Author Topic: Hasty conclusions  (Read 11499 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Nemo492

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 769
  • Karma: +30/-1
    • Ovnis-USA
Hasty conclusions
« on: August 04, 2008, 09:05:04 PM »
Last time I heard the hoax hunters screaming that loud,
they had found a mouse cursor.

« Last Edit: August 04, 2008, 09:12:48 PM by Nemo492 »
http://ovnis-usa.com
The only motivation for the DRT is finding the truth.

Offline Gfamad

  • Junior Dronie
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2008, 11:38:17 AM »
lol ! Well, that's a good new for us !

But it would be a great mistake to forget to remove the mouse before taking the photo. I never really believe in such a mistake !

Gfamad

Online Nemo492

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 769
  • Karma: +30/-1
    • Ovnis-USA
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2008, 02:05:43 AM »
Hot debates yesterday on OMF, but Spf33 refused to play their game :

Quote from: one who's there for the fun

Since you are one of the experts, who proved the shadows being wrong - as one of the first, after 1111 - it is irritating to me, that you now try to prove your proof wrong with things like that.

Spf : i've been saying since day 1 of the missing shadow issue that reflected light could be the cause. where have you been?

flickr is loaded with examples of the same common phenomenon.

i provided real world examples of reflected light obscuring direct shadows to which 1111 refuted the possibility to which i provided my own example showing it is possible.

why is the possibility of reflected light obscuring the shadow so hard to accept?

this feels like the chad scan2 scan4 drone scale issue which i also showed is a common phenomenon.

http://ovnis-usa.com
The only motivation for the DRT is finding the truth.

Offline leviathan

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 290
  • Karma: +22/-0
    • L E V I A T H A N
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2008, 03:10:00 AM »
OMF could not close its thread fast enough for me.  We here know what they say is gibberish, childish and above all inaccurate. They add nothing to the research.  Let them declare the Drone/Isaac issue null and void.  The Drones will not mind at all and can continue their work in silence and seriousness and Isaac can stay hidden.
L E V I A T H A N
We at L E V I A T H A N were banned from the UFO Casebook Forum and it is so sad.
http://livyatan.blogspot.com/

Offline tomi

  • Hero Dronie #2
  • ********
  • Posts: 668
  • Karma: +36/-26
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2008, 12:47:36 PM »
Hi Nekitamo,



Here is what I see that doesn't add up to the example posted on OM forum.
I'm debating if I should post it there, but I've been warned I am spamming  :o

majicbar

  • Guest
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2008, 05:44:35 PM »
There is one mighty assumption in the analysis of Rajman1977's photo16: the atmosphere around the drone is not altering the air around it and therefore the light transmitted through that atmosphere is unaltered, and therefore we can analize the shadows in the photograph to normalize and validate the photograph.

Assume, if we will, an alternative.

Assume 1, that the drone is real.
Assume 2, that the drone is flying.
Assume 3, that the drone does alter the atmosphere that it is flying in.
Assume 4, that the drone may also effect the gravitational and electromagnetic environment around it, apart from the atmospheric effects.

That is our "if", then, from what we then know of the atmosphere and its behavior, and knowing of gravitational lensing and that light is an electromagnetic phenomena, we might be observing the physical effects of forces and phenomena we do not normally encounter, which makes sense if the drone is real. If light is reflected, as in a mirage, or there is lensing or otherwise alterations of the light from its normal paths, the exercise of trying to normalize a scene and analize its truthfullness for the "lighting inconsistencies" is a fools game. We very well could label the photograph as a hoax for impossible shadows and yet the drone and the photograph could still be genuine. In that we cannot yet establish that the drone is real or CGI, and we cannot establish that we can know its flight mechanism if real, then the case must remain open and we do not have a valid test for whether this really can be proved as a CGI hoax just based on the shadows cast by the lighting. We know some will be satisfied by labeling this as a CGI hoax, and it might be, but, still, it might be that the drone is a genuine UFO.

Online Nemo492

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 769
  • Karma: +30/-1
    • Ovnis-USA
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2008, 06:19:36 PM »
That is clever, but you cannot ask a closed mind
to consider the possibility of being real.
http://ovnis-usa.com
The only motivation for the DRT is finding the truth.

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2008, 06:23:52 PM »
Hasty conclusions is exactly what I'm seeing.  But for some that is good enough I guess.  As long as it fits the agenda it seems it does not matter if mistakes were made.  Trying to account for every little shadow is a daunting process.  So many variables involved and only one unique combination will give the correct result.

I see people guessing about shadows and whether they are really shadows and what they are caused by.  Some of these people may end up regretting the stance they took on this.  Some reputations teetering on the brink.  It's fine to speculate but be careful about basing conclusions on that.

Offline drewlac

  • Full Dronie
  • ***
  • Posts: 26
  • Karma: +7/-0
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2008, 07:05:15 PM »
Are there any updates on finding the telephone pole?

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what good it would do.  IMO, the shadow analysis is very compelling. 

However, as I've and others have stated on OM, this case is so huge and complex.  I can't get my head around this being a "typical" hoax.  This has design and a purpose.  I haven't written this off as closed yet, my gut tells me that there is more to come, my feeling is that this is a piece to a bigger puzzle.  What I have no clue, but I'll be watching  8)

Endzone

  • Guest
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2008, 07:20:05 PM »
Spamming my butt, if thats spamming then Marvin cross posting those same 2 images into about 4-5 different threads should be considered spamming as well. That place is no longer friendly to this side of the fence or on the fencers in general. They have chosen the hoax camp and as such the bias has unleveled the playing field there. And if you try to discredit his images now you are tossing out his work as some have said, what a crock!  :o
« Last Edit: August 07, 2008, 02:24:37 AM by Endzone »

Offline leviathan

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 290
  • Karma: +22/-0
    • L E V I A T H A N
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2008, 07:45:45 PM »

One shadow tells the tale and there is no missing shadow.
L E V I A T H A N
We at L E V I A T H A N were banned from the UFO Casebook Forum and it is so sad.
http://livyatan.blogspot.com/

Offline leviathan

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 290
  • Karma: +22/-0
    • L E V I A T H A N
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2008, 08:17:03 PM »
The shadow analysis is incorrect.  We agree that it is compelling, but for very different reasons.  The SUN is not where the "DATA" says it is and that is visible, so the "DATA" is incorrect.  Now we do not expect any to agree with this, so those who think the case is over should consider it so and let us who know it is not continue in our belief.  Consider it like religion, and feel comfort in your belief, but do not expect all to follow. Those who have gained enlightenment should move forward along their chosen path.
L E V I A T H A N
« Last Edit: August 07, 2008, 04:51:30 AM by leviathan »
We at L E V I A T H A N were banned from the UFO Casebook Forum and it is so sad.
http://livyatan.blogspot.com/

Offline leviathan

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 290
  • Karma: +22/-0
    • L E V I A T H A N
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2008, 04:09:32 PM »


This argument of using the same background with a composited model is also bogus as can be seen from the above.  The background is not just rotated, but a completely different background with the Drone having moved between exposures.  The continued arguments on these points is very useless due to the many effects nature produces, but if anyone chooses to accept that the Drones are simple, silly CG because they are ordered to (another site) then by all means do so.
L E V I A T H A N
We at L E V I A T H A N were banned from the UFO Casebook Forum and it is so sad.
http://livyatan.blogspot.com/

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2008, 06:55:11 PM »
Are there any updates on finding the telephone pole?

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what good it would do.  IMO, the shadow analysis is very compelling. 

However, as I've and others have stated on OM, this case is so huge and complex.  I can't get my head around this being a "typical" hoax.  This has design and a purpose.  I haven't written this off as closed yet, my gut tells me that there is more to come, my feeling is that this is a piece to a bigger puzzle.  What I have no clue, but I'll be watching  8)

I agree with your gut  :D

But be careful about how much faith you put in biased analysis.  This is not over yet.

The pole search has not been pursued much lately.  Nothing new to report.

Offline EVS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 538
  • Karma: +26/-0
Re: Hasty conclusions
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2008, 10:15:23 PM »
I'm far from being an expert in photo analysis, and therefor incompetent in this discussion, but isn't it a little suspicious that a hoaxer would go as far in making, as this really remarkable work done here shows?

I have a gut feeling, that the more digged into, the more doubt is sown.

I am afraid that it just might be real photo's afterall, sometimes it just come to go in circles.

The source of the original photo's are where the investigation should begin.

I know it's really difficult, but cutting down a real image to pixels might not prove anything in this case, as it has not done so in many other similar cases.

The advantage, however, is that the photo's alledgedly triggered "Isaac" to reveal what he saw and recogniced as familiar study that he himself was involved with, and that it had enough in it to make him release the "explanation", should be evidence enough, and further scrutinizing should maybe be on the link that triggered him to do so, if we're to believe his part of this enigma.

Just my humble thoughts, I do not hold the answer,

EVS

 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2008, 10:39:04 PM by EVS »