My recent post on UCB

[EVS2]

I've recently asked for an explanation of a shadow consistant in the work of Marvin and Kris:

Hi guys, sorry for blending in, but Marvin I think you (and Kris) actually have a serious problem here.

Notice the shadow (in black circle) as it seem to actually never move, or only slightly. How do you explain that, if the rest of the shadows seem to move in the .gif presented?

Furthermore is it still hard to determine if the Drone is "leaning" as well, so the compass thing will not be of use here, only if you are absolutely certain of the pole's position, and as I understand, no one are.







In my opinion, the shadows of the drone cannot be more than estimates, as there simply aren't any other reference points. (exept for the pole)

Therefor, the consistant of the "tiny" shadow I just pointed out, might show that you actually proved that the drone reacts "as it should" in your research?

And therefor maybe is more likely to be true than the power/telephone pole shown in the original image. Maybe it's the pole that's manipulated....

Have a real good time working this out, and remember: Small evidence sometimes are the most true.

DrStern

--o0o--

The reply by Marvin:

Hi Doc,

I hope you are having a great holiday!

I do not know have all of the info on how Kris calculated the Drones position... I think if you have a question on that, he would be the best one to answer it.

Besides, I was using his pole example.

As to â??compassâ? direction (have you noticed I have been using the word in quotes)... I have not introduced that actual azimuth (compass direction) from which the sun light is coming from.

Is it impossible to do? Actually, since we know the time, date and approximate location (assuming near Capitola)â?¦ we can look it up in a table. This has already been done.

But to introduce that now would cause utter confusion for a number of folks. I am simply showing the difference in lighting directions as if using a 360 degree compass (rather than North or South).


Is the Drone leaning? That can be determined by placing a mathematical model of it in a 3D software as a number of others have done. So with effort and software, that can be done.


But the debate here seems to be looking for the mice and are over looking the elephant I am trying to point out. The angle of the sun, in order for the Drone lighting to be correct, has to be from almost 2 hours earlier in the dayâ?¦ closer to 4PM than to 5:42PM.

I think I am about done with thisâ?¦ my best advice Doc, is if you do not think I am correctâ?¦ do the research or take it to someone who understands and show it to them.

Best regards,

Marvin

I just wanted this to be known here as well, as it might help the further investigation.

EVS

[elevenaugust]

Well done EVS2!

Kris recreation is not accurate for the shadow on the long fin arm.
The only one who succeed in a re-creation of this shadow is Onthefence, with his cardboard model.

Just a reminder:
PICT0016

My only advice for all would be to read again the whole topic.

You can't apply to 3D 2D rules and I'm not sure Marvin is aware of that.

[10538]

I've recently asked for an explanation of a shadow consistant in the work of Marvin and Kris:

A while back OTF did an experiment with a drone mock up.  His conclusion was that the small arms were NOT aligned perfectly.  I also notice the fins that hang down from the torus do not seem to be aligned either.  Strange characteristic for something many call cgi.   

[BigFnTuna]

A while back OTF did an experiment with a drone mock up.  His conclusion was that the small arms were NOT aligned perfectly.  I also notice the fins that hang down from the torus do not seem to be aligned either.  Strange characteristic for something many call cgi.   

I agree completely.  The small arms are even on hinges, so it would be very likely they are not aligned perfectly. 

Tuna

[EVS2]

More action:

Mr. Jeddyhi, I was asked the same question by Marvin, and I want to answer.

1.st: "Isaac" was intriqued by the witnesses photo's, Raj and Ty, and the obvious reason was the resemblance of the "Primer" and the "Language" shown in the witness photo's.

2.cond: If the correlations (That is obvious) are consistant, the language are the same, and therefor consistant throughout the whole "hoax".

So, every witness are either the same person inventing this whole story, or they never was connected in any way.

3.rd: The hoaxer has taken several other persons in to help him/she in this elaborate hoax.

Surely "spinoffs" was expected, as not everyone here are that gullible...

No, I still seriously doubt that any major TV source even are collective aware, what goes on in every single show, so the Idea of LMH and Whitley and their influence is common knowledge, no...I seriously doubt that...

Marvin, I think TY did move, and the forground image of the trees changed, but the farther trees stayed in the same position.

Maybe this is where the evidence halts, because we don't know the exact perspective, but he sure didn't move more than a couple of steps...

Merry Christmas,

DrStern

Ps: (Edit to add) Isn't it remarkable that TY takes 1 (one) picture, then add the Drone, and shows it as "inset" in a serie, and then takes 1 (one) other picture, showing the same Drone from a different position...weird isn't it? From a hoaxers point of view?

[elevenaugust]

Isn't it remarkable that TY takes 1 (one) picture, then add the Drone, and shows it as "inset" in a serie, and then takes 1 (one) other picture, showing the same Drone from a different position...weird isn't it? From a hoaxers point of view?

I Clearly explained a while ago on OMF that two High rez picture like Ty's KK and LL) with two objects on it, one on the background and one on the foreground can show No (or at least very few - depends of the real distance of the objects) size differences when resized at a poor resolution (Like LMH did it with the Ty's pictures.)

There's no mystery at all in the drone size difference between KK and LL.

[majicbar]

A shadows study using HPO's model would seem to be able to provide some answers to the shadow question. Using a bright light source to simulate the sun could be one study, using the real sun could be another and different ground types another. I still think that the cloaking/invisibility aspect of the drone might also distort the local atmosphere and thus also the shadows falling on the drone.

[EVS]

More Christmas fun:

Mr. Jeddyhi

Please don't patronize me, as I see your post as an insult to my intelligence.

All these things has been debated, and I certainly ask myself why we haven't arose beyond this...

As I see it, the only reason to keep this alive, is that you're not at all sure that what you present is true.

I on the other hand are not able (As standing) to prove that this issue is real.

So, we're at status quo, you have your arguments, and I have mine....

True debate is when one discuss evidence as presented, and some here master that disciplin, some not.

Here it's open if the "evidence" is present, or a clever hoax.

Either side has presented possible ways, this either is true or hoax. To little avail, in my humble opinion!

If you are so sure of your belief, why not standardize it, and write a scientific paper explaining the whole "hoax" in a way that is understandable to the scientific world?

I'll save you the work...it's not possible!

That's why every spinoff excites you, telling you this is all a hoax...

But, stubborn as you are, you hold onto the belief that this could never happen!

Sure, it could happen! Maybe you haven't checked up on your science, but what is shown in the "Isaac" files actually might be used as we speak, and known as "Terrestrial" research, and you, the common man, wouldn't be the wiser.

It's everywhere, in your cellphone 4g is the next step...

Sorry to say, but evolution took 1000'th of years...the human developement takes only a few 100 years, a very small if not microns of time compared to how evolution created you and me. And ofcourse we need to think "out of the box" as the development of super computers times itself double every time you go to the lavatory!

You, Mr. Jeddyhi, are a thinker who lost the real foundation upon every civilisation is built! In other words, you live in the "Dark Ages".

Merry Christmas,

DrStern

--o0o--

the answer from Mr. Jeddyhi:

Drstern, if you insist on talking down to me, you can go finger yourself! Happy holidays!

[EVS]

I rest my case, and wish all here at The Drone Research Team a Merry Christmas, and may your God be with you! 

EVS

This is a small Christmas present to Douglas, and to you all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3PBmPORUog

Notice that the Organ Player Mr. Jim Riggs also plays the organ at Palo Alto. (No one figured that out at the UCB, and they call themselves investigators..)

http://sierrachapteratos.home.att.net/riggs.html

[EVS]

I have selected a couple of papers, that in a professional way shows how to find out if a digital photo is authentic or not:

PUBLICATIONS
Digital Forensics

http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/LukFriSPIE06_v9.pdf

Detecting Digital Image Forgeries Using Sensor Pattern Noise

--o0o--

http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/Crop_scale.pdf

Camera Identification from Cropped and Scaled Images

--o0o--

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=5-ways-to-spot-a-fake

Digital Forensics: 5 Ways to Spot a Fake Photo

--o0o--

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=photo-tampering-throughout-history

Digital Forensics: Photo Tampering Throughout History [Slide Show]

--o0o--

EVS