Originally posted by illuminated0ne
I just pointed out how your entire post was a giant waste of time and pointless.
OK, let's not worry about why you are replying on Seee's behalf.. let's go through it point by point and see who knows what they are talking about,
shall we? If you wish to respond .. this time rather than post a whole string of items and ignore them, why not be brave and have a go at addressing
them PROPERLY in detail?
You tried to discredit "Seeee" by saying, "What if the object was blue? What if the object was light-blue!
If someone is wrong, pointing that out is 'discrediting', is it?
WHAT IF THE OBJECT WAS BLUE!
I'm sorry, are you quoting me or is that your attempt at sarcasm? Here, let me politely explain. If you dispute any of these points, feel fee to do
so, but please don't bother if you are not very familiar with imaging and cameras.
1. It's a bright, sunny, but somewhat hazy day.
2. On such a day, the predominant ambient light is a bluish white.
3. Because of 1 & 2, anything that is in the scene, if neutrally and lightly coloured, will take on a bluish hue.
4. But also, anything that is
light bluish or is somewhat translucent (allows the sky colour through) or is mostly white but has bluish tones,
will also take on a slightly bluish hue, no matter how close...
(Here's a big hint - what colour would a plastic shopping bag on Crete be, most likely?)
5. Now, I totally agree that anything distant
- be bluish and lacking in contrast (just exactly as a shopping bag, possibly bein' bluish and translucent and all, would be).
- be slightly hazy and indistinct
From that, there are two very obvious possibilities that fit (there are more, but two will do to make the point, and I clearly need to keep this
1. A far away and hazy 'thing'.
2. a relatively nearby plastic bag.
within the reply by "Seeee" he/she mentions exactly what you tried to discredit them for
Did you not notice that I was addressing particular points that I wanted See to acknowledge first
? Did you very conveniently miss the bit
where I said:
I also have other problems with some of what you have extolled, but please address the most important issues above first.
Funny how that
wasn't included in your retort. BTW, I'm happy to address the 'indistinctness' errors he made, but first things first.
you claim my post has no merit
Well, certainly had no original content..
what I did was discredit YOU
Really? Read on..
I pointed out that you completely ignored "Seeee's" comment about the object possibly being blue, and why the glossy versus matte conflict
visible in the sharpness of the edges of specular highlight and the color of the highlight is a significant observation.
It ISN'T. It's a word salad, which is why I asked Seee (and now YOU) to back it up - so go ahead.
the edges of the specular highlight are sharp which would indicate a glossy finish
That DOESN'T follow at all. Give examples.
the blue color of the specular highlight indicates the finish is matte because specular highlights are usually unaffected by Rayleigh
More word salad. BACK THAT UP WITH examples, or admit it was pulled from nowhere..
He/she was explaining why the EDGES of objects appear MORE FUZZY than the BODY in the real world.
That's simply not true - multiple factors affect edge definition, and if you don't know what you are looking at you CANNOT make any such claims.
He/she was explaining that if the the blue haze was caused Rayleigh scattering then the edges of the object should be even
more fuzzy and light blue compared to the rest of the body.
Righto then - you or Seee can now show us with diagrams and numbers and RGB levels and examples of how you have used this methodology on KNOWN
"Seeee" was agreeing with you that object may be close to the camera and light blue in color based on the apparent sharpness of the edges of
Oh, right. And that's why he then went straight onto:
My conclusion .. the lighting and haze effects are artificial.. Combine that with the obviously staged position of the UFO.. you have yourself
a CGI hoax.
??? Yeah, he agrees with me...
Anyway, See has told us how easy it is to fake such an image (in some ways, he's right..) so I'm sure he'll be back with diagrams and images to show
us how those claims can be properly proven. I'll also be back a little later after I find time to do some baggy experiments... BTW, illuminatedOne -
can you point me to your posts analysing this image? There don't seem to be many/any..
your entire post is pretty much a giant display of ignorance.
I'll let the audience decide.. after they've seen/heard your 'proofs'..
edit on 6-12-2012 by CHRLZ because: spelin erur