Author Topic: Marvin's assertions  (Read 6459 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline elevenaugust

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1231
  • Karma: +34/-1
  • א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ך ל מ ם נ ן ס ע פ ף צ ץ ק ר
Marvin's assertions
« on: December 18, 2008, 08:39:10 pm »
Interesting to note how Marvin, although Spf, Otf and myself showed many times he was wrong with most of his analysis, continue to claim at the hoax believer forum that he's right.... ::)

Seems like it's a desesperate attempt to debunk everything and anything.....

An example:

It has been suggested that the wind is blowing in the photosâ?¦ but the leaves in the outline of the trees show no evidence of that being the caseâ?¦ a wind strong enough to move branches around would change the profile or outline of the trees, but again this is not happening in Ty's photos (as proven by experimentation).

SPF33 2007-06-21 moving leaves2

On a side note, I thought it would be interesting for everyone to see how the wind affect in a different way differents kinds of trees (I admit nevertheless that the blowing wind is stronger than in Ty's photos)

The tree at the right side (the reddish one) shows leaves and branch moving in a different way than the middle tree. (the foreground branches move more than the background ones)

IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line!

Offline spf33

  • Administrator
  • Major Dronie
  • **********
  • Posts: 216
  • Karma: +29/-0
Re: Marvin's assertions
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2008, 09:48:12 pm »
Seems like it's a desesperate attempt to debunk everything and anything.....

having not looked at the ty photos in literally months, i did exactly the same thing that 11a did. 

i went back to look at the tree studies.   

i respect, but really question, all marvin's investigative conclusions and assertions about the ty photos when he insists they are all cropped backgrouds from 1 single photo.


how anyone can not notice subtle change in perspective between the photos is hard for me to believe. 

it really is surprising that someone would consider the tree elements in ty's photos to be crops of the same background photo...changing camera position, wind, changing drone position, unknown camera specs - fov, focal length, imaging sensor size arguments aside for now.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2008, 10:31:57 pm by spf33 »

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1049
  • Karma: +50/-0
Re: Marvin's assertions
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2008, 06:53:46 pm »
I have moved this topic to this "So-called Expert's opinions" board because Marvin is publicly providing claims of his scientific abilities:
Quote from: Marvin at UFOCasebook
I have spent most of my adult life working in R&D (in an R&D Lab). I have written white papers and I have been published in a major trade journal. I believe I have some concept of what a scientific investigation isâ?¦ or I would not be able to collect a paycheck.

OK, so the moving leaves episode is solved in the previous posts, the leaves did move in the Ty photos despite Marvin's and a few others claims that they did not. That aspect of the case is closed. Maybe someone can point me to where Marvin retracted that claim, I could not find it.

Then, from OMF which has been uncontrollably mobbed by angry drone-hoax believers on many ocassions, a claim is made that the labelling of scanned photos AA to LL is the exact sequence of the photos. No one ever said that these photos are represented in any sequence. The claim made by LMH was that photographs where mailed from Ty to her, then she scanned them in and posted them on her website.

Then Marvin continues his older claim that the Drone did not change size between Ty photos KK-LL. Many before me have explained this to Marvin, here is my summary: The answer is found in science, specifically geometry and trigonometry. Some points about photos and perspective when a camera moves toward/away from objects:
  • Objects close to the camera change size the most
  • Objects furthest from the camera change size the least
This graphic sums up the mathematics involved in analyzing photos when the camera moves closer/further from objects:

We all make mistakes once in a while. Marvin needs to publicly retract any false conclusions.

It's not that I need to defend the drones, but I am appalled when I see claims of scientific abilities and hard conclusions (of hoax in this case) alongside the inability to scientifically analyse something.

Like the above, there are many apparent "inconsistencies" in photographs. I will try at my own pace to understand these.