Drone Research Team

Drones Research Team - Research => Drones dimensions and location measurements => : Nemo492 August 09, 2008, 07:48:56 PM

: Challenging the biased PoV
: Nemo492 August 09, 2008, 07:48:56 PM
45Letters on OMF

here is a better resolution photo.

(http://ovnis-usa.com/images/45Letters_shadows03be0.th.jpg) (http://ovnis-usa.com/images/45Letters_shadows03be0.jpg)

in order to avoid confusion, I added a grid aligned to the sun angle.

my red lines are hand-drawn, so are not exact, but the grid should show the shadows still fall along the same angle.

I do *NOT* see where the shadow angles intersect near the boom or anywhere even close to the image.

also the shadows on the telephone pole are not in disagreement.

Yes I do understand all the points brought up previously. No, I do not agree with all of the points brought up. Also based on what I am looking at I do not see any incorrectly angled shadows or missing shadows.

Three things:

1) the support wire for the telephone pole indicates it could be leaning away from the observer and to the right. It is *taught* not loose, thus there is some force being exerted by a lean.

Kris brought up previously, for the shadows to be where they are, the drone would have to be banked far to the left. Why not instead the telephone pole leans to the right??? We have no reference point to the ground, so it is possible it may be the other way around.

2) The drone is a detached object from the telephone pole. i.e. there are no restrictions to the angle, rotation or orientation it may have. In other words, it is valid it could be tilted up at 25 degrees and banked to the left 30 degrees if need be, as long as the perspective of the photo allows for the drone to still be viewed the same. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical))

3) what are the odds the drone is exactly aligned to the sun at 0.00 degrees? *IF* the drone was CG, this indicates the CG model was left at a default orientation and no rotation was done on the CG. I have not had a chance to see if this is present in other pictures, but it is very coincidental. Either that, or the drone has *very* good and far superior stabilizing devices to our own.

If the long arm is 15 feet, the domes are 1 foot in diameter and 6" in protrusion, the shadow from the tip of the long boom must be within less than 1" in azimuth to not cast shadow on the dome, and still have the dome be lit by direct sunlight and the underside of the arm not lit by direct sunlight. (I am referring also to the top dome casting shadow on the bottom middle and bottom right domes.)

Give #3 some thought. The drone is oriented *exactly* level with the sun, not the ground. What are the implications of this?
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: leviathan August 09, 2008, 07:55:54 PM
The Drone is using the Sun for its own purposes in total disregard of any Human thought on the subject.  The Drones really seem to be blissfully using their on physics whether humans like it or not.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: Nemo492 August 09, 2008, 10:04:13 PM
From Jeddyhi, OMF

45L, point one above is flawed in one respect. The guy wires are installed to prevent leaning. They are installed and tightened to counter react tension from another direction. So the taut wire should be an indication of support keeping the pole upright.

We can hypothesize all we want, but the shadow simulations thus far indicate two separate light sources.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: Nemo492 August 09, 2008, 10:06:50 PM
From Kris, OMF

Hi 45.

Firstly, this analysis cannot be done using two dimensional methods. There is not enough information in that photograph to correctly understand the shadows.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if the telegraph pole is leaning almost on the ground. Its placement is relative to the drone. This means that the two items at this point in time (when the photo was taken) are fixed where the are in relation to each other. You can't alter one objects relationship with the sun, without altering the others relationship with the sun.

It is like a jigsaw piece. You can only place these objects into that 3d space in one way. So when we are lining them up in a 3d environment, i can't adjust the pole to give a different relationship with the single source of light (the sun) than the drone has. They occupy the same 3 dimensional space. Unfortunately, the only way to alter this relationship with the sun is to have 2 suns! And even then, that doesn't resolve the shadows cast on the drones body.
As nekitamo has shown, and I have tested (results will be up next week) the light that illuminates the drone is just beyond the tip of the long arm. It isn't even millions of miles away!.. It is a local spotlight source of light.

I don't understand what you are saying about the drone being zero degrees to the sun I'm afraid, so i can't answer that.

But if you look at the images I created... the ones at the bottom... these are orthographic views. As you can see, the drone is tipped forward. The light source isn't in line with it in any way. It is off centre.
To me, this says that the drone and the light source were done by eye. There was no technical skill at work when it came to matching the lighting to the photograph.
The hoaxer did it all by eye, and tried to make it look right. And it does 'look' right (ish), but when tested, as I have shown, it is completely wrong.

Oh, also on 3, we have no reference as to where the ground is, or what angle the pole is... so this means we can't determine if the drone is oriented to it or not. The drone is definitely not oriented to the sun. This is the point.

I wish this was all easier to explain.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: Nemo492 August 09, 2008, 10:39:35 PM
From Spf33

i've been saying since day 1 of the missing shadow issue that reflected light could be the cause.

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.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: leviathan August 09, 2008, 11:12:46 PM
OMFER, there are not TWO (2) sources of light.  There is one SOURCE of light and many sources of REFLECTED Light.  You know that, but carefully worded your retort to indicate TWO (2) completely unique sources of light.
The pole shows there are not.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: 10538 August 10, 2008, 01:53:39 AM
I agree with what 45L is saying and have for a while now been saying essentially the same.  There is no missing shadow.  From all of my analysis, the long arm shadow is on the side of the appendage that has the six small spikes on it.  The perspective of the drone in pict16 is such that it appears that this is not possible but if you check the angles in a flat 2D representation you'll see it is not only possible but probable.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: spinnewise August 10, 2008, 02:36:58 AM
What I don't understand is why OMF makes a fuss about what we at DRT think about the drones???
If they think they know the truth - fine, let them know what they like. But they should be openminded enough to let us look for gorillas.
By the way, I am coming from the sceptic side.
And I am not convinced there are real problems with those shadows.
When we have fotos of the model we will see.
And I bet there will still be ufo believers who don't believe in reality.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: Nemo492 August 10, 2008, 03:51:57 PM
and this from HPO
explains why we should all be patient :

"I'm a busy man, I can't even find time enough for the Raj model.
The machines are also filled up to their neck with orders, that's the reason why the "real" model is getting slow at the moment.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: leviathan August 10, 2008, 03:57:31 PM
We are patient and humorous Demons.  We have all the time possible to wait and are sure HPO will produce a fine and useful model.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: Nemo492 August 11, 2008, 06:36:14 PM
From Kris, OMF

Hi 45.
Firstly, this analysis cannot be done using two dimensional methods. There is not enough information in that photograph to correctly understand the shadows.

45Letters replies on August 11th

How can the light source be just off the boom when the shadows line up in parallel??? this would be impossible! nekitamo is using the wrong "tooth" on the underbody of the craft, so OBVIOUSLY this would cause triangulation at the wrongest point possible.

If you don't understand the "drone aligned exactly to the sun" point.. (which surprises me you dont see this...) .. I'll explain it again.

The underbody of the long arm has no direct sunlight on it, but the domes *DO*. Also the dome farthest away from the center casts a shadow on 2 of the inner domes.

The *only* possible way this can be is if the drone Z-axis is aligned 0.00 degrees to the sun. I don't need a 3D program, this is simple logic. If it was 1.00+ degrees upward, the bottom of the arm would reflect direct sunlight. if it was 1.00- degrees downward, the domes would not reflect direct sunlight, or cast shadow on the other domes.

In regards to the lean or orientation, or any of the crossbars of the telephone pole... good luck making any points stick. IMHO, the telephone pole could be leaning at a 30 degree angle, or perfectly straight, but it is simply impossible to prove *what* angle it is at. Why? we have no other reference points other than the drone. And we know already if the drone is free-floating it can rotate at any angle.

We have no ground, no trees, no horizon, no mountains, no buildings. We simply have nothing to prove or disprove what angle the pole or crossbars may be leaning at.

But as far as rendition techniques ... I would have to disagree and insist we *must* use 2D techniques... at least to map a *possible* 3D orientation, which still has thousands of other permutations, because there is no stereographic picture to accurately calculate depth.

I am very sorry to say, but most of what all the 3D "EXPERTS" are doing here is pure speculation. You simply cannot judge how far away something is is one eye. This is exactly what I see here.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: leviathan August 11, 2008, 07:39:01 PM
What is said above is exactly right and is true of all these particular arguments.  Those who pursue this are very well aware of this.  There is no proof of anything in all this "I smell smoke and missing shadow business".  Therefore what is their point in continuing this!!!  I know just what it is and so do others.  It is really very, very obvious.  Much more data of the exact "natural" conditions would have to be known to really prove anything.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: Nemo492 August 11, 2008, 07:48:15 PM
Kris on OMF

45, your logic is so out that I'm not even sure i have the effort to explain it again.

How you can possibly think that 2d analysis of this image can be superior to the 3d studies that have taken place I do not know.

Lets start this simply by asking the following questions...

1) In your opinion, does the telegraph pole model closely match the angle and features of the telegraph pole shown in the photo?

2) Does the CG drone angle and orientation match the drone in the photograph? (irrelevant of finer model features)

3) Comparing the cg drone and the photo drone, can you see any serious amounts of stretching of its shape in either?

4) Do you accept that objects share a relationship with sun through the angle of light that it casts upon them, given that these objects are fixed in space and time within this photograph?

If you could answer these questions as simply as you can, with as close to a yes or no answer, then I will continue.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: Nemo492 August 11, 2008, 07:49:14 PM
Reply from 45Letters

If I see something that is happening that is wrong I am going to speak up.

I am only asking why. Why is everyone quick to agree with data that isn't double checked. everyone says no disagreement, yet *I* am disagreeing. So then if you continue to say no disagreement you are also lying, decveiveing, and also ignoring what I am saying, which is insulting. .

everyone stop for a second.

there is a problem with the 3D findings. if everyone will stop and take a second look.. maybe we can be clear on *what* is wrong. OKAY? ;D
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: leviathan August 12, 2008, 06:40:05 PM
Also... well done Jake and I think your information should be ushered up in front of the line for all OMers to process.... your absolutely right... OM was central in this whole story and if it weren't for the drones, regardless of their origin, OM wouldn't have been 'plugged' like you said in two different national-scope media formats...

Read the above and you will understand the agenda for that particular site and its "experts".  Now believe as you will.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: spinnewise August 12, 2008, 08:51:58 PM
Look at this:
http://deputy-dog.com/2008/08/03/horsells-awesome-martian-fighting-machine/ (http://deputy-dog.com/2008/08/03/horsells-awesome-martian-fighting-machine/)
A nice example of CGI looking reality.
: Re: Challenging the biased PoV
: spinnewise August 13, 2008, 12:29:13 AM
Why the missionary eagerness to spread the word of hoax, especially by the new high priest of CGIness Mr. one one one one, who cannot believe that a realworld sun casts the same shadows on two poles, regardless of thickness?
Very openminded this is. There are many ways to blindfold yourself. Overestimating the value of technical tools is one. Underestimating the power of keen observation and the use of common sense is another.