From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:13:08 +0100 Archived: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 07:56:13 -0400 Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:55:30 -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. William, your obtuseness on this matter is perverse. Of course the idea of the alignment came from me. You didn't even notice that there were any features to align, or if you did you chose to minimise the chance that anyone else would notice them, by cropping the image to remove the two most prominent lens flares and neglecting to draw attention to those that remained. It should not have been necessary for me to excavate the fact that your "toroid" was actually a member of a family of very similar light artefacts running across the image and related to one another and to the sun by their general appearance and diagonal geometry. >I didn't insist that they fall precisely >on the line. Of course you did. You mistakenly assumed that a condition of my argument was a perfect alignment. I drew a straight line for you to illustrate the approximate alignment of the various flares on a radius from the sun, thinking it should be obvious - from the very evident fact that the centres of the flares do not all fall exactly on it - that it was indicating an approximate relationship. You chose to see it differently, telling me "You argued that any other lens flares in the photo should fall on this line", when I had argued no such thing, and pointed out to me that the centre of your "toroid" fell off the line. This geometrical imperfection you claimed to be a counterinstance of the flare theory. It is not, since geometrical perfection was never a condition or a prediction of the theory in the first place. >I merely said that the object in question is >farthest from the line that you proposed. What you 'merely said' is in fact exactly as I have restated it above, and your argument was (and remains) incoherent and, really, strikes me as extraordinarily simple- or literal-minded. >>b) a claim that flares would all be the same (yellowish) colour >>as the sun, and You have neither repudiated nor defended this second erroneous pillar of your argument. I take your silence as a concession by default.. >>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 You have neither repudiated nor defended this third erroneous pillar of your argument. I take your silence as a concession by default. >>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 "spot" in question appears to me to have approximate geometric shape of a spot much like all the other spots which you accept are indeed lens flares. But frankly the quality and proveneance of this extremely poor resolution, extremely noisy, speckled, probably colour-adjusted nth-generation image file with god-knows-what digital/photochemical/human history is so execrable (pretty though it is - I am in agreement with Gldas on that, as well as on the family-resemblance to the Meier canon) that it takes imagination and faith to see any "geometrical shape" at all other than a patch of light. >The flares in your examples have simple geometries >and appear spectrally pure. So even the noisy, speckly, spectrally-impure lens flares on your saucer photo are not _really_ lens flares, then, because they are not specularly pure. William, nothing about this photo is pure - spectrally or otherwise. >>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. No, you could not. There is an objective fact about your photo, open to anyone to discover by inspection, which you failed to detect and/or to disclose - and that is that it does contain seven other spots or patches of light which are evidently lens flares on an approximate diagonal axis aligned approximately on the the sun, as lens flares are commonly found. If I am "seeing lens flares everywhere" in making this observation then you must be prepared to prove that all seven of these similar aligned spots of light are truly not lens flares at all but are a jet of plasma toroids spat out by the saucer. No? Then we agree that the photo is dominated by this alignment of lens flares. We agree that the spot under the saucer falls (approximately - and please don't pretend again to find this confusing) on this alignment. It has the general character of several other non- circular flares in the series and shares the blue cast present also in those. None of these facts about the 7 lens flares are a matter of a priori "predisposition". The basis is sound:: If the underlying carcass of the photograph (at least) is genuine, then a real sun was evidently photographed at some point and it caused real lens flares. This is uncontroversial. Reasoning from them to the nature of the 8th spot is about inference from sound contextual evidence. Your method, on the other hand, is to suppress or ignore the sound contextual evidence and instead take as _your_ context an ill-defined and unproven corpus of extraneous and dubious supposition about toroids on other saucer photos (as for which, don't get me started!) >The reasoning seems to be that if >some spots are flares, then all spots are flares. The reasoning is, firstly, that the appearances and positions of seven other spots, which are (I trust we agree) lens flares, demonstrate, by their relationships to an eighth spot, that it, too, has every appearance of being a lens flare, and secondly, that (this being so) it behooves you to produce strong reasons why we should believe that it is anything else. The only justifications you have offered (speaking here of evidence internal to the photograph in question) are false in logic and in fact. >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. Yes, this is indeed the truth of the matter. >>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. I think we must have missed the post in which you did that. >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. What fantastical nonsense. Like a conjuror, by suppression and misdirection you "forced" the attention of the list onto one blueish spot on this image and claimed special status for it because it happened to be close to the saucer image. Now, after my clarifications, you (belatedly) accept that seven other "unexpected" spots which I brought to your attention are in fact blueish and yellowish lens flares from the sun. I pointed out the coincidence that your original eighth spot shares their alignment with the sun and appears in every discernable way to be an eighth lens flare. Your response to this has been - as amply demonstrated now twice without cogent reply - to seriously misconstrue and misrepresent the visual evidence and arguments I offered to you. >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. You;re welcome. If it means that you will be more careful next time you present evisence for your "toroids" then it has been worth it. Regards Martin 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