UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Jun > Jun 1

Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature

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


>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
>don't share that gives a better match to this particular photo.


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

I've now shown you multiple examples (off list, anyone else
interested is invited to ask me for them) to prove my contention

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

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

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



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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com