“Real science”? Try observation Astrophotographer. Try testing different shapes to observe the light patterns produced (one can do this without having to perform the actual experiments if one knows about angles of incidence and reflection from various planes and surfaces – you can even do it on paper if you feel the need).
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
I told you my sampling method (every tenth frame, except where that frame fell on a “smeared” or otherwise unusable image, wherein I simply moved onto the next available usable image and then kept counting every 10 frames). This produced the images you see ([qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=501&pictureid=3135[/qimg]). It was not “designed” in any way, or “hand selected” (as yours and Jocces images were). I simply chose the multiplying integer of “ten” (as an integer that would not produce too may snapshots to reasonably handle and post to the forum over the duration of the video, nor too few) and then whatever image fell in that 10th (20th, 30th, etc) frame - I simply enlarged and reproduced. I had no foreknowledge of what the (multiples of) tenth frame would contain… whatever it was, I simply reproduced it and posted the result to the forum.
More generalised, unfounded assertion. If you can demonstrate my methodology is invalid, then please do so - but please stop making unfounded generalisations without any evidential support. Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.
No NOT “origin”. But you take a simple statement from me (that is) A UFO is “alien” if we cannot find a mundane explanation (because it is foreign to our concepts of the natural or technological world) and add on their own interpretation (in this case assigning “origin”) to try and make it look as if I have contended something I have not. Given that I have explained my statement to you (and others) in this regard countless times in this thread – as you are fully aware - What else am I left with but to conclude this is a deliberate attempt to mislead?
Please show me where I have stated or implied any such thing. I contend it is a sphere, therefore unlikely to have been a “fragment”. Full stop.
Please show me where I have stated or implied any such thing.
However, I have stated directly that your idea of the two craft (CSM & LM) manoeuvring at the same time to produce the effect of an object “jetting” across our field of view is utterly erroneous. I have outlined my reasons for this to you in more than one post now. I have made no judgement at all concerning the nature or origin of the object other than it is spherical (thus not a “fragment” of something else) and on the evidence not inside the LM - and also on the evidence not a meteorite. Full stop.
And far from ” These are your arguments”, they are actually your own erroneousinterpretations of my arguments. My statements stand for themselves. If you choose to distort them for your own purposes, then I cannot help that…but I DO then have the right to demand you show where my statements have lead to the conclusions you have reached. You cannot do so of course… so please stop distorting my statements to fit into your own belief system and start looking at them for what they actually are. Then perhaps you could even try some critical analysis on them to attempt to understand if they actually represent what I am claiming they do. All you are doing here is making distorted unfounded assertions – and that goes beyond being merely unscientific.
I stated:
“Please prove your “6 frames at random” assertion’
“Please prove your “6 frames at random” assertion’
Oh… I see… YOU don’t have to verify or produce any evidence… yet you demand it of me?
I stated:
“There is simply no evidence of brightness fluctuation on the object.”
Moreover, because of the differential shading artefacts (caused by the relatively poor resolution, the video frame rate and the fact that the object is in motion), your “hand selecting” of various individual pixels is an erroneous and unscientific method of sampling – the scientific method would be to average the brightness across the whole image, then note the variation frame to frame and then conduct a similar comparative analysis on a set of the same number of pixels of comparative initial average brightness that one would expect to be most stable (like from the CSM). That is science Astrophotographer – what you have done here is pseudoscience.
“There is simply no evidence of brightness fluctuation on the object.”
Huh? How can images be “painfully obvious”? But perhaps you could also assess a comparative set of pixels on the CSM and tell me the results? I have already stated that a comparative set of pixels on the CSM also exhibits brightness fluctuations (where ideally none should exist) and that these fluctuations are comparative to those seen on the object … so we can assume any brightness fluctuations we see on the object are artifactual rather than real. But once again, I have explained all this before… why do you continue to ignore the evidence of my statements and continue to fail to address their substantive points?
Moreover, because of the differential shading artefacts (caused by the relatively poor resolution, the video frame rate and the fact that the object is in motion), your “hand selecting” of various individual pixels is an erroneous and unscientific method of sampling – the scientific method would be to average the brightness across the whole image, then note the variation frame to frame and then conduct a similar comparative analysis on a set of the same number of pixels of comparative initial average brightness that one would expect to be most stable (like from the CSM). That is science Astrophotographer – what you have done here is pseudoscience.
What “potential artefacts” in my enlarged images? You keep making these unfounded assertions with no evidential support. Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.
Are you serious? I have explained this already. No wonder this thread seems to go round in circles. You say ”x”. I say “y, and here are the reasons y” and you simply repeat “x” without ever addressing the “reasons y”! Please can you directly address my comments on this issue (you do quote them after all).
Please show me where I have stated or implied any such thing. The LM was not manoeuvring – we have direct evidence in the video of this fact.
And as for your “filming at a reduced rate greatly exaggerating the speed”… Show me the evidence of this claim. Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.
And yet you consider that the two vehicles manouvering simultaneously to come together does not contain a “serious potential for collision during docking operations”? Besides, I have explained this to you more than once Astrophotographer. That you continue to ignore my statements on the issue is worrying. You simply do not address the issue that I directly raise with you. Please "let me know" when you feel you are able to directly address my comments on the issue.
Please show me where I have stated or implied any such claim.
No, you place your own interpretation on my statement for your own purposes. They are not my purposes. My stating that there should have been no such object out there does not assign any origin to it at all – it is you who do that Astrophotographer – not I.
Please show me where I have rejected “any” (your meaning is of course that I reject all mundane explanations) potential explanations. Just because I reject yourexplanations based on the evidence before us, does not mean you are the only person who can have explanations - I might accept other's explanations - if they provide evidential support for their claims – I might even accept your own on that basis - However, yours are not the only "explanations" in the world and the world does not subsist on and consist of solely the things you alone believe in.
Once again I can only reiterate Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.
MrBooglemaumau
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 21, 2010
- Messages
- 364
It is up to an individual if they wish to believe in UFOs, or aliens.For me there must be scientific proof of their existence,and physical evidence,otherwise it is just another "this is a true story,it was told to me by a friend of a friend of mine "
I think you mistake a simple camera specification (which was asked for) with something that matters to the actual measurement of the image size on film.
Oh yes indeed - they were conducting laser experiments which required fine resolution photographs.
Yet strangely you feel compelled to carry on regardless…
I stated:
“You are simply incorrect here. If it was a simple “shaky long exposure”, there would be no blobs – just a (perhaps convoluted) continuous steak of light. To get a blob (or blobs), one needs to hold the camera steady. Moreover, in the previous photos in the series there is absolutely no evidence of any shakiness whatsoever – there is none in the photo of interest either (2141).
In a "normal" squiggly image due to hand vibration, when the total image is concentrated near the centre of the photo - as in this case (i.e., when the squiggle lines do not go off the edge of the photo) - there are only two ends - one of which corresponds to the image location on the focal plane when the shutter opened - and the other end which corresponds to where the image was when the shutter closed. The image in the fourth photo appears to have three "ends" of red lines.
Further: the camera with a 300 mm lens had considerable inertia, resisting hand vibration and the shutter speed was probably faster than 1/100 sec (other photos were taken at 1/250 to 1/500 sec). There were no vibrations of the Skylab 3 so any such vibration would be due to hand holding the camera, but in free fall (in orbit) the cameraman was not fighting the weight of the camera, so this would reduce hand vibration.”
Oh…I see… I am now asked to prove the impossible… but perhaps you have simply misunderstood scientific theory. It is impossible to prove the impossible. The best we can do in any research project is come up with likelihood estimates based on the available evidence. So, based on the available evidence that all the surrounding pictures on the same roll of film show no “disturbances during development”, the best we (or anyone) can do is to state that it is highly unlikely that any single picture in a roll of ostensibly and otherwise soundly developed pictures shows anomalous development “disturbances”.
I have already shown that it was highly unlikely to be the result of an “unsteady camera” (see above). I have shown also that it is highly unlikely to have been a “disturbance during development” (see my previous replies to you). They reported that it was red and they assumed it was a satellite they did not know about. A 300mm lens can resolve things the human eye cannot perceive.
I asked the authors.
No you don’t see at all. The point is that they had to measure somewhere across the object to calculate at least a minimum size – and the longest extension was a logical place to do this. There is no need to assume perpendicularity because the eventual size was much greater (even including the error bounds) than any satellite anyone had up there at the time. That, is the end result of the calculations Jocce and that is the critical conclusion that needs to be drawn here. If the minimum calculated size turned out to be close to any existing satellite, it would have been a different story and all this talk about error margins would then have had direct relevance. However the minimum size of the object, even accounting for possible measurement error at every step, was STILL larger than anything up there at the time.
So…according to you, mankind knows everything. This is rather an extraordinary hubris on your part don’t you think Jocce? ThatUFO debunkers believe that we know everything should nevertheless come as no great surprise to anyone who may have spent some time perusing this thread.
An average three seconds error over three minutes translates to one second over one minute. I stated:
“Normal people have a very good sense of time. If asked to estimate the span of a minute (for example), they can generally do so to within a second or two (many can actually get it bang on).” and that would seem to be an entirely accurate assessment of the research here.
Now if we take that down to estimating over five or six seconds, then we are talking about error margins so small that they simply do not matter. Even in the 60-80 year group cited, that translates to an error margin of merely one second – so you can see that on the research evidence I have not overstated my case. And the astronauts were certainly not in the 60-80 year old group (they were all in their early 30s - http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/astrobios.htm#other).
It is not for me to comment here on your mental status – for that you would need to seek a private professional consultation.
Error margins are only and specifically relative to the calculations they arise from. The whole point is that in the size calculation undertaken by the authors, even on the most conservative estimates (factoring in the largest errors), the object was larger than anything mankind had up there at the time… and that’s the telling conclusion from all this Jocce.
What you have seemed to have missed is the relevance of my statements to your claims here. The astronauts determined that the object was tracking them in a very similar orbit and at a similar speed. This they could have done. What they could NOT know was the size/distance ratio – and so as to enable others to determine this, they measured the time between when Skylab went into darkness and when the object followed. The assumption is actually in whether the astronauts were capable of determining the objects orbit and speed, because if they COULD, then it does not matter when the photos were taken in the 10 minute period of observation. Get it now?
Wrong. A digital version of an analogue film does not compare. As soon as you started to talk about pixels, you should have doubted your credibility.
- Status