1111 : "MY Discovery"

[spf33]

I also think there is some confusion of what shadows are caused by what.

sun azimuth 274 altitude 27
may 16 2007, 5:43 pm pdt dst

[10538]

I also think there is some confusion of what shadows are caused by what.

Hey Spf, that's pretty cool.  Nice graphic.  What is the sun altitude on that?

[10538]

not that i can see, i've tried many different combinations of theories and every time the camera is matched the arm still casts a shadow.

Tilt the drone.

[spf33]

Hey Spf, that's pretty cool.  Nice graphic.  What is the sun altitude on that?

that's cropped from this render

sun azimuth 274 altitude 27
may 16 2007, 5:43 pm pdt dst

Tilt the drone.

tried it...many times in many directions.
the only way to get the arm to not cast a shadow is to tilt the drone so far that matching the photo becomes impossible.

[elevenaugust]

Spf, thanks for your nice rendering.
My question may seems strange, but, let's say Raj's camera date was improperly set and forget for one moment the pole; is there a way to estimate the azimuth of the sun, thus the "theoretical hour" by looking only for the drone shadows?

[knowhow]

I show picture 17 exif data at 2007-5-16 at 17:43:02 (almost 6pm) and it doesn't appear to be out of sorts with the shadows on the pole and drone.  If his camera is right with the shadows, then there are roofs, car winshields and all sorts of things that can be reflecting light.  If there is a missing shadow (which I can't see) perhaps it is blotted out by a reflection.
knowhow

[10538]

Hey Spf, that's pretty cool.  Nice graphic.  What is the sun altitude on that?

that's cropped from this render

sun azimuth 274 altitude 27
may 16 2007, 5:43 pm pdt dst

Tilt the drone.

tried it...many times in many directions.
the only way to get the arm to not cast a shadow is to tilt the drone so far that matching the photo becomes impossible.

Try moving the sun more to the north.  From my perspective the pole crossbars do not line up east west .

[spf33]

today 1111 over on omf so graciously pointed out thru linking to this thread that there was a date error in my original pic16 sun angle study.

thanks to his keen awareness in all things observable i've re-posted the corrected version here (which already was posted months ago, i just can't track down where-if anyone does know, please pm, thanks);



i trust any significant or result changing errors on my part will be quickly pointed out.

[10538]

Hey SPF,

Don't let that guy get your goat.  We know your research is very valuable and would never attempt to nitpik it simply to be contrary.  No need to put any stock in someone's misguided opinion that can't even visualize compass directions from different perspectives.  That shows how limited his mind is.   All the guy did was make a fool of himself.

When I think of all the work you have done over almost two years I'm sure everybody knows you are way beyond reproach. 

[elevenaugust]

"So, looking at the reddish color of the image, I know that it must be in the evening. Those are not "morning colors" in the sky, or reflecting off the telephone pole."


So I guess this photo (from a Minolta DimageX) was also taken during evening

Using shadows, I estimated that the Azimuth of the Sun was above 270. Simply because the telephone pole is casting a shadow on itself at the top, which wouldn't happen if it was below 270. So that narrowed down the Month from between April and August, because the shadows are above 270 compared to the telephone pole which i estimated to be aligned with a compass. The majority of telephone poles in California are aligned with the compass, to make a "grid". This is because most telephone poles run along streets that usually run North/South, or East/West. So I started with that assumption, only for it to be confirmed later.


Capitola map, with all the streets run North/South or East//West....

[elevenaugust]

Original post from 1111 here

I would like to discuss the probability of a specific shadow occurring in these two following images:

Mi8


Mi17


I outlined the specific shadow in question. Upon looking closely at these shadows, I see that they are almost perfectly the same.

Two different images.
Two different helicopters.
Two different cameras.
Two different "witnesses".
Two different locations.
Two different times of day.
Two different lighting enviornments.
Two different angles.
...and much more...

BUT THE SAME SHADOW?

I believe the probability of this happening is very very very low.
Anyone want to do the exact calculations?


Even though these images are supposed to be from completely different places, they both have the same exact fake shadow that seem to be made from the same exact light rendering software. This alone kills the helicopters, IMHO.


 

[10538]

This 1111 stuff should be ignored.  It's non-sense.  He has not illustrated any similarity between shadows (any more than there should be).  Sure those areas of those drones will be similar.  They are essentially identical in that area.  Locations very similar too, about 10 miles away.  Both occurring in the afternoon about the same time of the year and about the same elevation off the ground.  Same color and texture. 

Sure the shadows will be similar.  But they are not exact copies.  Anybody can zoom in on those areas and see the difference.  1111 did not prove anything.  Anybody who falls for this simply has not checked it out for him or herself.  Why should 1111 be believed any way?  All he does is spout non sense and false accusations.  His rant from yesterday proved that.  So now he starts a new one hoping everybody will forget his last feeble and embarrassing attempt.