Author Topic: Ted Twietmeyer  (Read 7123 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nemo492

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 769
  • Karma: +30/-1
    • Ovnis-USA
Ted Twietmeyer
« on: January 03, 2009, 02:50:33 PM »


The guy is such a joke ! Armchair speculations.
See how he mislead Kevin Smith, trying to persuade him that these were One martian building and Two strange crafts (Kevin Smith Show, December 30th, 2008) :



When in fact the so-called building and "strange crafts" were part of the rover structure :





http://ovnis-usa.com/2008/12/30/mardi-30-decembre/
http://ovnis-usa.com/2008/12/31/mercredi-31-decembre/

Mp3 Audio

Also the guy is so confused that he thinks there exists a drone video (Salad's)...
« Last Edit: January 03, 2009, 03:06:52 PM by Nemo492 »
http://ovnis-usa.com
The only motivation for the DRT is finding the truth.

Offline Nemo492

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 769
  • Karma: +30/-1
    • Ovnis-USA
Re: Ted Twietmeyer
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2009, 03:03:45 PM »
12/29/08 - Announcement for The Kevin Smith Show :

"The NASA/JPL photos will "knock our socks off". These are crystal clear photos of a huge building (you can even see the girders) and what looks like two very exotic space craft parked on either side of the building."

Some comments on OMF :

onlookerdelay - "Well guys, I hate to say it, but this show never got out of the starting gate. The EZine message clearly presented the notion that what was seen was a building with girders, flanked by what appeared to be two exotic spacecraft. I think the real explanation for these objects is pretty mundane. IMO, they are either reflections of equipment underneath the Spirit's "visor", or they are some sort of hardware that's actually clipped on or attached to the visor.

I suspect that Kevin came to the same realization prior to the program, because he wound up making the major issue to be the lack of a ground reflection in one of the images to be the controversial issue.

Oh well, one more chapter in my book of disappointments for the long anticipated floodgate-opening news that I still think will surface one day.
"

philliman - "He was of the opinion that the pic itsef was doctored and the soil should have been reflected on that solar panel like it was the case on other pics. Also the shadow behind the vehicle appeared to be too dark for him. But if we take a look at Nemo's fantastic animated picture than we can clearly see, that not always the soil is been reflected on the panel and looks as blank as on Kevin's picture.

I also was of the opinion that we would see a fantastic picture and was a bit disappointed that he presented a rather similar picture like onlookerdelay already has posted here. But we should be aware of that the rover won't ever operate in populated areas. If it would get near any kind of settlement, it would cease to function.
"

philliman - "the mentioning of a building and visible girders raised some expectations. I believe it was too late as [Kevin Smith] became aware that there weren't any buildings or spacecraft on that picture, so he concentrated the whole show only on that which was seemingly not visible."

OMF Thread
« Last Edit: January 03, 2009, 03:05:23 PM by Nemo492 »
http://ovnis-usa.com
The only motivation for the DRT is finding the truth.

Offline Nemo492

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 769
  • Karma: +30/-1
    • Ovnis-USA
Re: Ted Twietmeyer
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2009, 03:15:04 PM »
Now the fearless "Expert" would think that he is qualified enough to talk about drones :

'Drone' Photo Analysis Lays Issue To Rest
By Ted Twietmeyer
1-1-9
 
It's good attempt...but not quite perfect. We will use vector analysis of sunlight direction to analyze this image.
 
(See text below image for description of problems.)



Description of vector analysis:
 
1. Looking at image enlargement which shows the illuminated, circled area A, we clearly see sunlight originating from the right side of the image as indicated by vector D.
 
2. The telephone pole crossbar is casting a shadow (E) on the pole itself. Since this circumvents one-half of the pole, this shadow requires the sun to originate overhead from approximately the high noon direction, as shown by vector C.
 
3. Bottom enlargement also shows sunlight vector C could create the shadow on the back side of both white insulators which we see here.
 
4. In the bottom-most enlargement, we see where the "wing" of the craft passing behind the insulator. At the right edge of the insulator, we see that the angled insulator displays a vertical area (circled and notated as B.) Image resolution appears to show that this should not be present, when looking at other areas of this same enlargement. This may be an artifact of combining two seperate images. No computer graphics software is perfect.
 
5. Returning to small insert showing circled area E, we see that the shadow on this side of the pole is on the same side as sunlight is for area A in nearby enlargement. This is also a contradiction.
 
6. In all depictions of this flying object, the "wings" or stabilizers are shown parallel to the ground. This requires a shadow of the wing or stabilizer be seen on the side of the vehicle's body when sunlight originates from overhead. But enlargement A clearly shows this is not the case.
 
Perhaps the function of the telephone pole and power lines were used to provide the viewer with an idea of scale. Something like this is required by the graphic artist. Otherwise, against an featureless blue sky one could not determine the size of the object.
 
This image was posted by Issac on his website, who is also the originator of the ISCARET material. These contradictions and more cast a shadow over his entire story. Others have shown that all the video of this object was performed as CGI, and this analysis provides further confirmation.
 
Ted Twietmeyer

Source
« Last Edit: January 03, 2009, 03:57:32 PM by Nemo492 »
http://ovnis-usa.com
The only motivation for the DRT is finding the truth.

Offline spf33

  • Administrator
  • Major Dronie
  • **********
  • Posts: 216
  • Karma: +29/-0
Re: Ted Twietmeyer
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2009, 03:50:30 PM »
2. The telephone pole crossbar is casting a shadow (E) on the pole itself. Since this circumvents one-half of the pole, this shadow requires the sun to originate overhead from approximately the high noon direction, as shown by vector C.

high noon???  unless i'm misinterpreting what the man is saying, this right here is enough for me to discount his speculations.

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Ted Twietmeyer
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2009, 06:13:48 PM »
high noon???  unless i'm misinterpreting what the man is saying, this right here is enough for me to discount his speculations.

Yes, absolutely terrible analysis.  He put the technical sounding name of "Vector analysis" to fool people into thinking he knows what he's talking about.  This is not new from Rense.  It has come out against the drones before.  Why should anybody put any weight to that anti-Semitic and bigoted yellow journalism is beyond me.