From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 15:45:43 +0100 Archived: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:02:46 -0400 Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:52:53 -0400 >Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >>From: Martin Shough<parcellular.nul> >>To:<post.nul> >>Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 22:13:08 +0100 >>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 >>>><snip> >>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!) >By all means, Martin, get started! I would be interested in >your >explanations of all the anomalies I pointed out in the various >images. Please begin with the photo labeled 'roof' in the index >at >http://www.treurniet.ca/tori/ufoindex.htm >or >http://www.treurniet.ca/tori/uforoof.htm >(for browsers that can't handle frames) >In the enhanced version, there is a dark mass between the ufo >and the roof of the building. The mass seems to be a second- >order torus. Is this another lens flare? Your sracasm is ill-judged. You intend it as a reductio ad absurdum in respect of my opinion on your 'Haunebu' photo, but instead it exposes you to ridicule because no person of good judgment who understands anything about photography would think it a dignified defence of his argument to erect such a preposterous straw man in a public place. Frankly it's embarrassing to watch. No, of course it is not a lens flare, dear William. In fact your "second order toroid" looks more as though someone's child has ridden a bike over the print, or trampled on it while wearing his new trainers. Before persuading us that this bizarre "Adidas Effect" (if I may coin a phrase) points to new physics I'd recommend you offer at least a few rudimentary notes on the origins and provenence of the photo, and what steps you have taken to obtain and analyse the most reliable version of it, whether that is i.e. a first- or n-th generation paper print, or a copy negative or an original negative, or perhaps just a re- screened halftone or gravure image out of some old magazine or newspaper showing bleed-through from a Michelin tire advert on the back? Who knows? Do you even know the century and the continent in which it was allegedly taken? The only source you cite is a website called www.iwasabducted.com . That page in turn contains precisely no information whatsoever. It does however contain dozens of other saucer shots, the vast majority as dubious and ill-documented as your trainer-sole saucer. Most of these were evidently a disappointment to you in your hunt for hidden toroids and so were not listed by you, but as a check I looked at two images from near the top of that page, one an evident out-of-focus insect (conceded to be probably such even by iwasabducted.com), and another a perfectly obvious photo of a bird (tagged as probably such even by iwasabducted.com). Not wholely to my surprise I was able to find respectable "toroids" on both of these images when (ahem) "enhanced". See http://www.martinshough.com/ephemera.htm That about wraps it up as far as I am concerned. Enjoy your toroid affaur without me. 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 | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp