Other forms of Evidence: The Smartphone Challenge to Alien Contactees/Abductees/Experiencers

originally posted by: jonwhite866
a reply to: game over man

I think civilians are perfectly prepared, however even if a picture or video was of a REAL ET craft, it would be called out as "a hoax" as per usual. It's incredibly clever. Produce as many hoaxes as possible to then develop a tumor in the minds of man that ALL physical evidence is fake.

But if a hoax is a hoax don't you want to know it? It need not be part of some conspiracy either. There just happen to be that many delusional/dishonest people in the world trying to make a buck of of the gullible.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: JadeStar
It's easier to create a 6 foot tall blue alien than a photo-realistic night sky from an extraterrestrial perspective.*


*For now.... in 3-5 years it will probably be possible if done with great care.

Actually, the most significant thing to producing a photorealistic imag is the detail and resolution of textures being used, and a little bit of rendering "magic", Both are easy to deal with using modern software. The system I use "Poser" in its latest incarnation can handle textures of very high resolution. And, just a few short months ago I was informed of a new rendering engine for Poser...a photorealistic render engine. The images I saw were absolutely stunning!

Although, producing a truly good "fake" is a great deal of work, and attention to detail. I would doubt that most are up to it...

Keep in mind that if such a contactee had such a photo the camera/smartphone they took it with would be the subject of great examination. Every technical detail of the camera optics and CCD would be known and the image the contactee put forth would have to match what would be expected from these technical details.

Even a good fake would have a hard time passing this test.

And here is where that "good fake" would fall apart...when a CCD analysis was done...the fake would not be missing pixels, the camera image would. All CCDs have dead, and or hot cells...not so true for software.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: JadeStar
It's easier to create a 6 foot tall blue alien than a photo-realistic night sky from an extraterrestrial perspective.*


*For now.... in 3-5 years it will probably be possible if done with great care.

Actually, the most significant thing to producing a photorealistic imag is the detail and resolution of textures being used, and a little bit of rendering "magic", Both are easy to deal with using modern software. The system I use "Poser" in its latest incarnation can handle textures of very high resolution. And, just a few short months ago I was informed of a new rendering engine for Poser...a photorealistic render engine. The images I saw were absolutely stunning!

Although, producing a truly good "fake" is a great deal of work, and attention to detail. I would doubt that most are up to it...

Keep in mind that if such a contactee had such a photo the camera/smartphone they took it with would be the subject of great examination. Every technical detail of the camera optics and CCD would be known and the image the contactee put forth would have to match what would be expected from these technical details.

Even a good fake would have a hard time passing this test.

And here is where that "good fake" would fall apart...when a CCD analysis was done...the fake would not be missing pixels, the camera image would. All CCDs have dead, and or hot cells...not so true for software.

We both better stop because we're actually giving a blueprint to someone in the future to create an almost perfect fake.

a reply to: JadeStar

Hi Jade-
I'm curious how you'd place something like the words "testable evidence" on visual data? How do you believe this would prove anything, or be relegated to being deemed 'evidence' ?

Much like the 'Roswell Slides', it would be 'anti-evidence', saying nothing and everything at the same time. There would be no benchmark for such a photo, no comps, and therefore no end to debate on the matter - thereby only extending the mystery rather than getting at better questions.

originally posted by: jritzmann
a reply to: JadeStar

Hi Jade-
I'm curious how you'd place something like the words "testable evidence" on visual data? How do you believe this would prove anything, or be relegated to being deemed 'evidence' ?

Much like the 'Roswell Slides', it would be 'anti-evidence', saying nothing and everything at the same time. There would be no benchmark for such a photo, no comps, and therefore no end to debate on the matter - thereby only extending the mystery rather than getting at better questions.

Just how would you view "evidence", say an image of Earth, taken from literally anywhere off-world...that I could prove was taken from my phone?

a reply to: tanka418

Just how would you prove it? That's the question - and the point. You couldn't, and certainly not enough to call it definite proof of anything.

Here - I just took a shot from above Earth. Went to the Moon for some cheese (stay off the dark side, you'll pay double for lunar string cheese).



That's a shot directly off my cell phone. Un-fooled around with in any form.

originally posted by: jritzmann
a reply to: tanka418

Just how would you prove it? That's the question - and the point. You couldn't, and certainly not enough to call it definite proof of anything.

Here - I just took a shot from above Earth. Went to the Moon for some cheese (stay off the dark side, you'll pay double for lunar string cheese).

That's a shot directly off my cell phone. Un-fooled around with in an y form.

I can do an analysis of your phone's CCD and determine IF that image was taken with THAT specific CCD.

Its not hard, and I'm sure the requisite software already exists...and if not...shouldn't be too hard to write.

a reply to: tanka418

You should be able to tell me what kind of phone I have right now with that image alone. But that's not the point. That it was demonstrably taken with my cell phone and is 100% untouched is enough to be called 'evidence'?

Is the "Roswell slides" subject a real alien because the film stock is demonstrably from a period that it could well have been from 1947? How about if it has dust particles on it unique to Roswell New Mexico? Real alien then?

You're working backwards, putting the weight of base-belief on something that cannot bear that load. The photo is worthless no matter what it shows, or how well it checks out. It's only consistent attribute is ambiguity. That, is not helping anyone.

originally posted by: jritzmann
a reply to: tanka418

You should be able to tell me what kind of phone I have right now with that image alone. But that's not the point. That it was demonstrably taken with my cell phone and is 100% untouched is enough to be called 'evidence'?

Is the "Roswell slides" subject a real alien because the film stock is demonstrably from a period that it could well have been from 1947? How about if it has dust particles on it unique to Roswell New Mexico? Real alien then?

You're working backwards, putting the weight of base-belief on something that cannot bear that load. The photo is worthless no matter what it shows, or how well it checks out. It's only consistent attribute is ambiguity. That, is not helping anyone.

Actually your image is just some JPG. Uploading an image t display on the web usually renders the EXIF data unusable, so no, I can't tell anything from the image alone.

IF however you want to give my your phone for analysis, I can compare a map of the CCD pixels to the pixels in the image and determine IF your phones "fingerprint" is on the image. Like I said; not really very difficult. though you are correct; that doesn't prove much. But, it would raise the question; "How did your phone get there?" IF the image has your phone's fingerprints on it, it would seem logical, to most, that your phone made the image.

originally posted by: tanka418
Actually your image is just some JPG. Uploading an image t display on the web usually renders the EXIF data unusable

Uh, no it doesn't. Uploaded direct from my phone with no editing gives you all the EXIF you could want. Running something as basic as EXIFER on the above image taken off the post reveals this:



That aside, you're going to tell me that if that image checks out that you're going to wonder how my phone got into space to take that shot?

Surely not.

Again, just because it demonstrably came off my phone doesn't mean anything regarding the image's authenticity of location or subject matter whatsoever. You have an ambiguous image off a cell phone, a story and nothing else. That's evidence of nothing. Belief systems come into play at that point - which is something we don't need in UFO studies.

a reply to: jritzmann

You should have finished reading my post...

I've been saying for months that images don't work anymore.

originally posted by: tanka418
But, it would raise the question; "How did your phone get there?" IF the image has your phone's fingerprints on it, it would seem logical, to most, that your phone made the image.

That kind of statement doesn't support your last post's contention very well. Neither does the fact that you've been debating a point here the past hour or so, completely contrary to your last statement - now all of a sudden pictures don't mean anything. (I can read)

Anyway...

Images can tell you quite a lot. But, they can't give you the kind of information that supports an entire ideology, nor does they convey biology, or metallurgy...etc.

But...

If an image is that of an 'alien' or some other ambiguous subject matter - it's utterly worthless in every way possible, as demonstrated here.

So back to my original question to Jade, the OP:

I'm curious how you'd place something like the words "testable evidence" on visual data? How do you believe this would prove anything, or be relegated to being deemed 'evidence' ?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Prime0X

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: game over man
What about Betty and Barney Hill?

Considering the real world probabilities involved...the map at any rate is very good evidence.
I've done the "math" and the research...

Well besides your research are you willing to part with your math equations,I'm not implying i'm a mathematician and my life goal is to debunk your research.I'm a software engineer from Canada and this subject gained my interest a few years ago.

Actually, "doing the math" is more an expression, than anything literal. However, if we compute the simple probabilities of a selection of 14 objects out of 2988 we find the probability of random is "vanishingly small". For clarity; that is a group of 14 stars selected from a field of 2988. 14 stars from the Hill map, and 2988 stars from Hipparcos within 31 parsecs.

Here is the original Hill map:

this is a reconstruction using Hipparcos data...

There are a plethora of finer points, but, this should be all you really need to see that the whole thing is highly probable.
My disclaimer: this is not definitive proof.

I'm trying to figure out if you're serious or not, so I know how hard to laugh.


Carl Sagan on the Betty/Barney Hill 1961 UFO abduction (Part Two)

The claim of that star map being a match is one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard. Sagan explains why.

the aliens I met are reading google searches. send them messages there. make sure to address them properly so they get through.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The claim of that star map being a match is one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard. Sagan explains why.

You don't say...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The claim of that star map being a match is one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard. Sagan explains why.

With all due respect to Mr. Sagan, he has wholly discounted probability. The configuration of stars is unique, though the POV is more an area, rather than a point. The demonstration of "other near by stars" isn't quite what is actually near-by to the map.

Here is an image without the lines and showing near-by stars. By "near by" I mean stars that are within +/- 15 degrees of a "specified" star's Right Ascension, and +/- 15 degrees of that star's Declination, and within +/- 1 parsec of the specified star's distance from Sol. If you have a different definition of "near by" let me know; we can do another query.



Show me how it is NOT a "match".

It looks like one to me, slightly different pov...I suspect you are One who has read the old attempts to "debunk" the map. You should be aware that all that I've seen have distorted the real properties of the stars to make their bull work.

originally posted by: tanka418

Show me how it is NOT a "match".

If you want to see something badly enough, you can see it even if it's not there. We see this all the time in threads posted about Mars rocks that look like gorillas, rats, and all other kinds of creatures. So if you want to see a match badly enough you can invent one, but that star map looks nothing like the hill map to me.

One of the most authoritative debunkers of the Fish map claiming it matched the Hill map was the person who made the Fish map, Marjorie Fish. Fish ended up saying she felt the correlation was unlikely:
The Truth about Betty Hill’s UFO Star Map

UPDATE: In June 2013 I was saddened to hear that Marjorie Fish had passed away. An obituary reports

As one of her hobbies, Marjorie made an investigation into the Betty Hill map by constructing a 3-D star map in the late 1960′s using several databases. She found a pattern that matched Mrs. Hill’s drawing well, which generated international interest. Later, after newer data was compiled, she determined that the binary stars within the pattern were too close together to support life; so as a true skeptic, she issued a statement that she now felt that the correlation was unlikely.

That link contains a lot more detail about how it doesn't match and adds that the 1969 catalog Fish used is no longer accurate, and if you correct her other bad assumptions about the visibility of certain stars and apply modern corrections made with more accurate instruments, the so-called "match" becomes even worse:

Note that the precise location of virtually every star really should be changed too as modern measurements disagree with the 1969 catalogue she used. The match is no longer very impressive.

Not that it ever was very impressive, but it's even less impressive now.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: tanka418

Show me how it is NOT a "match".

If you want to see something badly enough, you can see it even if it's not there. We see this all the time in threads posted about Mars rocks that look like gorillas, rats, and all other kinds of creatures. So if you want to see a match badly enough you can invent one, but that star map looks nothing like the hill map to me.

One of the most authoritative debunkers of the Fish map claiming it matched the Hill map was the person who made the Fish map, Marjorie Fish. Fish ended up saying she felt the correlation was unlikely:
The Truth about Betty Hill’s UFO Star Map

UPDATE: In June 2013 I was saddened to hear that Marjorie Fish had passed away. An obituary reports

As one of her hobbies, Marjorie made an investigation into the Betty Hill map by constructing a 3-D star map in the late 1960′s using several databases. She found a pattern that matched Mrs. Hill’s drawing well, which generated international interest. Later, after newer data was compiled, she determined that the binary stars within the pattern were too close together to support life; so as a true skeptic, she issued a statement that she now felt that the correlation was unlikely.

That link contains a lot more detail about how it doesn't match and adds that the 1969 catalog Fish used is no longer accurate, and if you correct her other bad assumptions about the visibility of certain stars and apply modern corrections made with more accurate instruments, the so-called "match" becomes even worse:

Note that the precise location of virtually every star really should be changed too as modern measurements disagree with the 1969 catalogue she used. The match is no longer very impressive.

Not that it ever was very impressive, but it's even less impressive now.

Sigh...that article...has been shown to be rather wrong, especially abut the very 4 stars it claims is one of the best reasons for "no match"

Specifically 54 and 107 Piscium, which the article stares are "variable stars". according to Hipparcos these stars are not variables...in fact Hipparcos contains NO data indicating these stars are variable in any way. The data actually shows that neither star is much more variable than Sol.

the other two stars...Gleiese 67 (HIP 7918) is included in a catalog of "habitable stars" (HabCat), although, yes it is in fact a binary, although; the companion star is separated by significantly more than 10 arcseconds. At a distance of approximately 41.5 ly the separation is greater than 124 A.U. more than enough distance to support two star systems...not unlike Zeta(s) Reticuli. Tau 1 Eridani is very much the same. If you would like to view the star "metrics" for yourself...they are available in the Hipparcos star catalog.

Now, about this comparison to "mars rocks", and the "seeing" of thing in them (or stars). Your rocks can in fact take on a shape that resembles something, this is a common phenomenon. However, it can easily be shown how the interplay of shape and shadow can make all sort of interesting thing appear.

We don't have the same effect in the stars, AND, we can actually produce very accurate "maps" of these stars that show their relative positions. With these maps and their associated data we can examine these stars in a manner that isn't very possible with the rocks. In this case...we have a collection of 14 stars out of a possible 2988 (2988 stars is obtained by limiting our searches to under 31 parsec). Now...we aren't using just the shape of the star configuration, we are using the combination of all data elements; position, class, age, etc. Rocks just sort of lay there and soak up the "rays"., and their properties have little meaning. So...in the final analysis, there is very little in common with your "mars rocks" and this star map.

I'd bring up the fact that all of the stars in the map are either an F class, G class or K class...but we both know they were selected that way, as well as being "close"...of course there is a further reality in that, it appears that there aren't many stars of any class very close to the requisite positions to qualify except for the stars listed.

The "shape" was given to us by a person who had little knowledge of astronomy, so the shape must be either random, or contain some real data. Given the probabilities involved; I opt for the data...by the way there are 1.3E52 possible combinations of 14 stars out of 2988...and you would like us to believe that this just sort of happened? Unfortunately, it would be far to time consuming to prove.

Sorry man, but you will have to provide some science to support your position.

originally posted by: tanka418
Sorry man, but you will have to provide some science to support your position.

The very person who created the Fish map, Marjorie Fish, used science to decide it's not correct, yet you managed to write that entire reply without even addressing that.

Even if you include whatever stars you included in your star chart, it still looks nothing like the Betty Hill star positions to me, which is why it's a variant of looking at a pile of Mars rocks and saying it looks like a gorilla. Maybe it does to you, but the match isn't there, it's a distortion in your mind, just as the person who sees a gorilla in the Mars rocks is dostorting the appearance of the actual rocks to see what they want to see.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: tanka418
Sorry man, but you will have to provide some science to support your position.

The very person who created the Fish map, Marjorie Fish, used science to decide it's not correct, yet you managed to write that entire reply without even addressing that.

Even if you include whatever stars you included in your star chart, it still looks nothing like the Betty Hill star positions to me, which is why it's a variant of looking at a pile of Mars rocks and saying it looks like a gorilla. Maybe it does to you, but the match isn't there, it's a distortion in your mind, just as the person who sees a gorilla in the Mars rocks is dostorting the appearance of the actual rocks to see what they want to see.

One of the MAJOR differences between my maps and a Mars rock is the application of template matching algorithms...and the application of modern data. So, this is actually quite a bit different than simple Pareidolia. However, you do sort of get your "wish" as this does boil down to an "image recognition" issue...fortunately, template matching algorithms don't suffer so much from Human psychological issues.

Ms. Fish probably did give in to the pressure of those who wanted a different result. However, that in no way affects the actual data, nor the template.

What you are failing to do is account for modern technique and technology in template recognition / matching, as well as astronomy. I'm (not) sorry that modern data contradicts what you want reality to be, but that's not my fault.

Oh, by the way; where is your science?
You see, IF you wish to debunk my analysis, you are going to NEED new science; something that can compete with my technology.

Now, you may, if you so choose, label both me and my computer "delusional"...