From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:55:30 -0400 Archived: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:13:36 -0400 Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >From: Martin Shough<parcellular.nul> >To:<post.nul> >Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 18:17:58 +0100 >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. >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, Actually, I got the idea of the alignment from you. It was one of your initial arguments. I didn't insist that they fall precisely on the line. I merely said that the object in question is farthest from the line that you proposed. >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 The spot in question appears to me to be a mixture of blues and purples, and does not have a simple geometric shape in the plane of the image. The flares in your examples have simple geometries and appear spectrally pure. >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 could say just as well that you have a predisposition to see flares everywhere you look. The reasoning seems to be that if some spots are flares, then all spots are flares. My predisposition is different from yours because it has been conditioned by observations of similar shapes in many other photos that are clearly not flares. >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. What you call the "Bayesian epistemological jungle" describes the predisposition you refer to above. If it helps, call the prior probability a predisposition with an associated probability. Only someone living in a black and white world would call it obfuscatory. Our perceptions are subjective, not objective. We continuously construct our reality based on competition between learned internal models. That means our conclusions about what we see are often probabilistic, or should be. You assign a lot of weight to the 'lens flare' model because you don't have anything else that fits the data as well. I wasn't looking for cover, except maybe as a graceful retreat for you. >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. I think I have already done that to my satisfaction. You have cleverly directed this discussion so that any unexpected spot in an image is a lens flare. It doesn't matter what it looks like or where it is. You refuse to consider other possibilities, so of course anything I say is not going to pass that hurdle. That leaves us at an impasse, I think. Thanks for the discussion, Martin. It was stimulating and worth thinking about. William 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 | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp