UFO sightings via photoshop - Page 2

EHocking · 22nd May 2006, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Ehocking where is the UFO in your pic? Is it that sunburst on the hill..?

Damn - Nessie is blocking the view. Otherwise. . . . .

CACTUSJACKmankin · 22nd May 2006, 05:37 AM

Isn't it the great skeptical dream to pull of the ultimate hoax and have the believers follow you only to debunk them later?
There are two ways to go about this depending on your motives, Make a really bad fake or make a really good fake.
The purpose of a bad fake is to show how low quality the evidence needs to be to convince believers thus showing how silly they are. This was penn and teller's method in their recent cryptozoology episode.
The purpose of a good fake is to show how easy it actually is to pull off something that looks impossible to fake. I gotta give it up to crop circle makers on this one, they make some impressive stuff

The thing that is crutial is if you are going to do this you have to have evidence of fakery otherwise nobody will buy the reveal. So you have to be able to show each, or at least most of the, step(s) in the process of how you made the photo.

fabian_lidman · 22nd May 2006, 07:26 AM

Sometimes, simple is better. Watch these mysterious lights spotted above the Göteborg harbour last winter. There's even reflection in the water...
ufos.jpg

feyd rautha · 22nd May 2006, 04:18 PM

@CACTUSJACKmankin

and then you jerk off about it, you sad git? sadly for you i am sure you do not have the skill to hoax anybody. as goes for the rest of you, your attempts are laughable get some skills and come again in a year or two.

it is late but in the near future i will post some vids(sts-80 formation anyone???) and pics and i want the oh´so clever experts on this board to explain them to me. i am aware that 99% of ufosightings are hoaxed or explainable in a way, but i have a nice collection of stuff that until now nobody could explain or debunk. and i am a skeptic, to believe is obsolete for me, but i really want to know!

dead to all hoaxers.

feyd rautha out.

Azrael 5 · 22nd May 2006, 04:32 PM

I got one helluva orb on photo a few days ago,nothing to do with torrential rain and light relecting though.I may upload it.

Azrael 5 · 22nd May 2006, 04:40 PM

Here we go.Its not a UFO,but I hope its "paranormal" enough for this thread..

CACTUSJACKmankin · 22nd May 2006, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by feyd rautha

@CACTUSJACKmankin

and then you jerk off about it, you sad git? sadly for you i am sure you do not have the skill to hoax anybody. as goes for the rest of you, your attempts are laughable get some skills and come again in a year or two.

Come on, grow up, personal attacks are unnecessary. If you are going to join a discussion, let's act like adults.

Quote:

it is late but in the near future i will post some vids(sts-80 formation anyone???) and pics and i want the oh´so clever experts on this board to explain them to me. i am aware that 99% of ufosightings are hoaxed or explainable in a way, but i have a nice collection of stuff that until now nobody could explain or debunk. and i am a skeptic, to believe is obsolete for me, but i really want to know!

If you believe this UFO stuff, I doubt you are all that much of a skeptic. There is absolutely nothing conclusive that comes out of these sightings. Blurry photos don't do it. There has to be something much more concrete. UFO sightings are no better than those of the loch ness monster or big foot or El Chupacabra. BTW, I forget is animal mutilation the result of the chupacabra or aliens? oh yeah that's right the chupacabra is an alien.

Quote:

dead to all hoaxers.

feyd rautha out.

dead to all hoaxers? don't you mean death to all hoaxers? That's going a little far isn't it? You may disagree with hoaxers but they don't deserve death. Hoaxing for the sake of debunking is a good thing, it's educational. James Randi went to Australia some years ago, essentially pulled a guy off the street and taught him how to be a channeller. He gave the guy the name the Great Carlos, and let him loose and the Austrailian media ate it up without any skepticism. After a while he dropped the bomb. He totally pulled the wool over their eyes and showed how poor a job the Austrailian media did in regards to the supernatural.
See hoaxing for debunking purposes is a good thing.

Raphael · 22nd May 2006, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Here we go.Its not a UFO,but I hope its "paranormal" enough for this thread..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...i/cdeea83c.jpg

I want to hang out with you.

treble_head · 22nd May 2006, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Here we go.Its not a UFO,but I hope its "paranormal" enough for this thread..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...i/cdeea83c.jpg

definately supernatural. No way are those real.

falzer · 22nd May 2006, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Here we go.Its not a UFO,but I hope its "paranormal" enough for this thread..

Orbs!!

Meffy · 23rd May 2006, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by feyd rautha

as goes for the rest of you, your attempts are laughable get some skills and come again in a year or two.

Funny, for years that's what I've been saying to the people with faked UFO photos they claim to be real. Know what? They've not got much better. *tsk*

Oh, and in case you mistook my kitten picture for a real flying saucer: (Pssst... I faked it! it was supposed to be a joke.)

Azrael 5 · 23rd May 2006, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by falzer

Orbs!!

Exactly,but whats that thing over the frame!

Meffy · 23rd May 2006, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by feyd rautha

it is late but in the near future i will post some vids(sts-80 formation anyone???)

Googled sts-80 ufo debunk -- clicked first link, in which Oberg (ahem) explains and debunks the supposed sighting -- done. Is that what you call "stuff that until now nobody could explain or debunk"? Ohhhh... kay.

[edit] P.S.: Meesa cannot resist... not a UFO but an alien...

Starthinker · 23rd May 2006, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by CACTUSJACKmankin

Isn't it the great skeptical dream to pull of the ultimate hoax and have the believers follow you only to debunk them later?

This is something I've toyed with for years. Got some good ones in the mix, stay tuned. One of the main reasons I joined this site was to see how skeptics respond to hoaxes so I can limit my mistakes and avoid the pitfalls of past hoaxes.

Originally Posted by feyd rautha

and then you jerk off about it, you sad git? sadly for you i am sure you do not have the skill to hoax anybody. as goes for the rest of you, your attempts are laughable get some skills and come again in a year or two.

it is late but in the near future i will post some vids(sts-80 formation anyone???) and pics and i want the oh´so clever experts on this board to explain them to me. i am aware that 99% of ufosightings are hoaxed or explainable in a way, but i have a nice collection of stuff that until now nobody could explain or debunk. and i am a skeptic, to believe is obsolete for me, but i really want to know!

dead to all hoaxers.

feyd rautha out.

Are you saying you have a video that is so good it can't be debunked? Or that you debunked an undebunkable video because you're so good? Not clear there.

In either case that attitude will get you nowhere. You can have the best case in the world but if you come across as a jerk no one will listen to you.

Oh, and yes, I hoax for no other reason than it's fun. Not that I do, uh, what you suggested, but there is a satisfaction in just pulling one off. Pulling off a good hoax, that is.

Correa Neto · 23rd May 2006, 12:39 PM

That, ladies and gentlemen, was a standard woo rant. Unsupported and already debunked claims included.

I think we all remember the thread on the "best UFO pictures" as well as a very similar rant when a poster (bagtaggar) showed some very nice hoaxed pics.

feyd rautha · 25th May 2006, 03:37 PM

I m not a woo!

it is possible that we are beeing visited by beeings from other starsystems, even if it is not possible to break the barrier of speed of light.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...60630740&q=ufo

you tell me these are icecrystals or spacedebris? The second part of the ufos being attracted to thunderstorms is bull, but the first part of the video is pretty interesting, at least. I do not say it is evidence and i stated before that to "believe" in something is nothing that fits in my mindset, but interesting it is.

rjh01 · 25th May 2006, 05:36 PM

Only bothered to watch the first part. Only saw tiny dots which could be several things
1. Light in the lens
2. Small objects.

In short the video is worthless.

treble_head · 25th May 2006, 05:38 PM

I thought they looked like water vapor. meh.

feyd rautha · 26th May 2006, 12:07 AM

what i am reffering to are the 8 dots moving into a circular formation and the central dot lighttening up as last one, so how big is the chance that icecrystal or debris behaves in that way?

by the way the movie has audio(guy trying to explain what happens) so turn up speakers!

here is a link to a better quality pic:

http://deny.ignorance.perso.cegetel....0formation.jpg

i have a better and bigger(29mb)version of the video if someone is interested i can upload it.

treble_head · 26th May 2006, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by feyd rautha

what i am reffering to are the 8 dots moving into a circular formation and the central dot lighttening up as last one, so how big is the chance that icecrystal or debris behaves in that way?

by the way the movie has audio(guy trying to explain what happens) so turn up speakers!

here is a link to a better quality pic:

http://deny.ignorance.perso.cegetel....0formation.jpg

i have a better and bigger(29mb)version of the video if someone is interested i can upload it.

awesome a better pic of an indetermined phenomena. any explanation for what you think it is?

The_Fire · 26th May 2006, 12:32 AM

Lens distortions.
Dust.
A camera trying to focus on infinity makes it "pump/pulse" and "move" as it tries focuses on something in it's near vicinity. That's why I HATE the autofocus function (Hint to NASA: Give your astronauts a 101 course in camerawork so they can avoid it). The "lights" tends to move in tandem with the direction of the sun which means lens flares caused by the errors which are inevitable in even the best lenses.
These only occurs as a visible phenomenon when light is reflected in specific ways in the lens, which explains the sudden appearances and disapperances of the "ufos".
The sun's steep angle (It's to the left and at an approximate 45 degree angle on the lenz, as far as I am capable of determining without knowing the exact position of the shuttle in space at the time) causes this phenomenon as it sends lights bouncing of the surface of the multiple layers of glass lenses which makes up a camera optic (which, BTW, is the correct term for the optical input part of a camera). This causes the flares even in a perfect optic, but it also magnifies already existing refraction errors. No lens is perfect.

Dust also tends to reflect strong sunshine as does icecrystals on the outside of the windows (there is a fascinating "Orb" experiment with flour elsewhere on this forum). This also depends on the angle in which the light (here the sun), and in this situation also the camera, is placed. Dust isn't matted in most cases. Dustparticles can contain anything from flour to quartz. And quarts isn't exactly low on reflection.
And despite NASA's best attempts, not even the spaceshuttle is dust-free.

The "Thunderstorm" harvesters are also either solarflares (the "hovering" UFO are actually two almost overlapping), meteors, balled lightning (allthough that is a guess on my part) or, you guessed it: Dust.

ETA:
http://www.clavius.org/lensflare.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/optics/lensdefects.php

The_Fire · 26th May 2006, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by feyd rautha

what i am reffering to are the 8 dots moving into a circular formation and the central dot lighttening up as last one, so how big is the chance that icecrystal or debris behaves in that way?

by the way the movie has audio(guy trying to explain what happens) so turn up speakers!

here is a link to a better quality pic:

http://deny.ignorance.perso.cegetel....0formation.jpg

i have a better and bigger(29mb)version of the video if someone is interested i can upload it.

That is a classic lensdistortion.

feyd rautha · 26th May 2006, 10:42 AM

So if this is "classic" can you or anybody guide me to a picture where a similar effect is observable? i know those laughable orbpics(dust,waterdrops, snowflakes) and i ve seen one or two lensflares i my life.

does not have to be in space, and needs not to be the same formation and number of dots, just something to make me know(you already know i do not care about believe) that you are right.

but do not try to photoshop-hoax me! :-)

after this (sts-80) is done i will start my own thread, with in my opinion unexplained aerial phänomenas.

but i am in no way sorry to have highjacked this one because it is an offence to anybody with an scientific interest to promote hoaxing(hiding behind the naive question if it is easy or not, ofcourse it is easy if you got the right skills, as is anything). as if there were not enough already.

The_Fire · 26th May 2006, 11:35 AM

Here are a couple of examples on the phenomenon. The two first are dust. The second one, the one in thecar, is a real lens flare. You may want to adjust your monitor contrast as they are somewhat hard to see at the multicolor background.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...9/IMG_2686.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...9/IMG_2701.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/37/84419160_c1890e6c1a.jpg?v=0

Here are a webpage dedicated to the not-so-unusual phenomenon lens flare:

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=34974

A woo-page, where I don't really agree with the....ahem...conclusions of planet X, but which have several good samples of weird lens flares.
http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/tteam34s.htm

feyd rautha · 26th May 2006, 02:02 PM

ok here is a the better version of the film(28MB) i hope you people have a sufficient connection:

http://deny.ignorance.perso.cegetel....0formation.zip

can you explain to me why the objects look like little rings(black center) at first and then light up fully?

the first "orb" at 00:04 is clearly a lensflare, i agree.

at 00:21 things start to get a bit more interesting: 2 of the little buggers that later become part of the "formation" apear at this time and one third one clearly moving from right to left in the distance later getting out of view, could that be a satelite?

at 01:11 on the lower right side an blinking object apears, another satelitte maybe?

at 01:16 another lensflarelike object moves in descending slowly into the center of the "formation" and having reached its final position, lighting up all of a sudden, why does it do that?

spaceghosts? an array of antennas calling home to send an invasionfleet? a secret nasaexperiment trying to open up a wormhole? god? a glitch in the matrix? or really only dust and lensflares? i wanna know!

Meffy · 26th May 2006, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by feyd rautha

can you explain to me why the objects look like little rings(black center) at first and then light up fully?

Ever heard of, or performed, a Foucault test of optics? Therein lies your answer, I think.

[edit]

Quote:

an array of antennas calling home to send an invasionfleet?

WHO TOLD YOU THAT???? You were NOT authorized to hear that!

Shrinker · 26th May 2006, 04:26 PM

I did this one about 10 years ago. It never caught on though...

Stellafane · 26th May 2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by feyd rautha

...can you explain to me why the objects look like little rings(black center) at first and then light up fully?

Wait! Wait! I think I know this!! After two months of basically playing the village idiot in this forum, this may be a question I actually know a little something about!

The ring effects are artifacts of a catadioptric telephoto system, one that uses both mirrors and lenses. The most common forms of these are Cassegrainian or Maksutov systems (I'm guessing the latter in this case). Basically, these consist of a large front lens, a large primary mirror, and a smaller secondary mirror usually attached to the front lens. When a telephoto system of this type is out of focus, objects appear as rings, because the secondary mirror (which obstructs the central part of the light path) appears as a black area in the center. This can also happen when stray light enters the system off axis, or is produced by internal reflections, as sometimes happens when a bright light source is just outside the viewing area. (You also get the same effect in a simple Newtonian reflector telescope, but I doubt they would take one into space because they're way too cumbersome.)

The Foucault test (which I've performed many times, as recently as last night) produces a somewhat similar, but different effect. However, it requires very specific conditions (pinhead light source at the primary mirror's center of curvature, a knife edge cutting the focal plane) that I don't think this is what's happening here.

Don't know what the other lights are, the ones that look like twinkling stars. Since they're not moving, nor to they change orientation or formation, I'm guessing they were produced within the optical system that shot this video (or at a minimum, they were moving along with it).

Cool soundtrack though.

Meffy · 26th May 2006, 04:53 PM

The catadioptric system could well be it. I'll spare the world's bandwidth the indignity of serving the video up to me.

[edit] Got a Celestron and a little Meade, so I've seen that dark center. Sounds eminently plausible.

Stellafane · 26th May 2006, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Meffy

The catadioptric system could well be it. I'll spare the world's bandwidth the indignity of serving the video up to me.

[edit] Got a Celestron and a little Meade, so I've seen that dark center. Sounds eminently plausible.

I own a Meade ETX, I see this effect all the time.

Meffy · 27th May 2006, 06:32 AM

*nod* It's so easy to explain a lot of the stuff the True Believers tout as "inexplicable." All it takes is a lack of naivete and the intellectual guts to explore a little without wearing blinkers. I'm not terribly smart and not nearly as rigorous a thinker as I'd like to be, but even so I can manage to struggle to the truth in a lot of cases. With help from friends who know their stuff it's easier still.

22nd May 2006, 05:18 AM	#41
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by Azrael 5 Ehocking where is the UFO in your pic? Is it that sunburst on the hill..? Damn - Nessie is blocking the view. Otherwise. . . . .
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

22nd May 2006, 04:18 PM	#44
feyd rautha Student Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 40	@CACTUSJACKmankin and then you jerk off about it, you sad git? sadly for you i am sure you do not have the skill to hoax anybody. as goes for the rest of you, your attempts are laughable get some skills and come again in a year or two. it is late but in the near future i will post some vids(sts-80 formation anyone???) and pics and i want the oh´so clever experts on this board to explain them to me. i am aware that 99% of ufosightings are hoaxed or explainable in a way, but i have a nice collection of stuff that until now nobody could explain or debunk. and i am a skeptic, to believe is obsolete for me, but i really want to know! dead to all hoaxers. feyd rautha out.
feyd rautha Student Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 40

22nd May 2006, 04:32 PM	#45
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,033	I got one helluva orb on photo a few days ago,nothing to do with torrential rain and light relecting though.I may upload it.
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown

22nd May 2006, 04:40 PM	#46
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,033	Here we go.Its not a UFO,but I hope its "paranormal" enough for this thread..
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown

22nd May 2006, 06:34 PM	#48
Raphael disheveled cell cluster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 1,786	Originally Posted by Azrael 5 Here we go.Its not a UFO,but I hope its "paranormal" enough for this thread.. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...i/cdeea83c.jpg I want to hang out with you.
	__________________

22nd May 2006, 05:37 AM	#42
CACTUSJACKmankin Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 279	Isn't it the great skeptical dream to pull of the ultimate hoax and have the believers follow you only to debunk them later? There are two ways to go about this depending on your motives, Make a really bad fake or make a really good fake. The purpose of a bad fake is to show how low quality the evidence needs to be to convince believers thus showing how silly they are. This was penn and teller's method in their recent cryptozoology episode. The purpose of a good fake is to show how easy it actually is to pull off something that looks impossible to fake. I gotta give it up to crop circle makers on this one, they make some impressive stuff The thing that is crutial is if you are going to do this you have to have evidence of fakery otherwise nobody will buy the reveal. So you have to be able to show each, or at least most of the, step(s) in the process of how you made the photo.

22nd May 2006, 07:26 AM	#43
fabian_lidman Scholar Join Date: May 2006 Location: Gothenburg, Sweden Posts: 99	Sometimes, simple is better. Watch these mysterious lights spotted above the Göteborg harbour last winter. There's even reflection in the water... ufos.jpg

22nd May 2006, 06:23 PM	#47
CACTUSJACKmankin Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 279	Originally Posted by feyd rautha @CACTUSJACKmankin and then you jerk off about it, you sad git? sadly for you i am sure you do not have the skill to hoax anybody. as goes for the rest of you, your attempts are laughable get some skills and come again in a year or two. Come on, grow up, personal attacks are unnecessary. If you are going to join a discussion, let's act like adults. Quote: it is late but in the near future i will post some vids(sts-80 formation anyone???) and pics and i want the oh´so clever experts on this board to explain them to me. i am aware that 99% of ufosightings are hoaxed or explainable in a way, but i have a nice collection of stuff that until now nobody could explain or debunk. and i am a skeptic, to believe is obsolete for me, but i really want to know! If you believe this UFO stuff, I doubt you are all that much of a skeptic. There is absolutely nothing conclusive that comes out of these sightings. Blurry photos don't do it. There has to be something much more concrete. UFO sightings are no better than those of the loch ness monster or big foot or El Chupacabra. BTW, I forget is animal mutilation the result of the chupacabra or aliens? oh yeah that's right the chupacabra is an alien. Quote: dead to all hoaxers. feyd rautha out. dead to all hoaxers? don't you mean death to all hoaxers? That's going a little far isn't it? You may disagree with hoaxers but they don't deserve death. Hoaxing for the sake of debunking is a good thing, it's educational. James Randi went to Australia some years ago, essentially pulled a guy off the street and taught him how to be a channeller. He gave the guy the name the Great Carlos, and let him loose and the Austrailian media ate it up without any skepticism. After a while he dropped the bomb. He totally pulled the wool over their eyes and showed how poor a job the Austrailian media did in regards to the supernatural. See hoaxing for debunking purposes is a good thing.

22nd May 2006, 06:51 PM	#49
treble_head Cupcake Loser Moron Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Look. Behind. You. Posts: 10,973	Originally Posted by Azrael 5 Here we go.Its not a UFO,but I hope its "paranormal" enough for this thread.. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...i/cdeea83c.jpg definately supernatural. No way are those real.
	__________________ I am humble. I am modest. Those two things are what make me great. That's not going to work Treb. I'm still going to like you. - Arthwollipot

22nd May 2006, 07:37 PM	#50
falzer New Blood Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 15	Originally Posted by Azrael 5 Here we go.Its not a UFO,but I hope its "paranormal" enough for this thread.. Orbs!!

23rd May 2006, 06:01 AM	#51
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	Originally Posted by feyd rautha as goes for the rest of you, your attempts are laughable get some skills and come again in a year or two. Funny, for years that's what I've been saying to the people with faked UFO photos they claim to be real. Know what? They've not got much better. tsk Oh, and in case you mistook my kitten picture for a real flying saucer: (Pssst... I faked it! it was supposed to be a joke.)

23rd May 2006, 06:05 AM	#52
Azrael 5 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Yorkshire,Uk Posts: 5,033	Originally Posted by falzer Orbs!! Exactly,but whats that thing over the frame!
	__________________ "I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown

23rd May 2006, 06:18 AM	#53
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	Originally Posted by feyd rautha it is late but in the near future i will post some vids(sts-80 formation anyone???) Googled sts-80 ufo debunk -- clicked first link, in which Oberg (ahem) explains and debunks the supposed sighting -- done. Is that what you call "stuff that until now nobody could explain or debunk"? Ohhhh... kay. [edit] P.S.: Meesa cannot resist... not a UFO but an alien...
	Last edited by Meffy; 23rd May 2006 at 06:35 AM.

23rd May 2006, 07:21 AM	#54
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	Originally Posted by CACTUSJACKmankin Isn't it the great skeptical dream to pull of the ultimate hoax and have the believers follow you only to debunk them later? This is something I've toyed with for years. Got some good ones in the mix, stay tuned. One of the main reasons I joined this site was to see how skeptics respond to hoaxes so I can limit my mistakes and avoid the pitfalls of past hoaxes. Originally Posted by feyd rautha and then you jerk off about it, you sad git? sadly for you i am sure you do not have the skill to hoax anybody. as goes for the rest of you, your attempts are laughable get some skills and come again in a year or two. it is late but in the near future i will post some vids(sts-80 formation anyone???) and pics and i want the oh´so clever experts on this board to explain them to me. i am aware that 99% of ufosightings are hoaxed or explainable in a way, but i have a nice collection of stuff that until now nobody could explain or debunk. and i am a skeptic, to believe is obsolete for me, but i really want to know! dead to all hoaxers. feyd rautha out. Are you saying you have a video that is so good it can't be debunked? Or that you debunked an undebunkable video because you're so good? Not clear there. In either case that attitude will get you nowhere. You can have the best case in the world but if you come across as a jerk no one will listen to you. Oh, and yes, I hoax for no other reason than it's fun. Not that I do, uh, what you suggested, but there is a satisfaction in just pulling one off. Pulling off a good hoax, that is.
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth. Last edited by Starthinker; 23rd May 2006 at 07:23 AM.

23rd May 2006, 12:39 PM	#55
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,189	That, ladies and gentlemen, was a standard woo rant. Unsupported and already debunked claims included. I think we all remember the thread on the "best UFO pictures" as well as a very similar rant when a poster (bagtaggar) showed some very nice hoaxed pics.
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

25th May 2006, 03:37 PM	#56
feyd rautha Student Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 40	I m not a woo! it is possible that we are beeing visited by beeings from other starsystems, even if it is not possible to break the barrier of speed of light. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...60630740&q=ufo you tell me these are icecrystals or spacedebris? The second part of the ufos being attracted to thunderstorms is bull, but the first part of the video is pretty interesting, at least. I do not say it is evidence and i stated before that to "believe" in something is nothing that fits in my mindset, but interesting it is.
feyd rautha Student Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 40	Last edited by feyd rautha; 25th May 2006 at 03:44 PM.

25th May 2006, 05:36 PM	#57
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,202	Only bothered to watch the first part. Only saw tiny dots which could be several things 1. Light in the lens 2. Small objects. In short the video is worthless.

25th May 2006, 05:38 PM	#58
treble_head Cupcake Loser Moron Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Look. Behind. You. Posts: 10,973	I thought they looked like water vapor. meh.
	__________________ I am humble. I am modest. Those two things are what make me great. That's not going to work Treb. I'm still going to like you. - Arthwollipot

26th May 2006, 12:07 AM	#59
feyd rautha Student Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 40	what i am reffering to are the 8 dots moving into a circular formation and the central dot lighttening up as last one, so how big is the chance that icecrystal or debris behaves in that way? by the way the movie has audio(guy trying to explain what happens) so turn up speakers! here is a link to a better quality pic: http://deny.ignorance.perso.cegetel....0formation.jpg i have a better and bigger(29mb)version of the video if someone is interested i can upload it.
feyd rautha Student Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 40	Last edited by feyd rautha; 26th May 2006 at 12:10 AM.

26th May 2006, 12:16 AM	#60
treble_head Cupcake Loser Moron Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Look. Behind. You. Posts: 10,973	Originally Posted by feyd rautha what i am reffering to are the 8 dots moving into a circular formation and the central dot lighttening up as last one, so how big is the chance that icecrystal or debris behaves in that way? by the way the movie has audio(guy trying to explain what happens) so turn up speakers! here is a link to a better quality pic: http://deny.ignorance.perso.cegetel....0formation.jpg i have a better and bigger(29mb)version of the video if someone is interested i can upload it. awesome a better pic of an indetermined phenomena. any explanation for what you think it is?
	__________________ I am humble. I am modest. Those two things are what make me great. That's not going to work Treb. I'm still going to like you. - Arthwollipot

26th May 2006, 12:32 AM	#61
The_Fire Unimpressed Female Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia Posts: 3,037	Lens distortions. Dust. A camera trying to focus on infinity makes it "pump/pulse" and "move" as it tries focuses on something in it's near vicinity. That's why I HATE the autofocus function (Hint to NASA: Give your astronauts a 101 course in camerawork so they can avoid it). The "lights" tends to move in tandem with the direction of the sun which means lens flares caused by the errors which are inevitable in even the best lenses. These only occurs as a visible phenomenon when light is reflected in specific ways in the lens, which explains the sudden appearances and disapperances of the "ufos". The sun's steep angle (It's to the left and at an approximate 45 degree angle on the lenz, as far as I am capable of determining without knowing the exact position of the shuttle in space at the time) causes this phenomenon as it sends lights bouncing of the surface of the multiple layers of glass lenses which makes up a camera optic (which, BTW, is the correct term for the optical input part of a camera). This causes the flares even in a perfect optic, but it also magnifies already existing refraction errors. No lens is perfect. Dust also tends to reflect strong sunshine as does icecrystals on the outside of the windows (there is a fascinating "Orb" experiment with flour elsewhere on this forum). This also depends on the angle in which the light (here the sun), and in this situation also the camera, is placed. Dust isn't matted in most cases. Dustparticles can contain anything from flour to quartz. And quarts isn't exactly low on reflection. And despite NASA's best attempts, not even the spaceshuttle is dust-free. The "Thunderstorm" harvesters are also either solarflares (the "hovering" UFO are actually two almost overlapping), meteors, balled lightning (allthough that is a guess on my part) or, you guessed it: Dust. ETA: http://www.clavius.org/lensflare.html http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/optics/lensdefects.php
	__________________ If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable. "We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think." Stop Sylvia Browne Last edited by The_Fire; 26th May 2006 at 12:38 AM.

26th May 2006, 12:33 AM	#62
The_Fire Unimpressed Female Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia Posts: 3,037	Originally Posted by feyd rautha what i am reffering to are the 8 dots moving into a circular formation and the central dot lighttening up as last one, so how big is the chance that icecrystal or debris behaves in that way? by the way the movie has audio(guy trying to explain what happens) so turn up speakers! here is a link to a better quality pic: http://deny.ignorance.perso.cegetel....0formation.jpg i have a better and bigger(29mb)version of the video if someone is interested i can upload it. That is a classic lensdistortion.
	__________________ If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable. "We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think." Stop Sylvia Browne

26th May 2006, 10:42 AM	#63
feyd rautha Student Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 40	So if this is "classic" can you or anybody guide me to a picture where a similar effect is observable? i know those laughable orbpics(dust,waterdrops, snowflakes) and i ve seen one or two lensflares i my life. does not have to be in space, and needs not to be the same formation and number of dots, just something to make me know(you already know i do not care about believe) that you are right. but do not try to photoshop-hoax me! :-) after this (sts-80) is done i will start my own thread, with in my opinion unexplained aerial phänomenas. but i am in no way sorry to have highjacked this one because it is an offence to anybody with an scientific interest to promote hoaxing(hiding behind the naive question if it is easy or not, ofcourse it is easy if you got the right skills, as is anything). as if there were not enough already.
feyd rautha Student Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 40	Last edited by feyd rautha; 26th May 2006 at 10:58 AM.

26th May 2006, 11:35 AM	#64
The_Fire Unimpressed Female Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia Posts: 3,037	Here are a couple of examples on the phenomenon. The two first are dust. The second one, the one in thecar, is a real lens flare. You may want to adjust your monitor contrast as they are somewhat hard to see at the multicolor background. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...9/IMG_2686.jpg http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...9/IMG_2701.jpg http://static.flickr.com/37/84419160_c1890e6c1a.jpg?v=0 Here are a webpage dedicated to the not-so-unusual phenomenon lens flare: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=34974 A woo-page, where I don't really agree with the....ahem...conclusions of planet X, but which have several good samples of weird lens flares. http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/tteam34s.htm
	__________________ If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable. "We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think." Stop Sylvia Browne

26th May 2006, 02:02 PM	#65
feyd rautha Student Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 40	ok here is a the better version of the film(28MB) i hope you people have a sufficient connection: http://deny.ignorance.perso.cegetel....0formation.zip can you explain to me why the objects look like little rings(black center) at first and then light up fully? the first "orb" at 00:04 is clearly a lensflare, i agree. at 00:21 things start to get a bit more interesting: 2 of the little buggers that later become part of the "formation" apear at this time and one third one clearly moving from right to left in the distance later getting out of view, could that be a satelite? at 01:11 on the lower right side an blinking object apears, another satelitte maybe? at 01:16 another lensflarelike object moves in descending slowly into the center of the "formation" and having reached its final position, lighting up all of a sudden, why does it do that? spaceghosts? an array of antennas calling home to send an invasionfleet? a secret nasaexperiment trying to open up a wormhole? god? a glitch in the matrix? or really only dust and lensflares? i wanna know!
feyd rautha Student Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 40	Last edited by feyd rautha; 26th May 2006 at 02:08 PM.

26th May 2006, 02:56 PM	#66
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	Originally Posted by feyd rautha can you explain to me why the objects look like little rings(black center) at first and then light up fully? Ever heard of, or performed, a Foucault test of optics? Therein lies your answer, I think. [edit] Quote: an array of antennas calling home to send an invasionfleet? WHO TOLD YOU THAT???? You were NOT authorized to hear that!
	Last edited by Meffy; 26th May 2006 at 02:58 PM.

26th May 2006, 04:26 PM	#67
Shrinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,037	I did this one about 10 years ago. It never caught on though...

26th May 2006, 04:30 PM	#68
Stellafane Village Idiot. Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Green Mountains Posts: 6,289	Originally Posted by feyd rautha ...can you explain to me why the objects look like little rings(black center) at first and then light up fully? Wait! Wait! I think I know this!! After two months of basically playing the village idiot in this forum, this may be a question I actually know a little something about! The ring effects are artifacts of a catadioptric telephoto system, one that uses both mirrors and lenses. The most common forms of these are Cassegrainian or Maksutov systems (I'm guessing the latter in this case). Basically, these consist of a large front lens, a large primary mirror, and a smaller secondary mirror usually attached to the front lens. When a telephoto system of this type is out of focus, objects appear as rings, because the secondary mirror (which obstructs the central part of the light path) appears as a black area in the center. This can also happen when stray light enters the system off axis, or is produced by internal reflections, as sometimes happens when a bright light source is just outside the viewing area. (You also get the same effect in a simple Newtonian reflector telescope, but I doubt they would take one into space because they're way too cumbersome.) The Foucault test (which I've performed many times, as recently as last night) produces a somewhat similar, but different effect. However, it requires very specific conditions (pinhead light source at the primary mirror's center of curvature, a knife edge cutting the focal plane) that I don't think this is what's happening here. Don't know what the other lights are, the ones that look like twinkling stars. Since they're not moving, nor to they change orientation or formation, I'm guessing they were produced within the optical system that shot this video (or at a minimum, they were moving along with it). Cool soundtrack though.

26th May 2006, 04:53 PM	#69
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	The catadioptric system could well be it. I'll spare the world's bandwidth the indignity of serving the video up to me. [edit] Got a Celestron and a little Meade, so I've seen that dark center. Sounds eminently plausible.

26th May 2006, 04:58 PM	#70
Stellafane Village Idiot. Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Green Mountains Posts: 6,289	Originally Posted by Meffy The catadioptric system could well be it. I'll spare the world's bandwidth the indignity of serving the video up to me. [edit] Got a Celestron and a little Meade, so I've seen that dark center. Sounds eminently plausible. I own a Meade ETX, I see this effect all the time.

27th May 2006, 06:32 AM	#71
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	nod It's so easy to explain a lot of the stuff the True Believers tout as "inexplicable." All it takes is a lack of naivete and the intellectual guts to explore a little without wearing blinkers. I'm not terribly smart and not nearly as rigorous a thinker as I'd like to be, but even so I can manage to struggle to the truth in a lot of cases. With help from friends who know their stuff it's easier still.