Originally posted by FlySolo
So where do we stand now? I'm not asking to re-hash 40 pages. Everything can be summed up by my last post. GPS, faked picture, order of picture
The posts I link to here are in reverse order, because I worked backwards through the thread.
I can't say much about the GPS issues - they're not issues to me. I only used the co-ordinates to find the site, not as evidence of anything other
than the picture was taken where the picture was taken. Just so you'll know, for future reference, if a photo has georeferences in the EXIF data,
there is a free picture viewer and lightweight editor called "irfanview" that will read them and produce a button to open the coordinates in Google
Earth if you also have that installed. Once I had the general area, it was an easy matter to refine the viewpoint by referencing landmarks present in
the pictures. I've made a couple of posts in reference to the GPS system that explain how a variation of 1 meter in elevation or 20 or 30 meters in
lateral motion are nothing to get excited about. The coordinates can "walk" even if the receiver is stationary, due to satellite motion.
I believe the photos are "faked", but not "fake". They appear to be real photos of an actual object, but that object is a lot smaller and a lot closer
to the camera than claimed. My reasons for thinking that, and the formulae involved in that determination are found in
My reasons for picking those constraining distances are in this post
The order the pictures were named in aren't a real issue for me, either. it's obvious that they have been renamed - iphones probably don't name their
images as "object#" - and there are a number of reasons one may be expected to download, upload, or otherwise copy the images from one place to
another in reverse order. One thing I do have a problem with is that the OP claimed the object was stationary and "hovering" for most of the sighting,
but it's not in anything like the same place or the same orientation in any of the photos presented.
Also, judging by the angular diameter and the internal time stamps, the middle image - the one taken a second after the first image - is a significant
distance further from the viewer. It's nearly 25% smaller in angular diameter, meaning it's farther away. The last image, "object1", taken 20 seconds
later is nearly 15% larger than the first image, and significantly larger than the second. it was not a left-right or right-left progression, it was a
right-and-away then right-and-back-even-closer than-before progression. I believe, based upon the timing of the photos and the motion, that one object
was thrown away from the observer in the first two photos - "object3" and "object2", and then another similar or identical object was thrown and
photographed 20 seconds later for "object1".
Skeptic Overlord says it's a concave top but i see a convex top.
I see a convex top as well. I think SO may have interpreted the darkening along the top right edge as a shadow on a concavity, but I interpret it as
limb darkening due to the orientation of the surface at that point reflecting incident light away from the viewer.
I dunno, what am I missing to show this is a hoax? You seem to be active in this thread so what was the evidence of a hoax? If it is as simple as
everyone says then it shouldn't be hard to just spell it out. Gut feelings don't count. I'm not asking too much am I?
No, I didn't go on gut feelings, as indicated in the posts listed above. My gut wanted to say "well day-yum! This is IT!", but my head wouldn't allow
it without a closer examination.
I apologize for taking so long to reply. I had to run a perimeter check and then come back and hunt down the reference posts. I only included my own,
because I'm only able to defend them, not other people's posts or contentions. I do recommend posts in this thread by elevenaugust, though. He's
pretty rigorous in his methodology and analysis, and tends to work with the evidence presented without trying to guess motivations for or against a
edit on 2012/4/14 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)