[HOAX]saw flying metallic disk in nashville... WITH PICS... and now my dog is sick[HOAX]

page: 39
74
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


F it.

My sister was almost abducted. She and the lady that would pick her up from her rectory job at the church got chased for a block and into our house by a small probe like craft. It hovered over the house and made all our appliances short out and just freak out. They were both sick for like a week after. I know it was not a lie since this lady does not believe in aliens. She thought it was a ghost or something.

If she were to send pics of it after from a phone, to a pc, to a forum, she would rename them "AHHHHHHHH" in the process because of the state they were both in.

I didn't think this was real although I have heard of those symptoms his dog had before I read this. I don't understand how you guys can preach about decorum and respect yet rail this guy for what might be a good find.

I am not convinced either way. but still. I don't know for a fact he is a liar. His dog might feel like my sister and our family friend felt after that incident. He got that part of the story correct IMO.


edit on 13-4-2012 by BIHOTZ because: fix


I am not calling anyone a liar. I was not there.

We, in the UFO community know it will take overwhelming evidence to convince the world.

This set of pictures does not rise to that level.

I wish it did......It just does not.




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


ok, I can accept that. Do you think he should have been banned? His thread been moved to hoax bin?

you guys realize that he came here looking for support and he might not ever talk about his experiences ever again right. Like making fun of a kid that was molested. Supposedly we support people and encourage them to talk about things that other mock them for. If not, then we might as well just troll and act like idiots. We then have no reason for being here beyond cool pics. I mean come on. What did he do to deserve a ban? Did he disrespect us? He may have made a mistake or his dumb Iphone might not be a damn tricorder. Many things could contribute to his "discrepancies". I personally would have liked to hear him out. If he was a hoaxer then fine, but prove it, don't assume it.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevenaugust

Seems ok to me. Nicely done!

For the sake of math lovers, it would be nice to fully develop 'theta' in the formula 'd = D(sin(theta))' though.

Sorry for the off-topic, but I think that it would be a good idea for future studies to do a tutorial on how calculate size/distance of a given object when we have all the technical datas in the camera's EXIFs.

I'll do my part..


1- First step is to find the [lxL] sensor size of the camera

...which is not easy as technical datas are not always released by the manufacturer. For example, for the Iphone 4S, the sensor is, according to this source, a OV8830 which is a color CMOS 8Megapixels:


In full 8-megapixel (3264 x 2448) resolution, the OV8830 operates at 24 frames per second (fps) in a 4:3 format and in 6-megapixel (3264 x 1836) resolution at 30 fps in a 16:9 format. These higher frame rates enable a number of key benefits, including: no image lag for shutter-less designs, continuous shooting, minimized rolling shutter effect, real-time image capture with no lag between resolutions, and full HD at 30 or 60 fps....


Source: Omnivision Manufacturer

For the calculation of the sensor size, we need:
- the pixel size
- the max resolution
Both datas can be found, in our example, in the Omnivision site above.

Pixel size is of 1.4 µm or 0.0014mm
Max resolution is 3264 x 2448

Now let's multiply:
L= 0.0014x3264= 4.5696mm
l= 0.0014x2448= 3.4272mm

So the sensor size if 4.5696mmx3.4272mm

2- Second step is to calculate the FOV:

For this, you need:
- sensor size as calculated above
- focal length of the camera
- some reverse trigonometry maths


l= 3.4272 mm tall (referenced to landscape mode), then half that is 1.7136 mm. Focal length for the iPhone 4s is listed as 4.3 mm. So:
- atan(1.7136/4.3)= 21.727776 degrees from center to top, or 43.455552 degrees top to bottom.

L= 4.5696 mm long (referenced to landscape mode), then half is 2.2848 mm. So:
- atan(2.2848/4.3)= 27.983496 degrees center to side, or 55.966992 degrees left to right

So 55.97 degrees horizontal by 43.46 degrees vertical.

Now, nenothtu, it's up to you!


It should be pointed out that "functional pixel size" isn't the same as the "physical sensor size" in CCDs, which is why you calculated using the actual pixel dimensions of the sensor.

I took the figure of 49.3 degrees side to side from the photo you had labeled the dimensions on, here which is this one:






Based on that, we have a functional FOV of 43.9 and a pixel width of 769. Each pixel will have an angular resolution of 43.9 deg/769 pixels = 0.0570871 degrees per pixel. Then we need to find out how wide the image of the object is in pixels. If it's perfectly level, we can directly measure it. If it is at an angle, we have to employ a bit of trigonometry. The formula for straight line distance (in this case the width) in two dimensions is expressed by d for diameter in the equation:

d = SQRT((x^2)+(y^2))

Where: d is the "diameter"

SQRT is computer short hand for "take the square root of everything that follows this in the parentheses"

x^2 is computer short hand for "X squared", "x" being the distance laterally

Y^2 is computer shorthand for "Y squared", "y" being the distance vertically.

and x and y are measured in pixels on the image.

That will give us how wide the object measures in each image in pixels, regardless of the orientation of the centerline, or the distance to the object.

To develop "theta", the object's angular width in degrees, it's a straightforward multiplication of pixels wide by the figure obtained above of angular width per pixel (degrees per pixel) to reach a figure for the angular width of the object in degrees. In the multiplications, the pixel units cancel and drop out, leaving a dimension in degrees. This is the "angular measure" of the object, and will vary for the same object according to the distance to that object - farther away yields a smaller angular measure for the same object with the same actual dimensions.

To find how that angular measure, expressed as "theta" translates to an actual distance subtended by the angular dimensions at a give distance, we then use a little more trig and the following formula:

d = D (sin (theta))

where :

"d" is the "distance" or width the angle subtends at distance "D" away from the origin, which is the observer's position

"sin" is the trigonometric sine of the angle

and "theta" is the angle itself (in degrees in this case) which was determined above.

The formula states that we take the sine of the angle, and since sine is a unit measure of a unit circle, we multiply that figure by distance D, the number of units between the observer and the object (15m to 152m in this case), and the number that results from that equation is the actual physical size of that angle at that distance.

If anyone finds that confusing, you'll understand why I never went into teaching maths - I'm not good at explaining it without first going into basic trig and the Unit Circle. The formula given of d = D (sin(theta)) is from calculating the z dimension of 3 dimensional x-y-z Cartesian co-ordinates, and in this case the distance D is assumed rather than calculated from the x and y co-ordinates, obviating the need for those calculations. Minimum and maximum constraints of 15m and 152m respectively are determined from the images, rather than calculated out, and simply plugged into the 3D Cartesian equations to obtain minimum and maximum possible sizes for the angle theta at distances D1 and D2, which are the constraining distances. The closer distance of 15m yields the minimum size possible for the object, and the farther distance of 152m gives the maximum possible size for the object, using the same angular dimensions determined above.

Those distances were determined by direct measurement from the observer's position to the adjacent roof peak (minimum) and the communications tower (maximum) on the satellite photos of the event area,







edit on 2012/4/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by amongus

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by amongus

Originally posted by mainidh
Does anyone know how his dog is though?
edit on 13-4-2012 by mainidh because: (no reason given)


The op dropped off of his thread a mere two hours after starting it. So, no...nobody knows.



Yeah but how many hours until he was drop-kicked off this thread though? (serious question)


He had all yesterday, last night and this morning to come on here and answer questions before being banned.

Yet he chose not too.



Thanks for explaining


I was unaware there's an undisclosed protocol for posting UFO threads and time spent dodging bullets!

I for one, who start threads based on OTHER people's sightings, get so discouraged at times that I am tempted to ban myself.

So for someone not to show face after posting a controversial thread absolutely works both ways with three possible considerations:

1) He felt the jig was up and he skulked away in shame
2) He feels forced to step aside from Opening Day at the firing range
or
3) He has obligations other than sitting for hours on an ATS thread.

But alas, we'll never know seeing he was kicked off.
I wish I could've interviewed him. I am certain I could've had the truth within an hour!
Oh well.............



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vasa Croe

I wouldn't say Dogma so much as the OP's claims and evidence did not hold up under scrutiny.


In certain people's opinions.

I would disagree. The evidence for a hoax is all circumstantial. There are alternative explanations for all the so called problems with the story, as I have tried to demonstrate. That said there's no proof the photos are not a hoax either. At this point the truth or otherwise of the original story doesn't seem as pertinent as the summary judgement that occurred based on debatable evidence. However, we've been assured the evidence isn't debatable and that these are


obviously faked photos

When you have such a pronouncement, that the faked status of the photos is 'obvious' then there is no need to look at the evidence. That is dogma.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep


Lets imagine for a second that ufos, aliens etc are indeed real.

Would it not stand to reason then, that our way of physics, maths, etc are all to be disregarded in the event of analysing these unexplained phenomenon?



Not in our arrogant yet caveman's mentality!

We HAVE to have all the answers. And by gawd, even if it means distorting the truth to fit the facts.

Unreal, ain't it


And why this thread remains open after being deemed a hoax is by itself, an interesting choice. Feels like some sort of experiment and we're being studied................



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
Right at the beginning it was assumed a hoax. The mod said either it was an app, which it clearly wasn't or thrown in the air, which was too high and directly over houses.



For the life of me I don't see how ATS doesn't see this as a problem.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


ok, I can accept that. Do you think he should have been banned? His thread been moved to hoax bin?

you guys realize that he came here looking for support and he might not ever talk about his experiences ever again right. Like making fun of a kid that was molested. Supposedly we support people and encourage them to talk about things that other mock them for. If not, then we might as well just troll and act like idiots. We then have no reason for being here beyond cool pics. I mean come on. What did he do to deserve a ban? Did he disrespect us? He may have made a mistake or his dumb Iphone might not be a damn tricorder. Many things could contribute to his "discrepancies". I personally would have liked to hear him out. If he was a hoaxer then fine, but prove it, don't assume it.


The "Ban" was the decision of the site owner.

If I owned this site. I might have a different opinion.

However, since I am a guest here.

I accept the site owner's ruling.

It's not his first day dealing with these type of things.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Thanks for the info. I had my suspicions about the accuracy of GPS anyway but this is just one more reason to at least let the question remain open.



With "selective availability" turned off, which Bill Clinton did in 1998 or 1999, GPS positions are accurate to +/- 30m 95% of the time, and refine accuracy as the unit sits and averages out the position. I've gotten positions to an accuracy of +/-1m without a differential beacon, and with one positional accuracy drops into the centimeter range - that is what is used these days for surveying.

The GPS position in the photo EXIF gives us a ballpark position, +/- 30m, which can be refined to an actual position by going to the satellite photos and determining angles to various objects visible in the photos, and triangulating back to the observer position.

Then, using that position, and assuming constraint distances from from clues within the photo, we can determine a range for the actual size from the apparent size recorded in the photo, multiplied by the distances involved. I've gotten a range of 20 cm to a maximum of just under 3 meters diameter at the maximum possible range, and given the lack of haze on the object, it is likely closer and smaller than that maximum.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I think this thread continues because many posters see the injustice that was done here! I just re-read the first 3 pages of this thread, the OP answered most all the questions even posting a pic of his dog when asked to do so. He then is berated for including the dog and vet info, when clearly the dog part is in the thread title. They had it out for him from word go! I think he should be reinstated, what do you guys think?



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I have seen other threads marked as hoaxs. I bet that someone in here don't want that people knows the true about something.

I vote that the admin that marked this thread as a hoax and ban the OP, get his admin rights removed because doing this.

When people make errors they have to be punished and the admin that marked this thread as a hoax needs to be removed their admins rights so he stop marking and banning users for nothing and without any proof at all.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


That's some good work you've done there. That's the kind of work decisions should be based on. Shame that at this point it's moot.
edit on 13/4/2012 by MarrsAttax because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
It should be pointed out that "functional pixel size" isn't the same as the "physical sensor size" in CCDs, which is why you calculated using the actual pixel dimensions of the sensor.

Yes! And thanks for the full explanations and calculations, no doubt that it will be useful for future UFO photos.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


yeah, I am not saying you had a vote in it or anything. I was just asking your opinion. I personally think it was wrong. I won't lose sleep over it but I do have an opinion about it.

Edit: oh and you rock nenothtu.....nice.
edit on 13-4-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarrsAttax

Some questions remain.

1) If this was a hoax why didn't the OP simply present the two photos where the GPS data corresponded perfectly and not the third photo (object1.jpg) which was taken as weakening his case?


He may have been unaware that EXIF data was present, or what it contained, or what could be determined from it. Most people ARE unaware of that - they just point and click. It's usually just us photo geeks and forensics examiners that dig into that metadata. Not all cameras record EXIF data. I have some tiny surveillance cameras made from old cell phone CCDs that do not, for example. My first regular digital cameras didn't record it, either.



2) If this was a hoax, why didn't the OP simply make a youtube video of the photos and watch the ad revenue roll in? Why subject himself to this?


I can't speak to his motivations - only he knows them, and they are irrelevant to the data internal to the photos themselves.



3) If this was a hoax why did the OP go to the bother of collaborating with an unknown colleague to fake photos only to lose interest in the thread after a few posts?


That is another motivational question, which I leave to the psychologists.



4) What was the OP's motivation for pepetrating a hoax. What did he get out of it? What did his colleague get out of it?


Another motivational question. I'll only comment that he's not the first to try to "stump the experts", nor will he be the last. I imagine it would have some sort of ego boost if successfully pulled off, but I don't know that for sure.



5) Why was he apparently willing to risk having his account banned when he had been an active member since June 2011?


Motivational. Potentially a "risk over reward" sort of thing for a successful endeavor.



5) Why would he risk exposing his own identity and address for the sake of pulling the wool over the eyes of some internet strangers?


If he didn't know about the EXIF data, or what it contained, he wouldn't have been aware of that risk. None of my cameras record positional data, since they have no GPS capabilities, and he simply may not have been aware that GPS data can be recorded in photos under the right circumstances. It's not a prevalent thing in most digital cameras.



Of course the answer to most of these questions could be 'he didn't really think it through' but then again he put enough thought in it to concoct a story about his sick dog and even went so far as to produce evidence of that sickness as well as getting at least one other person to help him construct the photos.


"Not thinking a thing through" should not be confused with being aware of everything to be thought about. This is why most criminals are caught - it's not that they didn't think it through, it's that they did not know what to think ABOUT.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 




I understand that managing a forum this big is hardly an easy task, however maintaining the guiding principal of Deny Ignorance should always be in the forefront as the reason this place is what it is, which requires so much more effort than many other forum tasks. Unfortunately it has taken a back seat to other considerations in this case, which in the end could be more damaging.

I knew as soon as I had finished the first page of this thread that the search for facts would turn into a character assassination. Mods putting a member on the defensive right out of the chute will almost always stall what should be a fluid discussion of the facts, because we can always count on those that want to play follow the leader, and there seems to be an increase of those lately.

The manner in which this thread was deemed a hoax is based on some pretty questionable analysis, and little to no patience. Not a good sign for those in the future that are looking to vet or understand their own paranormal evidence.

ATS has lost a notch of credibility with me.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
Another one bites the dust.

But nevermind, maybe one day we'llget a real picture.

we already have real pictures and video, that people are unable to recognize them as such is another matter. ultimately people know what they have seen, and there are thousands of similar cases to back them up.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vasa Croe

I guess it is true that you can only lead a horse to water.

You can't "set" the time on your camera's exif data like that. It is a time stamp of when the photo was taken. Even if time wasn't real
you would still have a time frame between pictures taken.



There are actually TWO timestamps in each photo - one from the phone clock, and another from the GPS, which is in agreement, but more refined, because GPS uses much finer timing to measure signal travel time from the satellites in order to tell you how far you are from each one. When you know your distance from each of a minimum if 3 satellites, the unit triagulates your position based on the known positions of the satellites in 3 dimensions. This means that you will never have a more accurate time than the one you get from your GPS unit - it gets the time from atomic clocks on the satellites down to minute fractions of a second for timing the signal travel.

Those two time stamps are in agreement, meaning the internal phone clock was not off.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaws1975
I think he should be reinstated, what do you guys think?


I think if I were him I wouldn't want to be reinstated.
What is in it for him exactly?
So he can come back for MORE abuse?
Really?!?!



also, if he really wants to be a member of this site he will simply make a new account the way everyone who has been banned does. He will however lose his beloved stars and flags.


and it is getting painfully obvious that we are allowed to discuss,share,and investigate things like ghosts,ESP, D.U.M.B.s, Nibiru, 2012, N.W.O, and countless other topics but there seem to be a few that WE are allowed to get only so close to, and NO CLOSER! The UFO phenomenon seems to be of them from what I can tell.

Sure it can be discussed, as long as the owners agree with what is being discussed.
Sure pics can be shared,..........as long as the owners do not object to the pics.
Stories can be told......as long as they don't upset the owners.
That much can not be argued.

Now, whether or not this is because of some sort of hidden agenda
or
just becauase they are ultra vigilant in weeding out hoaxes is up for debate............or is it?
edit on 13-4-2012 by Screwed because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-4-2012 by Screwed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Your right! I think it would show that the owners aren't as hard headed as I'm starting to think they are.





new topics
top topics
 
74
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join