UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stray Cat said:
Like I just said go and learn something and come back to me when you have.
Click to expand...

There is something screwy with your logic here or there is something screwy with Condon’s diagram (or perhaps both!).

First - If it is as you say, then the lines should intersect at the position of the camera (or in fact just behind the camera position because one obviously cannot have a “zero” sized UFO) – but in the diagram they actually intersect forward of the garage and beside the house…and this is NOT what is observed in the photos, which show the camera position to be to the rear of both the garage and the house.

But let us look at the direction of the UFO a little more closely…

Now…when first sighted:

”Immediately after they both saw the object, apparently as it was still in a NE direction, moving slowly toward the W ”

So…moving West.

THAT being said I can see how you get that the UFO, if moving toward them from the NE would have been moving SW

“At this time "the object was coming in toward us…”

However, THAT must have meant the UFO changed direction (from moving W) to be then moving SW…. BUT NOTE: that is before the photos were taken!

I actually took Hartmann's diagram to represent the time between the first and second photos… and during THAT time, the UFO moved NW….

” Witness II explained that he took the first picture, re-wound his film as fast as possible and then as the object gathered speed and turned toward the northwest, he had to move rapidly to his right to get the second picture…” (p.608)

THEN it turned W as it moved away.

“The UFO accelerated slowly during or just after the second photograph and moved away rapidly toward the west “

THAT means that Hartmann has screwed up with his diagram. IF it was meant to represent the direction of the UFO between the time of the two photos… the arrow should have been pointing NW (rather than SW as shown).

BUT of course he could NOT do that… because if he did, then the diagram would mean the UFO was getting BIGGER as it moved away (from Time 1 on the right, to Time 2 on the left) – that is of course if we are supposed to take the diverging lines as representative of the size of the UFO at various distances and the arrow as indicating the direction of the UFO – and that is patently a nonsense.

Note also however that the “arrow” in Hartmann’s diagram is double headed! This means it was NOT meant as directional arrow at all! Which brings me right back to my original point. YOU assumed (and still DO!) that it was a directional arrow – when it is in fact NOTHING of the kind.

Hartman seems to be fudging in this diagram. Wanting to try and have a little bit both ways. And THAT is an erroneous conception. AND it has lead YOU into the same erroneous conception!

Finally, for your edification… here is Trent demonstrating how he used the camera.

picture.php
 
Rramjet said:
Finally, for your edification… here is Trent demonstrating how he used the camera.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=377&pictureid=2296[/qimg]
Click to expand...
And your source for this picture is?
 
Rramjet said:
Hey chief... how ya doin?
Not a "fan" of "caps and shouting"?
Why do it then?
...and your resort to abuse?
Do you think your post here is reflective of a mature, rational approach to debate?
How do you think outsiders might consider your post in reflection on JREF and James Randi as its figurehead?
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension much? Didn't think so...

I'm quoting. Specifically, I'm poking Sledge for the lengths he's gone to to try and get you to understand some simple points that appear to be beyond your comprehension.

Point to me using all caps and big text in a post. Can't find any? Ooops. Didn't think so.

Find a post where I claim to speak for the JREF and Randi. Can't find any? Ooops. Didn't think so.

Maybe it comes down to 'didn't think'. You think? Didn't think so...




A
 
wollery said:
And your source for this picture is?
Click to expand...
It's from the series of Life magazine photos I posted…

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=3cab19afe215bf4e

I was hoping he would post that one because he already “debunked” photos like these…

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=93c2d09f1d1d3eac
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=3f13efbd68a2d7f8

…by claiming he was just doing what the reporter wanted him to do.

Based on the rest of the photos in that series…

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=0be7a1506d9904aa
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/l?imgurl=91989c080a17318b

…looks like he’s just pretending to adjust the camera to me.


ETA: Location of controls here...

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/roamer/parts01.jpg
http://www.butkus.org/chinon/roamer/parts01-b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Andrew Wiggin said:
I'm quoting. Specifically, I'm poking Sledge for the lengths he's gone to to try and get you to understand some simple points that appear to be beyond your comprehension.
Click to expand...
Do you think I should try different colour letters and crazy fonts next? Actually, I'm not sure coloured text is an option on this forum. I might have to knock something up in MS Paint and post the jpg.
 
Sledge said:
Do you think I should try different colour letters and crazy fonts next? Actually, I'm not sure coloured text is an option on this forum. I might have to knock something up in MS Paint and post the jpg.
Click to expand...

I think you need to get all timecubey on him. Lots of random font and color changes. If all else fails, code it somewhere else and link to it. Gotta do what ya gotta do to communicate.

A
 
Rramjet said:
Finally, for your edification… here is Trent demonstrating how he used the camera.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=377&pictureid=2296[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Yep, I always hold my camera in really awkward ways and use the waist viewfinder, expecially when I just got off the turnip truck, and I'm taking pictures of a big scary UFO...

Um..... No

A
 
Maybe I should post a blurry picture of something that might be a person, and insist that it's me asking for proof of aliens?
 
Rramjet said:
There is something screwy with your logic here or there is something screwy with Condon’s diagram (or perhaps both!).
Click to expand...
Or the third option available - You don't understand the diagram

Rramjet said:
First - If it is as you say, then the lines should intersect at the position of the camera (or in fact just behind the camera position because one obviously cannot have a “zero” sized UFO) – but in the diagram they actually intersect forward of the garage and beside the house…and this is NOT what is observed in the photos, which show the camera position to be to the rear of both the garage and the house.
Click to expand...
Observation not a strong point for you?
If you look at the Condon diagram, it marks a '1' and '2' in the back yard.
These are the approximate positions of the camera. Yes the diagram isn't top quality, for starters, it is a bitmap .gif but I'm not sure the original would be much better. It was probably never drawn to be microscopically discussed on a forum. :rolleyes:

Rramjet said:
But let us look at the direction of the UFO a little more closely…
Click to expand...
Why? it's irrelevant...

Rramjet said:
THAT means that Hartmann has screwed up with his diagram. IF it was meant to represent the direction of the UFO between the time of the two photos… the arrow should have been pointing NW (rather than SW as shown).

BUT of course he could NOT do that… because if he did, then the diagram would mean the UFO was getting BIGGER as it moved away (from Time 1 on the right, to Time 2 on the left) – that is of course if we are supposed to take the diverging lines as representative of the size of the UFO at various distances and the arrow as indicating the direction of the UFO – and that is patently a nonsense.
Click to expand...
Which is why the moving away North West is nonsense which is not backed up by the physical evidence of the photos. The object has been measured in both photos and been determined to be only a minute fraction different in angular size, which means it was very nearly the same distance away form the camera in both shots. If it was moving AWAY from the camera, this would not be the case. The combination of information that we know (taken form the photos) and what we know about ratios of size:distance allow calculations to be made, this information is what has been used to draw the Condon Plan diagram. Why is it only you who doesn't get it?

Or perhaps I'm being presumptuous, does ANYONE else not understand the diagram?

Rramjet said:
Note also however that the “arrow” in Hartmann’s diagram is double headed! This means it was NOT meant as directional arrow at all! Which brings me right back to my original point. YOU assumed (and still DO!) that it was a directional arrow – when it is in fact NOTHING of the kind.
Click to expand...
The positions of the black dots marked at the end of the double headed arrow show the possible positions of the object when the two photos were taken. It was obviously then traveling between these two points, so it indicates a direction of travel.

Rramjet said:
Finally, for your edification… here is Trent demonstrating how he used the camera.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=377&pictureid=2296
Click to expand...

It's already been pointed out but now this little outburst comes back to haunt you:
Rramjet said:
Well, sure, but do you know how journalists work. Let me tell you, they pose you in precisely the way THEY want to compose THEIR picture – it hardly matters to them what the external reality of the situation might be (or have been), it is all down to how THEY want to represent things (to make a good photo for the magazine). They say things like “Now stand just there, face that way, now hold the camera up to your eye as if taking a photo… no, up to your eye… okay, thanks, now another facing that way… up to your eye again… yes, your eye… okay, good…now…” And so on… the final choice of how you pose is NOT up to you… and of course you don’t want to cause an argument so you take the path of least resistance and go with it. It happens all the time… so your Life magazine photos “prove” nothing except that Trent was posed by a Life photographer in that way.
Click to expand...
 
To pick up on the relevant points (and leaving the shouting match behind please):

In your diagram (originally posted #5091, p. 128), you placed an arrow pointing SE indicating “Direction of UFO Travel”

I pointed out, in consideration of the witness statements, that this was an incorrect assessment.

You persisted in claiming that it WAS correct.

I then stated:
“But let us look at the direction of the UFO a little more closely… and followed that with a detailed examination of the witness statements showing how your “direction of travel” was erroneous.

You replied:
Stray Cat said:
Why? it's irrelevant...
Click to expand...
If it IS “irrelevant”, then why include it in your diagram? I stand by my assessment that you have an erroneous conception of the direction of travel of the UFO during the time between the two photos – NW - which IS (after all) what the diagram (yours and Hartmann’s) represents.

Stray Cat said:
Which is why the moving away North West is nonsense which is not backed up by the physical evidence of the photos. The object has been measured in both photos and been determined to be only a minute fraction different in angular size, which means it was very nearly the same distance away form the camera in both shots. If it was moving AWAY from the camera, this would not be the case. The combination of information that we know (taken form the photos) and what we know about ratios of size:distance allow calculations to be made, this information is what has been used to draw the Condon Plan diagram. Why is it only you who doesn't get it?
Click to expand...
Or perhaps I'm being presumptuous, does ANYONE else not understand the diagram?

The object reduces in size by about 10% between the first and second photo.

This is how you determine that.
Using the photos at:
Photo 1. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg)
Photo 2. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg)

First thing to note is that the photos are of different size.
However, if you measure a common distance over the background hills on both images (I used the tall tree on the central hill measured to the top of the bluff to the right of that) you will note that there is about a 6% differential.
Second, using a capable image processing program – zoom both pictures to the same proportion (I used about 850%) and measure the UFOs.
Next subtract 6% of the UFO size in the first picture (to compensate for the size differential) and then render the two sizes as a proportion (or percentage) and you will see that the UFO in picture 2 decreases in size between the first and second photos by at least ten percent (incidentally, Hartmann calculates this to be 8% - but lets not quibble). The point is that the UFO moved away from the observers, which means travelling NORTHWEST. THIS is how the “calculations are made”. THIS is the “proof” showing your statement ”…which means it was very nearly the same distance away form the camera in both shots. If it was moving AWAY from the camera, this would not be the case.” false.

Stray Cat said:
The positions of the black dots marked at the end of the double headed arrow show the possible positions of the object when the two photos were taken. It was obviously then traveling between these two points, so it indicates a direction of travel.
Click to expand...
In scientific or technical drawing, a double-headed arrow CAN never and WILL never indicate “a direction of travel”! I am sorry, but that is just the way it is. Hartmann has “fudged” his drawing to make it seem like he is indicating something that is just NOT logical for such a drawing. In fact the drawing itself is a bit of a sham – go and ask someone who is familiar with these types of calculations and familiar with technical drawing. Please…

As for the photos… I was having a little fun (while making a serious point). The whole POINT was that such photos - like Trent holding the camera up to his eye - posted by another UFO debunker – repeatedly - supposedly to make the point that THIS was how Trent used his camera – is directly refuted by ANOTHER photo from the same batch showing Trent using the “waist level” view finder ! Thus my statement: ” It happens all the time… so your Life magazine photos “prove” nothing except that Trent was posed by a Life photographer in that way.” remains TRUE, UNLESS we take the photos themselves into account – in which case we can see that he probably DID use the “waist level” view-finder to take the photos.

If you object by saying that’s unlikely because of a rapidly moving UFO, I merely point to the witness statement that the UFO was “almost hovering” and “moving very slowly” at the time the photos were taken.

So, your original “direction” claim (made in your diagram) has been shown to be false and the more general claim that Trent would not have used the “waist level” view finder has also been shown to be falsifiable.

So, far from:
Stray Cat said:
It's already been pointed out but now this little outburst comes back to haunt you:
Click to expand...
I stand by it 100%!


PS: Whatever did happen to "Chuck"? ;)
 
Rramjet said:
In scientific or technical drawing, a double-headed arrow CAN never and WILL never indicate “a direction of travel”! I am sorry, but that is just the way it is. Hartmann has “fudged” his drawing to make it seem like he is indicating something that is just NOT logical for such a drawing. In fact the drawing itself is a bit of a sham – go and ask someone who is familiar with these types of calculations and familiar with technical drawing. Please…
Click to expand...

Now that the diagram makes sense to me, plus the fact that UFOs move in mysterious ways, as you have so often quoted, and hubcaps on string oscillate, (viewed from above) a double headed arrow can (and should) indeed be used to indicate travel.
 
Rramjet, if the photo proves to be genuine, how does it prove aliens? This doesn't seem to be a difficult question so I'm baffled* by your refusal to answer it.




*by which I mean "not baffled in the slightest"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom