Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by pezza
Hi pezza. Do you mind if I ask what qualifies you as an expert in this field?
Also, didn't mean to imply I am not a scholar, but meant to imply I am not a scholar in this field, or expert by any means
edit on 5-2-2011 by esteay812 because: addition
excellent question, I was actually going to provide this information up front with the last post. Instead I waited for someone to ask this. The reason
being is that I have provided a series of posts that are quite detailed/thorough in their content. But the actual limited response and lack of
creative discussion/review of these ideas have led me to believe that there is some sort of user enabled ignore feature in the forum. Im not sure, it
makes me feel quite lonely.
In providing the requisite knowledge /experience to become an expert, I will point out that there are core requirements which should be shared by all
experts and a series of diverse skills unique to groups of experts and individual skill unique to one person. The combination of common core skills
and unique skills results in an advancement of a field that is not only efficient, but also innovative. So I describe below what set of skills an
expert may have.
* Enginnering or Science degree (manditory in the least)
* superior understanding of statistics
* Physics of motion
Specific Skills (based on debunking these sets of video alone and not any other set)
* Physics of light and electromagnetic radiation. Understanding of light scattering and models to describe it such as Mie theory, RGDB theory etc.
The ability to solve the differential equations which describe the principles behind how light interacts with matter.
* Advanced knowledge of photography including understanding of their functions, lenses, intimate understanding of a specific ccd or cmos sensor,
understanding of the photolithographic/etching process to construct that sensor from a silicon wafer, understanding of the onboard digital processing
at a chip level, D/A, A/D, etc Someone who could take the actual camera that captured the footage, open it up and perform a forensic analysis on
components like the sensor. He could look for dead pixels in the original footage, coorelate this to the position on the sensor, chop the sensor up by
freeze microtomography and look at the part of the sensor corresponding to the failed pixel under a scanning electron microscope.
* Image processing, not only with commercial/shareware programs, but the ability to code image processing software from first principals using a
variety of languages c,c++,VB etc.
possibly more. All that was off the top of my head. Im not thinking the best since chowing down this chocolate sundae. I think I might get Mr Whippy
down the other end pretty soon. Jokes aside, what i describe above is a set of skills that are highly specific, understood in depth and
multidisciplenry. Perhaps what i describe above is not of an expert but more someone that is the world leader in his field.
So naturally a person having quite advanced and in depth knowledge could have one or more of the following; PhD, patents in fields related to the
above, track records of publications and winning grants from host government or private individual/institutions. The world leader in this field may be
an emeritus professor
I will also comment on the nature of the 'UFO expert' specialising in debunking. I believe there is no such thing as this, to the extent that there is
a bachelor degree in ufo debunking let alone PhD's on this matter. I could be wrong. What I specialise in here is making the distinction between a
synthetic and real artefact in a computer image or print. It just happens to be that the artefact in question is a UFO attempting to passed off as
being real. Tomorrow I could be looking at the authenticity of footage showing tiger woods driving a golf ball 400m into the wind.
So I will also make a final comment on the skills I outlined above. Another expert having completely diverse individual skills could be a senior CGI
expert in Hollywood. His approach to debunking may be to create the video by CGI and if it matches the original footage then the original footage
must be fake. Imagine if the scientist hooked up with the CGI expert to form a bulletproof argument for a hoax. It could be a knockout punch!!
edit on 5-2-2011 by pezza because: spell
edit on 5-2-2011 by pezza because: add idea