NOTHING to do with my argument. You are just reaching for excuses to explain these issues, and creating the illusion that these drones have some reality to them, when they ARE COMPLETELY FAKE.

I can't believe you are actually using EXIF data, and witness testimonies to support your claims!! Do you understand how moronic that is?? That is like a murder suspect trying to prove himself innocent with his own words! You can't trust the suspect!

on Jan 4th, 2009, 05:23am, elevenaugust wrote:
We know his images are consistent with this story,
.


Seriously elevenaugust, use your xxxx brain! When someone is trying to hoax you into believing something, they create what is called LIES. You should know this.

It just so happens that the ONLY IMAGE WITH D.O.F. EFFECTING THE DRONE comes with a story attached about how he was messing with D.O.F.... How convenient.

My argument is that the hoaxer was "messing with D.O.F." because he was trying to make the drone images more realistic, but miserably FAILED.

You see, the out of focus BB image IS NOT NECESSARY. Why was it released? What is the point of releasing a completely out of focus image, when the image taken after it is perfectly clear? The answer is simple, they deliberately released that out of focus image to complete the illusion that the drone is actually being photographed, and D.O.F. is actually working.

If the hoaxer had just released the clear BB images, and not the out of focus image, then the D.O.F. illusion is lost. The only reason the out of focus image was released, was to complete the illusion.


on Jan 4th, 2009, 05:23am, elevenaugust wrote:
but
that's not all - advanced cameras have a special mode for
this kind of experiments, something that's called the "aperture priority" mode


Yes I know what aperture priority is, and it doesn't give you direct FULL control over D.O.F. There is still physical limitations with D.O.F. because of the focal length of the camera lenses and other physical issues. So no matter what, there is always a small hint of D.O.F. in every image, even with "aperture priority" set really narrow to get a crisp photo. But that is beside the point....

Why are the BB images from Stephen and TY the ONLY images that actually adds D.O.F. to the drone? All the other drone images like Chad and Raj, the drones themselves don't show ANY D.O.F. but the background DOES show D.O.F. There is no possible way for the rules of D.O.F. to only effect the background, and not the drone. The BB images are the only ones were D.O.F. is effecting both the drone and the background.

Are you going to claim now that Chad, Raj, AND Stephan all had "advanced cameras" and they all had their "aperture priority" set narrow? This still wouldn't explain why some of Raj images show the drone far away but perfectly clear, while parts of trees that are closer are clear too. With cameras you can only really focus on one object because of physical limitations, however Raj and Chad seem to have done it more than once.

It's obvious these drones were having details added to them over time. None of Chad's images have D.O.F. and it has a simple version of the drone. It was first. Then the Raj sighting, added more detail to the drone, and released high resolution images. That was second. Then Stephans drone comes along, more complex than the last, and thats when the D.O.F. starts showing up. That was third. Sure enough with TY's BB sighting, its the same drone, and same D.O.F.!! That was forth.

Why such an obvious progressive increase in detail from day one?? It's a hoax!!!!!!

So they added to the 3D model, and added after effects like D.O.F., PROGRESSIVLY. It's obvious this hoax was still being fabricated between the release of images. They were slowly adding more and more detail.


on Jan 4th, 2009, 05:23am, elevenaugust wrote:
and if you check EXIF data, that's exactly what he used - and exactly the kind of thing he would be instructed to use for his assignment by his photo class. So it's yet another tiny little detail that fits...
.


Wow want a cookie? You have a story from a complete stranger that matches a picture from the same complete stranger! Wow you might be on to something! NOT!

Obviously the hoaxer is going to make up some false story to explain why they released an out of focus image! If you are going to make the illusion that there is D.O.F. by releasing an out of focus image, you better have a good reason why the image is out of focus. Saying "i was faking d.o.f." isnt going to work, so the only thing left is to say is that they were "playing with d.o.f. for school".

This guy goes to photography school, and he only took 3 images, and 2 of them are out of focus!! Horrible, I don't believe it.

On top of that, since you are using EXIF data, all Stephens images were taken in less than 6 seconds. The first out of focus image was taken, then 2 seconds later the second image (focused one) was taken, then 4 seconds later the third image (not so focused).You are telling me that this guy was messing with the d.o.f. between the 2 seconds he took the photos?? HOAX!


on Jan 4th, 2009, 05:23am, elevenaugust wrote:
1111, thank you for sharing with us your "multiple flaws". I knew you couldn't resist cheesy.
Beside your affirmations and opinions about the BB drone (where are your REAL studies, i-e the physical study with EXIF data: f-number [aperture], research of the circle of confusion, etc.....? Oh I know, you don't need them to say there is a DOF problemrolleyes),


While I only mentioned a few flaws, I kept most of the real information and investigation to myself. After all, since I am speaking directly to YOU and DRT, THE SUSPECTS, I will not be fully disclosing all of my investigation findings, as it could compromise my investigation. Sound familiar?

On that note, I do not need to explain the aperture, or disk of confusion, when you can visually see the FAKE BLUR EFFECT that was added to the drone. I never said the entire D.O.F. was fake in the entire image, I am saying the DRONE was composited into the image, and a FAKE BLUR EFFECT was added on top of the drone to complete the illusion of D.O.F.

This FAKE BLUR EFFECT is obvious because it is not a real defocus aberration, and does not follow laws of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defocus_aberration

Actually, the blur on the drone is OVER EXAGGERATED. They added too much blur, they even added to much color! The out of focus drone is greenish, the color should not have changed!

Keep in mind, I am only pointing this stuff out, I am not getting into detail about each point.

on Jan 4th, 2009, 05:23am, elevenaugust wrote:
I took a closer look at your example on Chad's picture (in spite of the fact that we haven't any EXIF datas) and think actually a better analysis is possible:


First off, I didn't even show you my analysis on the Chad picture, I simply mentioned a few flaws. My analysis is on the Chad image is not public yet.

Second, a real researcher would not rely on EXIF data for his research. EXIF data should be considered incorrect until proven to be correct through research.

on Jan 4th, 2009, 05:23am, elevenaugust wrote:
Since we haven't any EXIF data, we can use the "edge detect Sobel" tool to determine the exact amount of blurr or sharp. Did you try it?


Elevenaugust, this above quote shows your true lack of knowledge on this subject...

You out of most people should know that doing any type of "image analysis" using computer generated functions in an image editor does NOT show ANY evidence! All you are doing is manipulating the current image!! You are NOT uncovering anything hidden, or any other information!

When you have an image, for instance Chad's image, you only have an array of colored pixels, NOTHING MORE. When you run your dumb "edge detect" tool, all you are doing is running a mathematical algorithm that searches each pixel and highlights the pixels that are similar, and seem to make a line that is linked together. YOU ARE NOT UNCOVERING ANY HIDDEN OR LOST INFORMATION, NOR CAN YOU DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SHARP/BLUR IN AN IMAGE USING THAT FUNCTION.

I am shocked that you even mention that method. Actually... no I'm not, it feels like YOU or the hoaxer planned this moment.

The hoaxer probably ran his own images through the edge detect function before he released the images just so he can say "try running it through an edge detect tool and see what you find!" just to fool the gullible people.

Real image experts know that you can NOT just run functions in an image editor and uncover any data. All you are doing is manipulating the current data.

on Jan 4th, 2009, 05:23am, elevenaugust wrote:
At least, a real experiment would be better than only words.
I actually work on it and the results are interesting....


If you think running an image through "edge detect" is a real experiment, then that explains why you still think these drones are real!

For the record, I didn't show you any of my experiments, I only showed you SOME of my conclusions from my experiments, which is why it is "just words". You really think my last post was a serious attempt? LOL
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:55am by neveleeleven » User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
murnut
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 614
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #816 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:12am »

on Jan 4th, 2009, 10:24am, elevenaugust wrote:
Believe it or not, but we are also looking for hoaxers.


Why?
User IP Logged

You want a revolution?
You've got to make a difference on your own
You want a revolution?
Stand up, stand out and make it known
elevenaugust
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

APPONO ASTOS


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 286
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #817 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:13am »

on Jan 4th, 2009, 09:42am, DrDil wrote:
Hi again 11, you say there’s no need for insults yet Marv has told you he has done trig then in the next comment you effectively call him a liar by saying, “Maybe he can’t”.
"Maybe he can't" is not an insult.
Simply because Marvin don't know how to do it.
Or maybe should I say "He don't want to..."?
Calling me a jerk, an hippocrite and a Fraudsters lackey with an agenda is an insult.
Maybe you should redefine your own definition of what is an "insult"....

on Jan 4th, 2009, 09:42am, DrDil wrote:
He has said he has results but hasn’t shared them for the exact reasons you’ve displayed with the analysis of 1111 as it seems every piece of analysis posted that suggests hoax compels you to reply with cryptic, Yoda-like condescending remarks.

Surely not, only to show how "pseudo-science" is working. (see you post just above and thanks for that).
Anyway, it seems that 1111 finally posted his own Chad's analysis, and I thank him for that (and you should also) since it allows everyone of us to have maybe some more wisdom. (And discuss with open mind people.)

on Jan 4th, 2009, 09:42am, DrDil wrote:
You constantly allude to your (collective) ongoing research, aspects of which you can’t discuss and now you say: “I actually work on it and the results are interesting....”
It gets better, not only anonymous witnesses and secretive researchers, we now we have anonymous results!! grin

The same goes for Marvin and the trig. work, the difference is that I WILL post my results here (about the Sobel edge detection), be sure of that since I'm not afraid to do so.
My sentence was only to say that my work is not finished, that's all.... However, maybe it's my mistake and I should have said "And the temporary results are interesting."
Anyway, don't you agree that is the only way to try to conciliate our views?? Or don't you think so and then your opinions are the only available here?

on Jan 4th, 2009, 09:42am, DrDil wrote:
Still, I suppose if you keep demanding empirical evidence from others then perhaps everyone will forget that in eighteen months you and the DRT have collectively brought nothing to the table which proves that the Drones were a real-world event.

C'mmon DrDil, you perfectly know how hard is to prove a real UFO event....
I already explained why, you want to see my explanations again?
And if we don't succeed in dismissed all the inconsistencies, then we will join you in your early conclusions.
Isn't that fair?wink

on Jan 4th, 2009, 09:42am, DrDil wrote:
The members here don’t claim to be ‘Drone’ anything much less the ‘Drone Research Team’ yet several forums are full with their works, explanations, theories and hypotheses, not all of them are correct but they number so many there’s no way they ALL could be correct, but then again hypotheses and opinions don’t have to be 100% correct or even complete to be subjected to peer review.

Agree!


on Jan 4th, 2009, 09:42am, DrDil wrote:
And every theory suggesting hoax that is posted on the popular forums there is a DRT member quickly on the scene, tending the victim, diverting traffic, conducting damage limitation and performing clean-up operations.

I'm very sorry you take it this way, DrDil. I'm here only to try to conciliate our work and try to find some logical explanations, even if I agree that sometime our exchanges are "border-line" (from both sides)
Anyway, if my presence here is bothering for any of your member, just ask me to leave, and I will do.

on Jan 4th, 2009, 09:42am, DrDil wrote:
Yet not one of these non-DRT members has ever been so ‘precious’ as to consider setting up a forum that prevents everyone who doesn’t share the same core-belief from joining. In fact I can’t think of any other venue that is as biased as to employ this method of selection and then to pre-emptively ban the IP addresses of people who may have a dissenting point of view. laugh

Maybe it's the pay to price for not letting our forum be an endless debate between "pro" and "con", but rather a great place for studying, like every DRT member feel it is.

on Jan 4th, 2009, 09:42am, DrDil wrote:
Honestly though, I have NO PROBLEMS at all with this and as the much maligned Sys_config said it’s your house and your rules. But to then repeatedly visit other forums and espouse the ‘scientific method,’ ‘open mindedness,’ ‘unbiased approach’ and other such values is hypocritical to the point of being obscene when those who simply differ in personal beliefs are banned from viewing your “very friendly place to study the Drone case.”

I never intend to be hypocritical, but only to find a place where I can discuss with others POV outside of the DRT forum.
If you find it not fair, then again ask me to leave and I will do without saying a word.

on Jan 4th, 2009, 09:42am, DrDil wrote:
As you're so keen on linking to obscure references or quoting them then there are a couple following this post for you to mull over, consider, absorb and then disregard as you say, "Since you are so sure that the whole story is a hoax, it's doesn't matter..." wink

Thank you!
11
User IP Logged

IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line ! www.ipaco.fr
neveleeleven
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 227
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #818 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:31am »

on Jan 4th, 2009, 05:23am, elevenaugust wrote:
Some others examples of "fakes images" because of "slight silhouetting because of back lighting" with a lighter background:
User Image

Since there are so much various parameters to take into account for make a real photo expertise and that the most important are missing (EXIFs), any study will never be 100% accurate.


Uh WHAThuh! Do you even understand my argument?

Read carefully, because this is another smoking gun that I can prove, and that you will have a hard time debunking, just like the Raj image. Ready?

So we all are familiar with this image right?:

User Image

Well guess what!? I know exactly where this location is!

User Image

User Image

You know what that means?!

IT MEANS I KNOW THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE SUN!

User Image

The Sun is roughly behind the drone, this is what is creating the shadows on the trees on the left, and directly under the drone. The pure fact that the Sun is behind the drone, and the drone is in the sky with the Sun as a BACKLIGHT, the drone should have a darker bottom. There should be a slight silhouette happening, but there isn't. This is FALSE LIGHTING.

Not only that but outlined in red is specular highlights! These highlights should NOT exist, because the Sun is in the opposite direction of the highlights!. Another sign of fake lighting!

You can't blame this on "ambient light reflecting off another object" because I know that there is nothing but trees, plants, and a dirt road in this location. Nothing that would reflect a light more intense than the Sun on the drone.

Beside the painfully obvious lighting mistakes, THE DEPTH OF FIELD IS INNCORRECT! You see, the trees that are shaded directly under the drone, have a slight unfocused look to them, they are a bit blurry. However the drone itself is pretty clear, and looks focused.

The problem is, the arm that goes behind the tree should be more out of focus. Since the camera can only focus on one spot, everything closer and everything further away should be slightly out of focus. Since the main body of the drone appears focused, and the trees under it appear slightly out of focus, this means the drone arm that goes behind the tree should be half focused and half out of focus, because the arm is extending away from the camera. So the arm should get more out of focus the further away from the camera it is. You may not see it as clearly as I do, you have to look close and notice slight differences, but the depth of field is horribly wrong!

Also the arm going behind the tree just looks fake period, because it is not actually behind the tree! Add that to all the lighting problems, and all the rest of the problems with every other image and you have yourself a HOAX!

This Chad image is by far the worst image out of all the drone images. I kept quiet about it because I wanted to see all the disinformation first.

on Jan 4th, 2009, 05:23am, elevenaugust wrote:
You tried anyway.


You failed!












« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:36am by neveleeleven » User IP Logged

Romans 12:6
TeachersPet
Guest
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #819 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:34am »

I thought gentleman would know that when a guest becomes overbearing to the point of halting dialogue in the direction it was going based on. Particularly after saying they are looking for same thing, hoaxters.
Instead the actions speak opposite. To exonerate witness and Photos.
You say one thing and do another.

@Mur cheesy yes, why.
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:43am by TeachersPet » User IP Logged

tommi01
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 3952
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #820 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:43am »

on Jan 4th, 2009, 10:29am, TeachersPet wrote:
Thank you Dr.Dil I had not seen that before, It certainly puts things into context clearer..especially with that reversed burden of proof.
Thats really brilliant and so important to everyone.

@Hi tomi! of course, but I thought you were just an IT person, like OTF, and Lat. When you said Linkedlin thats the only place you show up, and it doesnt say much, not even That E thing. I thought that curious. I'll change it right now.
smiley


Thank you ES. As we go through life we have to reinvent ourselves a few times.. what we identify ourselves as and we do.. believe it or not at one stage I was an elephant keeper and took care of reptiles..
It's true.. smiley Which I don't mind sharing with anyone.. that was the best job of my life smiley There is nothing like working with animals.... gave me good experience for here grin
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:58am by tommi01 » User IP Logged

TeachersPet
Guest
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #821 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:45am »

on Jan 4th, 2009, 11:43am, tomi01uk wrote:
Thank you ES. As we go through life we have to reinvent ourselves a few times.. what we identify ourselves as and we do.. believe it or not at one stage I was an elephant keeper and took care of reptiles..
It's true.. smiley

My apologies for inconvenience. It shan't be repeated.
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:45am by TeachersPet » User IP Logged

TeachersPet
Guest
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #822 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:47am »

on Jan 4th, 2009, 11:31am, neveleeleven wrote:
Uh WHAThuh! Do you even understand my argument?

Read carefully, because this is another smoking gun that I can prove, and that you will have a hard time debunking, just like the Raj image. Ready?

So we all are familiar with this image right?:

User Image

Well guess what!? I know exactly where this location is!

User Image

User Image

You know what that means?!

IT MEANS I KNOW THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE SUN!

User Image

The Sun is roughly behind the drone, this is what is creating the shadows on the trees on the left, and directly under the drone. The pure fact that the Sun is behind the drone, and the drone is in the sky with the Sun as a BACKLIGHT, the drone should have a darker bottom. There should be a slight silhouette happening, but there isn't. This is FALSE LIGHTING.

Not only that but outlined in red is specular highlights! These highlights should NOT exist, because the Sun is in the opposite direction of the highlights!. Another sign of fake lighting!

You can't blame this on "ambient light reflecting off another object" because I know that there is nothing but trees, plants, and a dirt road in this location. Nothing that would reflect a light more intense than the Sun on the drone.

Beside the painfully obvious lighting mistakes, THE DEPTH OF FIELD IS INNCORRECT! You see, the trees that are shaded directly under the drone, have a slight unfocused look to them, they are a bit blurry. However the drone itself is pretty clear, and looks focused.

The problem is, the arm that goes behind the tree should be more out of focus. Since the camera can only focus on one spot, everything closer and everything further away should be slightly out of focus. Since the main body of the drone appears focused, and the trees under it appear slightly out of focus, this means the drone arm that goes behind the tree should be half focused and half out of focus, because the arm is extending away from the camera. So the arm should get more out of focus the further away from the camera it is. You may not see it as clearly as I do, you have to look close and notice slight differences, but the depth of field is horribly wrong!

Also the arm going behind the tree just looks fake period, because it is not actually behind the tree! Add that to all the lighting problems, and all the rest of the problems with every other image and you have yourself a HOAX!

This Chad image is by far the worst image out of all the drone images. I kept quiet about it because I wanted to see all the disinformation first.



You failed!















Wow 1111 !! outstanding!!

I am almost shamelessly tempted to say Class Dismissed, but I am spellbound. smiley
« Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2009, 11:59am by TeachersPet » 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 #823 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 12:20pm »

@ 1111.......hmmmmmm. Nice. I'm no expert in photography but I remember Jakereason at OMF also pointed out some serious DOF problems early on with the Chad photos. He has a professional background in photography with many years of experience. He dismissed the photos as fakes long ago and more or less ignored the drone case (smart move lol). Nobody really took up the issue and things moved on.

Now on to your analysis, which is very precise thanks to knowing where the sun is located....Simply brilliant!

Here is a link to Jake's posts at OM. He makes his point starting on that page and makes more posts over the next few pages. It is an interesting read and an early confirmation of the DOF problems you bring up.
User IP Logged

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


member is offline

Avatar

APPONO ASTOS


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 286
xx Re: #7 The Drone Enigma A Global Search For The Tr
« Reply #824 on: Jan 4th, 2009, 12:21pm »

on Jan 4th, 2009, 10:30am, neveleeleven wrote:
Seriously elevenaugust, use your xxxx brain! When someone is trying to hoax you into believing something, they create what is called LIES. You should know this.

Thank you very much for these infos 1111, that will be useful later.
Anyway, I see that you give your conclusions before your analysis.
Interesting.
And can't wait to see the scientific analysis!! (without using neither EXIFs datas that can be faked, of course nor using any image editor)

Quote:
it feels like YOU or the hoaxer planned this moment.

At least, one progress: we are not anymore the hoaxers!!



User IP Logged

IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line ! www.ipaco.fr
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57  ...  99 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 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