From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 18:17:58 +0100 Archived: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 08:27:47 -0400 Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 14:43:59 -0400 >Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature <snip> >You do give yourself lots of wiggle room for interpreting what >you see in a photo. If you think that's justified, then photo >evidence is essentially useless as far as you are concerned. >Maybe that is what you have been trying to say all along and it >took this long to explain your position. So where do you draw >the line in photo interpretation? Would you ever suggest that >the craft in this photo is itself is a camera artifact? >At this stage of the game, it's probably better to express >conclusions as more or less likely rather than proved. In a >Bayesian sense, you have a higher prior probability that spots >in photos are lens flares than I do. Or I have another model >you >don't share that gives a better match to this particular photo. William, Your previous objection to accepting that this is a flare was based on a) a claim that aligned flares should all fall _precisely_ on the same alignment, b) a claim that flares would all be the same (yellowish) colour as the sun, and c) a claim that a lens flare of the sun would not be imperfectly circular I've now shown you multiple examples (off list, anyone else interested is invited to ask me for them) to prove my contention that a) lens flares of this type are commonly either only _approximately_ aligned (or, they are aligned on the multiple axes of several offset internal reflections) just as you see on the photo (incidentally I judge your "toroid" to be rather more nearly aligned on the common average axis of the other flares than you wish it to be, keen as you are to see an association with the saucer), b) that when caused by the sun they commonly show multiple colours, just like the photo - indeed colours often far more varied and vivid - commonly complementary, like reds and blue- greens, and c) that lens flares caused by the light of the sun can have a jolly range of shapes, from discs and rings via hexagons and other polygons to ellipses, streaks, crescents and more complex blobs. Obviously the exact distribution of positions, shapes and colours depends on the number of the lens elements, their distances from one another, their curvatures and coatings, the ahape and size of the aperture, and also the colors and coatings of any filters used which can also cause flares, as can the reflective surface of the film emulsion itself or the digital sensor. But basically my original contention was that you have a photo which looks like a bunch of lens flares, and which every instinct of economy and good sense ought to tell you probably _is_ a bunch of lens flares, from which your eye originally selected only one, drawn by a predisposition to find optical artefacts associated with saucers. I think your fall-back defense case against lens flares (above) has been straightforwardly falsified, and retreating now into that obfuscatory Bayesian epistemological jungle for cover will not do anyone any good. I think you still need to explain to the list in simple physical terms why your "toroid" can _not_ be one of four blueish flares, interspersed with three yellowish flares. If you can do that I will readily concede that it must be something else. Martin Shough Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp