Originally posted by ZeroGhost
reply to post by BAZ752
Apparently my "high horse" has a better view than you think. People are thinking they are seeing birds, bugs and lasers. I know and watch, and have
photographed fast birds diving for insects at dusk. I see them each evening I ride past a foot bridge when I work out. The trajectory and speed
coupled with angular of the camera to the target look more like a distant object, rather than a 20-100 foot proximity. The objects look like a
discreet shapes, not changing albedo as wings open and close changing reflectance shape as the bird banks to turn and flap at a high speed to be as
fast as we see. So, not birds.
Apparently your high horse does have a better view than I first thought, but that won't prevent me on calling you out for showing a condescending
manner in one of your earlier posts on this thread. It took you up to this point until you actually managed to put forward some level of reason as to
why you agree or disagree with my, or another members opinions/theories. I can be arrogant, I'm exceptionally good at in in person, and what I read
in your post prompted me to respond to your post directly.
Laser is just silly.There are scenes where two objects interact at appropriate relative, and although fast, the camera person can follow
BECAUSE they are at a great distance. If he was holding two laser pointers AND the camera, he could not perform the shoot as we see it. I use such
green backscattering lasers in astronomy and it is impossible to point and make a dot without a line from the pointer visible. A laser would need a
surface to show a dot on. Even a red laser would not do what you are seeing. Not lasers in my opinion. Sorry.
The lens and filters he used merely block spectra not associated with infrared light, and the "night shot" is a further filtering of spectrum
at the processor and CCD level. This is not night vision. It is selective spectra only, but sufficient to show objects that have an infrared
signature. If the objects are invisible, but give off any heat, you should see them with such a filtering. Insects are colder than birds, but birds
would be unlikely as explained above.
This may well be fact, I cannot confirm or deny. I am not an expert in the field of lens technology nor have postulated, at any time, that I have
during this debate. I more than appreciate the technical input of this particular part, and it seems you may well be more qualified to make that
assumption than I, and that's fine, it's great in fact, because I'm prepared to learn my own lessons along the way. Even if we might first appear
Insects are not indicated because of the same flight dynamic and angular momentum and movement characteristics as the birds. There are
thousands of flying species of insect in any one place, and it is impossible to know with any detail the flight behavior of each candidate you would
need to study, but because I am a visual specialist and investigate as well as observe aerial phenomena and have for 40 years, you can see detail in
the "qualitative" aspects of this video such as trajectories and proper flight speed relationships, like how the objects behave in turns and
accelerate after a turn. These where not any of the above. So, we can discount birds, bugs or lens dust (not even worth mentioning the
I don't doubt this logic. What I do ask to be considered here is that we do not yet know what is captured until it is confirmed. I eventually heard
from a local Ornithologist, the chap was kind enough to actually call me on the number I left him after watching the footage and in all fairness to
him, he didn't have a clue what it actually
was, but his inital thoughts were birds and in particular, Swallows, so when I got excited and
prompted him that I thought they were Swifts, he agreed with the possibility. However, by both his and my own admission, we still confirmed only one
thing: without the technology available to us both, and the tools to investigate and furthermore, the expertise to truly interogate the footage it's
almost impossible to identify what is happening. Although, it still
remains a perfectly valid argument for me to suggest the possibility of
The logic shown in my argument, albeit brief in content, still stands by the information I have provided to help support my theories. I haven't cited
any sources to the thread that proves or disproves, I have merely invited the members to make simple comparison and read upon the facts surrounding
the birds (apodidae) that lend themselves to these possibilities. There's no real problem with that because I'm definitely not saying: ''It's
birds because this link proves it!'' It bewilders me why some people have read my posts and interpreted it that way, but I'm not responsible for
'how' they read that's a percpetion. All I can do is rely on my own ability to convey the message or information I'm provding with as much clarity
as possible. I feel I've done that.
For those who "don't believe" you cannot evaluate with an opinion. You have to look at facts and determine by process of elimination. You
need to also have an education in physics, biology and general sciences, psychology and behavior, as well as experience with optics, video technology
and several other important types of knowledge. With experience you can actually see much more clearly, because you UNDERSTAND what you are
experiencing (seeing, hearing, feeling, touching). But, experience is the best teacher. So go have some.
I urge you to read my posts thoroughly. You will
note that I, at no point, make outright and absolute conclusions on anything that has been
captured in the OP's footage. It just intrigues me that you are led to believe
that my opinions are stating fact, when I do not and never have
done throughout this entire thread. What I offer is that members consider that it is possible
that what we might be seeing are birds. That is
not a fully drawn conclusion on my part, be it my opinion formed from experience, expertise or otherwise. I do not and never have stated that they ARE
birds. Only that is a possibility.
I'm not probing your post in the hope that you are apologetic in your next response, I'm merely trying to iron out the creases of this discussion
and make clear on where I stand with this thread.
Taking my Hi-Horse to lunch.
How is that high horse today