It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by RUFFREADY
With all the info you gave above I was thinking..maybe the aliens are sending a message. A "simple" message e.g. "we shoot hoops also" or
a picture of their planet with one moon (the center light ) or a warning! like "this circle is you, and this is going to hit you! (last light in center).
Originally posted by nablator
Good work, star & flag from me!
I'll review your methodology when I have more time. Just a few remarks in the meantime.
First, you do realize that a circle seen in perspective is not an ellipse, right? The difference is small with a telephoto lens, bigger with a wide angle. OK, I'll stop nitpicking.
Second, choosing the best matching frame makes a coincidence much less unlikely.
Third, the error margin is defined by the (very low) resolution of the video.
Originally posted by 987931
Err, yes, but not sure I follow entirely -- let me be clear, I know more about acoustics than optics. I'm assuming the formation is a very long way away, and do realise not perfect ellipse, but don't understand why a difference between telephoto and wide angle. Would appreciate more info.
Yes, among other things, I am basically a statistician. If it is a near perfect fit, there is near zero probability it is chance. Tiny probabilities remain tiny even with many trials (we can think of each frame as a 'trial' in the statistical sense).
Originally posted by nablator
Distance doesn't matter, but the angle does. Most cameras have optical aberrations that make wide angle images distorted. Just nitpicking, the difference is probably too small to be noticed.
Then you know the problem with statistical evidence is that you need lots of samples to firmly establish a deviation from the expected probability. Number of occurrence: one (maybe?) in who knows how many hours of NASA TV video. Theoretical probability: unknown, but possibly tiny. So what? If you win the national lottery, will you complain?
Originally posted by 987931
NASA cannot have it both ways: they can't claim everything under the sun (pun intended) is debris then claim any debris are capable of displaying every behaviour! :-)
Having said this, as I said above I do agree that it's best to avoid statistics to the extent possible and it would be better to find lines of corroborating evidence.
For example, if the altitude of the caraft is known, it is likely possible to estimate altitude of the objects GIVEN the hypothesis. There are at least ten seconds to see whether five objecs fit with the model of being in formation AND in a synchronized orbit (not necessarily geosync but with each other at least).
Also, I'd hypothesize the central object is central but at a higher altitude, which means it would have to lie in a line projecting from earth's center through center of formation.
Originally posted by nablator
I tried fitting an ellipse at 2:55 with PhotoShop, it worked well enough, not perfectly, but near enough (a few pixels). At 2:56 it was impossible already. This apparently random drift is not an evidence of intelligent behavior.
How unlikely is the elliptical formation? Any 5 points can be fitted to a conic (ellipse, parabola, hyperbola). The likelihood of the ellipse is 50% maybe, or nearly 100% if you can choose points (you eliminate 2 in the STS-80 video, one in the center, one on the right).
You get the 6th point essentially for free, just by waiting for the right frame. The only interesting point is the 7th, and it never exactly fits the ellipse as far as I can see with my little PS experiments. You are underestimating the likelihood of the quasi-elliptical geometry.
Aren't you a bit overoptimistic? I don't see any synchronization during 10 seconds.
Also, I'd hypothesize the central object is central but at a higher altitude, which means it would have to lie in a line projecting from earth's center through center of formation.
nablatorThat's wishful thinking, not evidence.
Originally posted by 987931
The graphic I posted was based on measurements at 2:56. For what reason do you say it was "impossible already"?
Fair point about conic, when considering hypothesis 1 (debris), but I really have no idea how you make the leap to nearly 100% or what is the second point eliminated (the central one OK, more below).
There is a light spot near "blinking" object to bottom right, is that the one? (its on-screen coordinates remain fixed throughout footage).
In any case, though good point, I'm imposing a very strong constraint -- that the major axis of the ellipse is parallel with the horizon's tangent at intersection of minor axis and horizon. This massively reduces the class of possible ellipses based precisely on the base rationale of the hypothesis.
I agree I've underestimated somewhat, and appreciate your points, but I think you're also underestimating the degree of constraint I'm imposing.
Look, I'd have a lot to do and I doubt I'd ever get to it. I'm putting out some calls for help. Your constructive criticism and input is help, and with a bit of luck (now optimism) I'll get some more.
In any case, though good point, I'm imposing a very strong constraint -- that the major axis of the ellipse is parallel with the horizon's tangent at intersection of minor axis and horizon. This massively reduces the class of possible ellipses based precisely on the base rationale of the hypothesis.
That's impressive. You win.
I could say, for the sake of argument, that it is also a coincidence. You can't fight coincidence. I win.
Maybe the eccentricity is 0.6. What are the odds of having a 0.6 eccentricity? See? It does reduce the class of possible ellipses, but there is only one ellipse to test the property on.
Yes. I'm trying my best to help you build a balanced argument.
You are not afraid of constructive criticism. I like your optimism. Good luck!
Originally posted by 987931
I assume you know how and why probabilities may multiply to give vanishingly small probabilities of multiple "coincidences"?
On there being enough drift to make it impossible, I have spent hours doing measurements. For now, all I'll say is I think that's plain wrong, but I will get data to you if you want it.
My point was that if I know the altitude of the craft, I can estimate the angle to the horizon, then calculate distances that allow an esimate of the angle to the center of the hypothesized circle. From this, the eccentricity is given by basic trigonometry. It is then a testable an integral part of the hypothesis.
Yes, I also know it's easy to "prove" things using math.
I don't doubt your results. How many frames did you capture and test? Only one? Probably I didn't capture the same one. Or the ellipses in PS are not elliptical.
Good luck.