Author Topic: UFOs and Aliens  (Read 22109 times)

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6116
  • Bogometer: -42
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #75 on: August 21, 2009, 03:24:29 PM »
In this day and age, if there were such a genuine phenomenon, we'd have it from 17 different angles in high-definition.

JaquesPlafond

  • Futon absorber
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Bogometer: 15
    • View Profile
    • moonbase69
    • Email
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #76 on: August 21, 2009, 04:19:19 PM »
That depends on the properties of the phenomenon. Once again you're defining what criteria would satisfy you, instead of looking what data is actually there.

However, with everyone having a camera nowadays, the amount of multiple witness UFO's being filmed is growing.

Here's a recent example of a multi-witness UFO being filmed by 2 independant witnesses. As it turns out, they filmed the exact same event from 2 different angles. In the last few minutes of the video, you can see how the events line up. If you can kindof comprehend Spanish, they also explain why in one video the orbs are black, whereas in the other they are bright (The video's are made in 2 different angles, one has the sun shining on the objects, the other is the shadow side).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjOigCDYr3s

So could this still be a hoax? Well, maybe theoretically. It hasn't been exposed as such, even if the involvement of Jaime Maussan (as the one who brings the videos to television) raises suspicions with some people. I think Maussan is just a businessman trying to make an interesting program though, and sometimes he brings stuff into the limelight that turns out to be a hoax.

It's not 17 angles, but it sure is interesting, i think.

Here's a version which has subtitles:

http://media.abovetopsecret.com/videoplayer/3871.swf
« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 05:49:35 PM by JaquesPlafond »

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6116
  • Bogometer: -42
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #77 on: August 21, 2009, 04:29:24 PM »
Then let's see 'em! Let's see detailed high-definition footage from multiple angles! Let's see experts use photogrammetry to determine the exact size and shape of the object! Why don't we see that?

Maybe because if they actually did the photogrammetry the object would be shown to be a) not the assumed distance away and/or b) not a single coherent object at all?

JaquesPlafond

  • Futon absorber
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Bogometer: 15
    • View Profile
    • moonbase69
    • Email
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #78 on: August 21, 2009, 06:15:34 PM »
Well, we know that the assumptions you're making are the reasons YOU'RE not looking into it. The footage is there, the witnesses are there, the locations they filmed it from are known.. From what i understand they were 6 to 8 miles apart, so that should be your first clue for the size of the objects. Those aren't insects or birds!

You could contact a guy called 'free spirit' who has some of the original footage. He's on ATS.. maybe this thread is a good place to start: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread479045/pg1

btw.. i think it's pretty rare that unplanned events like this are being filmed from multiple angles, not to mention in focus or high definition. Most people have crappy cams, and they never look up.. they look straight ahead or to the ground when they're walking... people are always in their head! lol.. always thinking about anything but that which they are doing or where they are.

Anyway, these videos were released very recently, and i'm sure the last word hasn't be said about them. I'm going to eat my hat if they turn out to be fake.. but you never know. It would the best hoax i know of so far anyway.

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6116
  • Bogometer: -42
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #79 on: August 21, 2009, 06:30:16 PM »
I HAVE looked into it. So far there is NOTHING you've presented that I haven't seen. You're just like a pathetically ignorant creationist ranting on that we're "dismissing" things that have been debunked long ago.

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6116
  • Bogometer: -42
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #80 on: August 21, 2009, 06:32:05 PM »
Okay, so here's a question for you:

Could you tell me what this object, photographed, filmed, showing up on 2 F16 radars and observed by literally thousands of people in Belgium in the early 90s is?


There is NO FUCKING WAY that picture was initially framed like that. It's obviously cropped. Where's the uncropped version?

JaquesPlafond

  • Futon absorber
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Bogometer: 15
    • View Profile
    • moonbase69
    • Email
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #81 on: August 21, 2009, 08:54:27 PM »
I HAVE looked into it. So far there is NOTHING you've presented that I haven't seen. You're just like a pathetically ignorant creationist ranting on that we're "dismissing" things that have been debunked long ago.

Nice blanket statement again.. lol. Is that the best you can do?

So who debunked those video's? How were they made? That Mexican video i posted was released just a few days ago, so i doubt you've seen it before i posted it here, and the skeptibunkers haven't had a chance to make up an 'explanation' for you to swallow hook, line and sinker yet.

Quote
There is NO FUCKING WAY that picture was initially framed like that. It's obviously cropped. Where's the uncropped version?
This is the biggest version of the triangle picture i can find, so for all i know that could be the full picture.



We've discussed witness reliability a bit before. To illustrate that in many cases their descriptions are actually pretty close, here are some drawings made by witnesses of the Belgian UFO. You'll notice that some of them drawings are spot on:



One guy mistook a helicopter for a UFO, but once you realize that what he saw was actually a blackhawk, the drawing is also spot on, including the open doors and the placement of the lights.



So if the belgian case has been debunked, what do the pictures and the film clip show?

Awaiting next platitude with baseless assertions and some namecalling for good measure ;) I can't wait for the episode on UFO's you're going to make, because i'm sure it's gonna be a hoot!
« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 09:31:59 PM by JaquesPlafond »

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6116
  • Bogometer: -42
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #82 on: August 21, 2009, 09:31:32 PM »
I can ASSURE you that's not the full picture. Look at the motion blur! There is NO WAY something's going to move like that and someone get it perfectly framed so tightly.

And it's HARDLY a coincidence that it JUST SO HAPPENS to match the configuration of lights on a French Army helicopter! Three in a triangle, red in the middle--it's PERFECT! It seems obvious to me that this has been cropped because the full picture would make it more obvious what it really is.

JaquesPlafond

  • Futon absorber
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Bogometer: 15
    • View Profile
    • moonbase69
    • Email
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #83 on: August 21, 2009, 09:41:46 PM »
I can ASSURE you that's not the full picture. Look at the motion blur! There is NO WAY something's going to move like that and someone get it perfectly framed so tightly.

And it's HARDLY a coincidence that it JUST SO HAPPENS to match the configuration of lights on a French Army helicopter! Three in a triangle, red in the middle--it's PERFECT! It seems obvious to me that this has been cropped because the full picture would make it more obvious what it really is.

Did you have a look at the movie clip? It shows the whole thing, but no helicopter to be seen there. Besides, do you think that the Belgian airforce is going to persue one of it's own helicopters and mistake it for a UFO? What kind of helicopter would that be anyway?

Another picture of the same object. Does that look like a helicopter to you?

« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 09:48:25 PM by JaquesPlafond »

JaquesPlafond

  • Futon absorber
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Bogometer: 15
    • View Profile
    • moonbase69
    • Email
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #84 on: August 21, 2009, 10:09:19 PM »
The picture of the triangle UFO has been analysed to death already, btw. Here's something to sink your teeth in:

The famous slide of Petit-Rechain was analysed in the 1990’s by several experts in scientific imagery, particularly by Marc Acheroy (Royal Military School, Brussels), François Louange (Fleximage company, Paris) and Richard F. Haines (Los Altos California); on Oct. 15th 2001, Patrick Ferryn of the SOBEPS gave us this slide, he wanted us to analyse it in our turn using the latest techniques of image numerical analysis, used in the Theoretical and Applied Optics Institute in Orsay. The purpose of this was to compare our results to the previous results, and to outline extra information and if possible draw conclusions about the authenticity of the document and about the nature of the object photographed

General obversation of the slide

In a first step, we have conducted a visual observation of the film after taking it out of its frame, then a digitisation by transparency using a flatbed scanner Agfa Duoscan T1200. Our observations match those previously made:
- The frame of the picture is perfectly neat and with no split even if it is seen with a very increased contrast; this excludes a double or multiple exposure during the photography.
- It is very difficult to consider faking with a model or any other similar process. This will be confirmed by numerical treatment (see below).
- Video processing or CGI can’t be imagined either: such pictures characteristics are not found on the slide, even by increasing enormously the contrasts.
Even if nothing can be excluded, it seems very likely that the picture is one of a solid object seen on a sky background, object of an unidentified origin to this day.

Digitisation of the picture
The second step was to precisely digitise the slide using a 35mm Canon film scanner with an optical resolution of 2720ppp, which brings a pixel size of under 10µm. That resolution is much bigger than that of the film (around 1µm) but greatly better than the smallest significant details in the picture, which are never under 20µm.
Other than the four very luminous stains, the picture is nearly black and had nearly no contrast. It was thus necessary to have, as early as the digitisation, a noise/signal ratio as good as possible, in order to catch the smallest differences, even in the darkest areas of the picture. For that purpose, we have used a technique consisting in averaging multiple consecutive digitisations: by digitising n times the slide in the same conditions, one reduces the noise part of the image due to the electronic equipment by a factor of 1/sqrt(n).
By digitising the slide in a normal position, then rotated by 90°, 180° and 270°, it is possible to average the fixed noise due to the structure of the equipment (non uniform answers from the bar photosites). To do that, you then need to reprocess the pictures up to the pixel, with an appropriate software, in order to superimpose them perfectly.
It is also possible to reduce the quantification noise influence (i.e. the pixels are coded by 8 bits per colour, that is 256 levels) by averaging the digitisation of the film in ‘positive film’ mode and ‘negative film’ mode, because the answer curves of the scanner are not the same in both modes.
Having then obtained a final average picture in its three components red, green and blue, we kept only a roughly 2 centimetres square, composed of 2430 by 2430 pixels. Finally, given the size of the smallest visible details (about 20µm as said above), we resized that zone to 1024 by 1024 by interpolation of pixels (fig 1.), in order to limit the size of the pictures and the calculation times.

Numerical treatments results

1. A contrasts increase brings out the object shape (fig. 2), particularly on the blue component (fig. 3). That outline is in the shape of an isosceles triangle ABC nearly squared angled on A, completed on its base by a quadrilateral BCED very similar to a rectangle. Taking into account the viewing angle, it is probable that angles A, D and E are square angles, and that the object is horizontal. On the object, very dark, are four very bright stains, that we will call lights to simplify. Three of those lights are close to A, D and E on the object, while the fourth one is situated roughly on the altitude AH of the triangle, from vertex A down to the DE base (fig. 4). It is not possible to estimate the size of or distance to the object, because there is no landmark.

Some areas of the outline are nearly neat while others are blurred, indicating a relative movement of the object and the film. The most believable explanation is that the object has executed a movement during the exposure time, the camera being fixed, but we can’t exclude a small movement of the camera. The two extreme positions are shown on figure 5.
The shape of the observed blurring can be explained by a rotation of the object in space, around an axis going through a point O nearly on the line BC and such that BO = O.25 BC (fig. 5). The rotation angle is close to 5°. We could simulate that blur effect by simulation (fig. 6).

The same rotation also allows to find the whole set movement the four lights underwent, supposed circular on the simulation. However, the three external lights show complex coloured structures and distortions that this global rotation do not explain: the obtained pictures necessarily imply independent movements for all of those lights in comparison with the object.

2. Various colour treatments allow to bring out a luminous halo around the object as well as light trails between the lights, particularly between the central light and the edge ones (fig 7.). However these treatments, in real as well as false colours, do not allow to draw a conclusion about the nature of that halo, nor to be able to precise what are those lights: lighting systems, signal lights or hovering/propulsion systems from the object.

3. Decomposition of the picture in brightness, hue and saturation provides rich information, particularly on the saturation component. This information is substantially improved through frequency filters and colour compositions. Processes have allowed to show privileged directions, especially in the halo that surrounds the object (fig. 8, 9, 10, 11). These directions correspond to the orientations of small luminous grains which, on the picture, compose a sort of rotation around the object, to be compared to snow flakes being flown around in a wind vortex. We can also compare it to iron filings that would be oriented in the lines of a magnetic field. Would that be electromagnetic perturbations, an air ionisation process? Without any available elements, the nature of that phenomenon is difficult to precise, even more because it is practically unspottable on the red, green or blue components of the image. These new observations are even more interesting because they seem to reinforce some theories, like those of the ionic plasma waves, theory used by Auguste Meessen, Professor Emeritus at Louvain University, about the object propulsion (magnetoplasmadynamic propulsion).

Anyway, the existence of those “force lines” is a heavy argument against a faking, which would then be particularly elaborated. Moreover one doesn’t see well a reason why a hoaxer would have undergone the effort to imagine and realise such a complex phenomenon, particularly since it is only perceivable with a sophisticated image processing.

Conclusion
 
The numerical processing that we executed in Orsay on the Petit-Rechain slide have confirment the major observations already made. They also brought new surprising results about the luminous halo surrounding the object, showing a process in the appearance of a whirl. The nature of the physical phenomenon corresponding could, according to some authors, be linked to the particular propulsion system of the object. That question ought to be investigated further.  (source)


Oh, and yet another slightly larger version of the picture, showing STARS in the background where the rest of the helicopter should have been if that's what it was.





« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 11:03:07 PM by JaquesPlafond »

11mc22

  • Bogon shield
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • Bogometer: -8
    • View Profile
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #85 on: August 22, 2009, 04:54:11 AM »
Here's some of the footage shot of the Belgian UFO. Does it support Leclet's helicopter theory? Does the picture i posted in a previous post support it? Do the picture and the footage show the same object?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpGc8w5Wu0Y



The video right there is so dark and I suspect it to be zoomed in quite a bit
All you see is the light on and not any outline of any sort
Its almost impossible to say whether this is a helicopter or a flying saucer.

The picture you gave earlier does have and outline of a triangle
But then again too blurry and it looks like this UFO is spinning possibly blurring out some features of the helicopter while the light illuminates the center( I dunno thats just my guess)
Do you have some sort of expanded picture?

I'm just going to use my Occam razor and say that the Helicopter hypothesis is more likely the case.

But with the picture I don't think we can determine anything with it.

11mc22

  • Bogon shield
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • Bogometer: -8
    • View Profile
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #86 on: August 22, 2009, 05:07:32 AM »
One guy mistook a helicopter for a UFO, but once you realize that what he saw was actually a blackhawk, the drawing is also spot on, including the open doors and the placement of the lights.



So if the belgian case has been debunked, what do the pictures and the film clip show?

Awaiting next platitude with baseless assertions and some namecalling for good measure ;) I can't wait for the episode on UFO's you're going to make, because i'm sure it's gonna be a hoot!

I looks more like a view from the side than some one looking up at a helicopter

MrBogosity

  • Master of the Bogoverse
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6116
  • Bogometer: -42
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #87 on: August 22, 2009, 12:03:56 PM »
All you see is the light on and not any outline of any sort

That's exactly what we would expect if it's a helicopter.

JaquesPlafond

  • Futon absorber
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Bogometer: 15
    • View Profile
    • moonbase69
    • Email
Re: UFOs and Aliens
« Reply #88 on: August 22, 2009, 05:09:08 PM »


Once again.. i'm wondering what KIND of helicopter you guys are talking about? Are there any other pictures of it that show the same properties as the 2 famous pictures of the triangle? Or were these 2 pictures a fluke?

btw.. eyewitnesses state that the blurryness of the edges of the triangle was actually a property of the triangle.

None of the people who analyzed the pictures seems to think it's a helicopter.

Leclet doesn't mention the Petit Rechain nor the Henrardi pictures in his study for a good reason: they don't support his helicopter hypothesis.

I don't see how occams razor would dictate how something that doesn't look like a helicopter would be a helicopter.. lol.. then again, maybe it makes sense to you guys. It'd make more sense if you thought it was a stealth bomber/fighter.. but then again, why would they fly those over urban areas for everyone to see?

Here's a video of a blackhawk flying and landing at night: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=56710748

One thing that's immediately apparent is that they're NOISY, and the lights hardly show up on video.. nothing like the lights in the pictures of the triangle. Maybe you guys can find something more convincing though.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 11:21:05 PM by JaquesPlafond »