From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 14:43:59 -0400 Archived: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:07:45 -0400 Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >From: Martin Shough<parcellular.nul> >To:<post.nul> >Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 11:27:18 +0100 >Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >>From: William Treurniet<wtreurniet.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 22:17:44 -0400 >>Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >>>From: Martin Shough<parcellular.nul> >>>To:<post.nul> >>>Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 16:23:58 +0100 >>>Subject: Re: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >>>>From: William Treurniet<wtreurniet.nul> >>>>To: post.nul >>>>Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 16:33:19 -0400 >>>>Subject: A Haunebu II Photo Feature >>>>I took a closer look at a photo that is supposedly of a Nazi >>>>Haunebu II saucer craft first tested in 1942. The enhanced photo >>>>shows what appears to be a toroidal optical anomaly extending >>>>below the craft. To see the photo, go to >>>>http://www.treurniet.ca/tori/ufoindex.htm >>>>and click on 1942Haunebu II at the end of the index list. >>>>I've been saying for some time that such a torus is a property >>>>of the saucer craft that appear in many photos of UFOs that are >>>>publicly available. My working hypothesis is that a toroidal >>>>field is generated by the craft's propulsion system. Under >>>>certain conditions, the field can affect the propagation of >>>>light so that it becomes visible to a camera. >>>>I am not aware of any proof that the photo was taken in Germany >>>>by the Nazis. It may have been taken in 1942 or perhaps much >>>>later. Or it may equally well be a picture of a Russian or >>>>American design taken any time after the war ended. Or it may >>>>even be a photo of an ET craft that someone attributed to the >>>>Nazis for some reason. >>>>In any case, the presence of the toroidal optical anomaly is >>>>good evidence, at least to me, that the photo is not a hoax. >>>>Further, it suggests that the craft likely used a novel >>>>technology for propulsion. >>>Hi William >>>Your 'toroid' is beyond any reasonable doubt a lens flare. It >>>is aligned with three other obvious flares on a diagonal running >>>through the centre of the sun and the (approximate) centre of >>>the field of view (as shown on the image which I sent you off-List). >>>The fact that the first flare appears just under the saucer is >>>evidently happenstance. >>>Of course this doesn't say anything about the status of the >>>photo or of the "saucer" (Nazi or otherwise). >>Hi Martin, I had not considered that the effect may be a lens >>flare. To follow up on your comment, I'm going to change the >>game slightly, and it may or may not affect your conclusion. >>The photo I used initially turned out to be a crop of another >>photo. >>This larger photo shows a large lens flare kitty-corner to the >>sun in the image. I replaced the photo in my article with the >>larger photo, and included the overlay that you drew on the >>photo sent to me off-list. This overlay appears on the >>equalized >>version of the photo in the addendum at the bottom of the page. >>Following your procedure, I drew a diagonal line between the >>center of the flare and the center of the sun. You argued that >>any other lens flares in the photo should fall on this line. >>The two small whitish spots do fall close to this line as does a >>small circle over the tree trunk, but the area of interest >>under the craft clearly is almost entirely beside the line. >>The lens flare at bottom left of the photo is a perfect circle >>and it has a yellow tint that corresponds to the color of the >>sun at the upper right. So this is clearly a lens flare. >>However, the area under the craft has a color that is more like >>the color of the field beneath. It should be much yellower if it >>were a lens flare caused by the sun. Further, its shape is not >>at all circular in the plane of the image. >>I must, therefore, differ with your conclusion that the object >>beneath the craft is a lens flare. Its position, shape and >>color are not consistent with that conclusion. >I'm sorry, William, it's a nuisance for your theory. But I'm >afraid they are consistent. >Your original cropped image shows still another flare on the >same axis which I neglected to mention before. You will see it >on the file I have sent you privately. >In addition, your expanded frame now shows a further two >apparent lens flares that fell outside the previous frame area. >One of them (bottom left) you acknowledge is a flare. Both of >them, again, fall on the same predicted axis as the features I >previously proposed were "flares", including your "toroid". >I consider these to satisfiy a prediction of the flare >interpretation and to be (FAPP) a proof of it.. A number of spots in the photo can be construed to be lens flares, but the number is not very relevant. That is, seeing eight spots that appear to be flares does not mean that the ninth one has to be a flare. I hope you were not drawing attention to those eight spots just to minimize the importance of that ninth spot. What the presumed flares do show is that they are all pretty much on the diagonal line and most have a yellow tinge corresponding to the light source. The most deviant one is the non-circular, bluish spot under the craft. You seem to be minimizing the differences to make that spot conform to a particular conclusion. That's fine if you want to do that, but I object to your saying that that amounts to proof. >Your web page incorrectly characterises the lens flare theory as >predicting that centres of all flare images must fall >_precisely_ on a single perfectly straight axis through the >source and the centre of the photo. I didn't say this, and it >isn't true. You did say above that because the spot under the craft "is aligned with three other obvious flares on a diagonal running through the centre of the sun and the (approximate) centre of the field of view", then it must be a flare. I think I might be forgiven for paraphrasing the way I did. To nitpick a bit, the web page does not say that the line passes through the center of the photo. >I dare say it would be true as an idealised symmetrical case >with perfect optics. But in practice the number of different >internal reflections and refractions possible among slightly >misaligned lens elements is large and can cause slightly off- >axis flare images of the source and of the camera aperture. >Sometimes flares can be scattered all over the frame as though >at random, or multiple lens flares from the same source in the >same image can show on orthogonal axes and can be split into >different colours, distorted, displaced and even inverted. I >sent you some examples I photographed myself. You can fund >numerous others on photography sites across the net. See for >example: 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. >http://tinyurl.com/cowdqh >http://tinyurl.com/4xtdy4f 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