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

page: 43
74
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   



an excellent post that cuts to the heart of the matter, thank you.




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Well, that's all fact and nothing I can find issue with. I think a ban would have been in the offing at any rate for a deliberate hoax, but I too would like to hear the OP's answers for the questions brought up. I doubt, however, that any answers would be forthcoming, in light of his statement in this post that "i'm not going to bother explaining myself because really there haven't been any real questions raised.... make of it what you will. "

In that same post, he tries to direct people to examine it for "photoshopping", which, of course, would be a wild goose chase if it were a thrown object.

I understand that the ban is an issue to many, but I believe it would have been forthcoming, whether sooner or later.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Well, that's all fact and nothing I can find issue with. I think a ban would have been in the offing at any rate for a deliberate hoax, but I too would like to hear the OP's answers for the questions brought up. I doubt, however, that any answers would be forthcoming, in light of his statement in this post that "i'm not going to bother explaining myself because really there haven't been any real questions raised.... make of it what you will. "

In that same post, he tries to direct people to examine it for "photoshopping", which, of course, would be a wild goose chase if it were a thrown object.

I understand that the ban is an issue to many, but I believe it would have been forthcoming, whether sooner or later.



Yes, I saw his response "make of it what you will" but again, this doesn't constitute anything. I feel the same way after knowing how people will "make of it what they will" being an active member for awhile. 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 naming. Skeptic Overlord says it's a concave top but i see a convex top. 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?



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
NM. off-topic post
edit on 14-4-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   

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 naming.


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. post here

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 this post and this post.

My reasons for picking those constraining distances are in this post and 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.

Post



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 hoax.

.

edit on 2012/4/14 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Hmmmm lookie here.




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


That's ok. I've had time to grab some food and begin to go through most of the posts I missed.

At any rate, I've composed something that I believe should show that the skeptics point of view on a couple of issues will directly conflict with one another. Albeit, I do see both sides and have almost came to the same conclusion myself. If it wasn't for me noticing how these both very believable and objective observations came into absolute contradiction with one another. In which case, would make both answers unequivocally wrong.

Let me explain. I can see how the first pic can appear to be concave because of the two shadows. So I began thinking what if I just flipped it around in paint to see what it looks like and I got this:

Immediately I saw a convex shape and I felt right away that this was a hoax. I was about to toss in the towel because this is a very good argument. But something wasn't right about the shadow still on the "convex" image. Too dark, too linear along the edge. And then I remembered this...

The Convex/Concave Illusion




You tell me which picture is the right side up and I'll tell you if your right.


Now getting onto my second point. There was a poster who came up with another very good point that this was a faked picture on an iphone with this:

Two different light sources! Good eye to this guy who found it and I'll try to find his name for due credit. In the mean time lets talk about this. We have already seen the iphone app ufo images and they don't look anything like this particular image. And I don't know of any ability to photo shop an image directly on your phone. Plus, the reason the "convex" image's shadow looks odd is because the convex part has a more beveled tip thus casting an irregular shadow. Not two different light sources.

This means, two great skeptical answers 1) pie pan thrown & 2) faked iphone image (which is probably impossible anyway) are in direct contradiction with each other. This leave only one viable answer. It's the real deal



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


You have to be kidding me.......this won't die. I shall name this thread "zombie thread". It just keeps on going after it's long dead.



edit on 14-4-2012 by amongus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by amongus
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


You have to be kidding me.......this won't die. I shall name this thread "zombie thread". It just keeps on going after it's long dead.



edit on 14-4-2012 by amongus because: (no reason given)


Why should it die?

Some feel that the investigation is far from over, despite the claims of some.

Is it not what is done here at ATS? Investigate until all possible angles is covered?

vvv



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   




The OP is banned. So, if we can't talk to him how do we get answers. THATS why it should die.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by amongus
 


LOL , yup.
Remember now this is more or less from the folks who brought you that 300 page thread of a smashed bug on a windscreen hehehhe.
Honestly tho , runaway threads are almost always entertaing and this one has taught me a few things as well.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   


The OP is banned. So, if we can't talk to him how do we get answers. THATS why it should die.
reply to post by amongus
 


Exactly.

And because he was banned, this discussion will go on for a long time. We could have gotten answers before he got banned, but alas, he was deemed a hoaxer.

Was it justified?

That is what this thread has become about now.

vvv



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I think why people are upset is not because the photos might be a hoax, it's the way it was pronounced a hoax based on flimsy evidence and well before the analysis you did was presented.

Even your own analysis states the minimum size of 20 cm (about 8 inches) and a maximum size of 2.91m. I still don't see how that proves a hoax unless it is an accepted fact that UFOs are never smaller than 2.91m. I must have missed that lecture.

The OP says that the disk looked to be a few hundred feet behind the treetops. This could have been a lie or maybe he made a mistake, believing the object to be larger than it was. It certainly shouldn't be taken as an accurate measurement.

As far as I'm aware every single contention raised to show this is a hoax is debatable. But that debate has been rendered moot by SkepticOverlord's proclamation.

I mean look at this


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Why isn't everyone able to obviously see the very clear visual indications within the photos themselves that SCREAM hoax?


It's clear that he put this in the hoax bin based on his own (i.e. subjective) visual interpretation of the photos. The link to the 'evidence' came after the fact. Argument is not necessary. Alea jacta est - the hoax is obvious, alternative explanations are irrelevant. Anyone who disagrees with the 'analysis' is simply wrong. Move along people.


Here's a quote for Trek fans which I think is sums up my feelings at this point - 'There .. are .. FOUR .. lights!!'



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
Hmmmm lookie here.



Lol if he was over sensitive about people trying to make sense of it on ATS...it certainly won't get better on Youtube



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   


Lol if he was over sensitive about people trying to make sense of it on ATS
reply to post by jesiaha
 


Look mate, even with my sceptic nature, I truely felt sorry for this guy.

There is quite a difference between being told via analysis that your pics might be fake, or that he might have captured something other than an bona fide ufo, and, being ridiculed and stomped into the ground.

No one likes being mocked and belittled, no surprise he did not return or care to respond.

Its always easier to comment on these things from the other side of the fence, imagine yourself in his shoes.

vvv



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
The one thing I have heard no one even say is that the OP has many more pictures that were taken in this series. He thinks around 2 a second. Many others , he says , show no object at all. I for one would have liked to have seen every shot he has .
edit on 14-4-2012 by bluemooone2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


In the moon crater image, there is no way to tell which is the right one without knowing the direction that the illumination is coming from. Both look like concave craters to me, but with the illumination coming from different directions.

In the UFO photos, we can determine the illumination direction from the shadows present in the rest of the photo. The discrepancy with the microwave dish cover on the tower and the apparent illumination of the object is reflectivity. the dish cover is flat, not reflective, and the object is shiny, reflective. As i said before, it will reflect incident light at an angle opposite to the angle at which the light strikes it, which accounts for the limb darkening on the upper convexity - that light is being reflected away from the viewer because if the curvature, so it looks darker, since less light is being reflected towards the viewer - not because it is in shadow.

The shadow beneath it is darker still because the illumination is coming from above, so the underside is in true shadow.



This means, two great skeptical answers 1) pie pan thrown & 2) faked iphone image (which is probably impossible anyway) are in direct contradiction with each other. This leave only one viable answer. It's the real deal


Yes, they are mutually exclusive, but the doesn't disqualify BOTH - it can be one or the other. This means that a "real deal" UFO is not the ONLY viable answer. It is a real object, but not necessarily a real extraterrestrial craft. The calculated size range argues against it being a real extraterrestrial craft, leaving the thrown object as the most likely answer.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   




I just laughed so hard, I kinda pissed myself a little bit. Hahahaha



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep



Lol if he was over sensitive about people trying to make sense of it on ATS
reply to post by jesiaha
 


Look mate, even with my sceptic nature, I truely felt sorry for this guy.

There is quite a difference between being told via analysis that your pics might be fake, or that he might have captured something other than an bona fide ufo, and, being ridiculed and stomped into the ground.

No one likes being mocked and belittled, no surprise he did not return or care to respond.

Its always easier to comment on these things from the other side of the fence, imagine yourself in his shoes.

vvv



Exactly why I think posting it on Youtube won't do anymore good. I never aimed to ridicule the OP by not buying it...some posters comment were brash but IMHO the only real harm that was done in this thread was that his exact location and address where posted here. Apart from that, as for myself I don't get emotional over forum posts.

Hell I'm not even mad at the guy if he did hoax intentionally or not.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I was being dramatic. Not necessarily the real deal but not completely unreal either. At least in my opinion at this point.





top topics
 
74
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join