PHOTO-SURPRISE Part 2, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 12-4-2008 @ 05:53 PM by Europa733

reply to post by Shakesbeer

Hi Buddy,

Well, I'got a couple of different people calculating the distance between X
and the photographer if it was a bird. Once done and approved by other people, I* (with help) will try to figure out if it could have been blurry like this at the minimum distance and maximum speed (max angular velocity).

Here is an interesting document :

Peace,
Europa

[edit on 12-4-2008 by Europa733]

reply posted on 12-4-2008 @ 06:11 PM by Shakesbeer

reply to post by Europa733

I'm even giving the theory the benefit of the doubt and seeing if I can just make one happen(cone shaped blur) at any distance or speed. The problem with the "wings" theory to me is the angle of the blur, not common to see a perfect cone around the center mass of a bird in flight at any exposure or speed really. Especially as clean and plainly you see it here, I would go as far as to say the cone itself isn't really even blurred. I would have thought it would be more likely in something like a bug or a humming bird, but your humming bird picture you posted kind of *ahem* debunked that one possibly. I mean I'm no ornithologist or anything....wait what did one say about the picture again?

reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 11:25 AM by Europa733

Hi everyone,

Well, things are moving, the CNES (Nasa equivalent) ruled out the bird hypothesis, details are coming soon. I'll post them in this topic.

As far as the shadow around X, a professional photographer told me that it might be created by X's movement & air prenetration.

I am no expert in fluid-mecanics & aerdynamics but here I highlighted what I think might be air depression around X :

Any experts here, assuming X is moving from left to right.

Cheers,
Europa aka Buck

[edit on 21-6-2008 by Europa733]

reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 11:33 AM by ArcAngel

I didn't read the whole thread so I apologize if I restate the same things.

This looks like a bird photo. The problem is the guy is not questioning or having an open mind therefore he is "pushing his view" without data and finding data to substantiate his view .. as ridiculous as this sounds....

There is not a denial of ignorance here

reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 12:12 PM by Shakesbeer

reply to post by Europa733

Bring the pain man(for some) & once again I see you're working to find out some answers while most people sit and just say "bird"...without having any of their ever coveted "proof" to back them up. And yeah, the last poster really sums up most people in this arena.."I didn't read anything about what I'm taking about but I'm going give my "safe" opinion that leans towards the debunkers".

There has always been seriously anomalous characteristics of this image, and once again for those who actually will read, the original thread has quiet a few good reasons why it probably isn't a bird. HERE It's long and there's a lot of technical stuff about cameras, focal lengths, movement per-pixel, perspective play, photo filters, enhancements, testimonies from people who study birds and probably more I'm missing...

OCKHAM'S RAZOR DOES NOT DO THIS

For those who are not familiar with the philosophy it came from a 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. It's a derivative of "less is more" philosophy (parisomy) and can be summed up as: entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity (from the latin)

OR

All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.

"Simplest" is a relative term by all definitions, and it seems most like to use that to justify their bias.

Oh and I always thought that if it is a UFO it's spinning, which might contribute to the cone shaped displacement.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by Shakesbeer]

reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 02:16 PM by Europa733

Hi,

Good to see that some people are still interested, I was telling you earlier
that the CNES-GEIPAN is about to release the documents & study of this case.

I know it from Mr Patenet himself, it should be released here :

www.cnes-geipan.fr...

Here is the resume :

Observation of an unidentified spot on a picture with suspicion of an associated radar track

On September 1st, 2006, a witness takes photos of the shooting of a film which takes place in its village. During the examination of photos, while he(it) made no visual observation, he notices the presence of an unknown spot on one of the pictures. He(it) contacts the Gendarmerie of the Air transports to make a testimony. A meticulous inquiry is led by the gendarmerie which allows to push aside the hypothesis of a meteorological phenomenon but brings to light an unknown radar track consisted of 3 contacts registered(recorded) by the primary radar of Nice appreciably for the same period as the recording and bringing to light a lightning acceleration of the presumed object. Another radar track seems to show that a military flight "is accompanied" by another not identified object

Sounds cool, doesn't it ?

Cheers,
Europa

[edit on 21-6-2008 by Europa733]

reply posted on 21-6-2008 @ 08:55 PM by Shakesbeer

reply to post by Europa733

Sounds like one seriously anomalous "bird" wouldn't you say so?

So the recorded radar hits did coincide with the picture then eh? That's some nice digging there buddy.

reply posted on 22-6-2008 @ 06:17 AM by Europa733

reply to post by Shakesbeer

Hi there,

I do not know for sure, we'll find out soon when the final analysis comes out.

AlL I know now is that it is not a bird or an insect, Mr Patenet confirmed it but he did not say what is their favorite hypothesis yet...We have to be patient...

By the end of the month, I will post my new analysis, we'll see if it matches with the CNES-GEIPAN's analysis.

To all the bird hypothesis folks, guess you were wrong you guys and confirmation is coming soon...

Peace,
Europa

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Europa733]

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 09:18 AM by GSBlayney

Hate to make this my first post, but you guys are unbelievable. You really are. After getting free analysis from Jeff and David you still wont let up.

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 11:31 AM by Shakesbeer

reply to post by GSBlayney

Yeah their analysis obviously helped give both Europa & myself some good leads & advice on where to look & head from there(in all cases not just this one). Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you're disrespecting them or disregarding what they say No that's just what the speculators & biased closed minded observes do. You obviously haven't looked over the posts either as there is definitely enough "evidence" there to show that it may not be a bird more so then it being one at this point. It's funny how everyone seems to want to argue & ridicule more then work towards something together for a change.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 07:45 AM by XxBRING ME THE HORIZONxX

reply to post by Shakesbeer

111

reply posted on 18-9-2008 @ 12:23 PM by Jeremy_Vaeni

I don't understand why you asked Jeff in the first place if you have access to the French equivalent of NASA.

And I really don't understand why you keep coming back to repeat "Wow, that must be some bird!" with little smiley faces as if you're "getting" him. This just makes you look like the ego-maniacal one(s) you accused him of being.

You can say that's not what you're doing but then you'd be lying and we can't have that in this field.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Jeremy_Vaeni]

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^