From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:36:52 -0400 Archived: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 05:23:26 -0400 Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >From: Martin Shough<parcellular.nul> >To:<post.nul> >Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 20:21:35 +0100 >Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >>From: Eleanor White<ewraven1.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 17:03:33 -0400 >>Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >>>From: William Treurniet<wtreurniet.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:16:13 -0400 >>>Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >><snip> >Of course I have looked at his collection. In just one or two >cases there are elliptical features that might not be random >noise (that's not to say they are "toroids", but that they are >image features that seem to invite some sort interpretation), >but in the great majority of cases I judge that William's shapes >are a type of pareidolia. When the same shape is seen over and over in different contexts, then it's time to start thinking it's more than a figment of the imagination. You do agree in the following paragraph that most of the cases have an elliptical feature. I would add that they are better fitted with a donut shape rather than an ellipse. >There are, what, a couple of dozen photos here? This is a >negligibly small proportion of the number of alleged saucer >photos extant, and in most of these cases the elliptical feature >is subtle to say the least, and at least as likely to be a >product of the expectant eye connecting the random dots in a >situation where noise is ampified so as to compete with signal >(often deliberately) . A couple of dozen cases is enough to make the point. As I have said before, the visibility of the anomaly must be affected by background and lighting conditions, its orientation in space, and perhaps other unknown factors controlled by the craft. It would be more surprising if the anomaly were always there. >As a check on the acuity of my own pareidolian instincts I >decided to look for quadrilateral artefacts on William's photos, >instead of elliptical ones. They are not always immediately >obvious and, as with most of William's toroids, a certain >"training" of the eye is necessary before you begin to see them. >I think I was fairly successful, but you can judge if I was as >successful as William was with his toroids: >http://www.martinshough.com/ephemera.htm I don't see quadrilateral shapes with one nested inside the other. That would correspond to the donut shape which is an ellipse nested inside a larger ellipse. Further, your quadrilateral shapes seem randomly located relative to the craft, so are not nearly as constrained as the toroidal shapes with respect to position. The toroids are typically situated very near or touching the craft. It's clear your quadrilateral shapes are not equivalent. 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp