UFO SIGHTINGS: MUFON Cases - 2 UFOs Photographed Over McAlester, Oklahoma On June 21, 2013!June 24, 2013 - UNITED STATES - The following photo and eye-witness account was taken from the Mutual UFO Network's online database.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-il4tOlDSvsI/UchytbRJ5NI/AAAAAAAA-gE/xX0kkDZ0qs0/s1600/oklahomaufo.jpg)
QuoteOn June 21, 2013 I decided to start marking the sunset as it met the horizon to make me a rock calendar kind of like Stonehenge.
I picked out a spot on the west side of my property, placed a rectangle rock next to a fence post and spray painted the post gray.
I sat my Iphone on top of my tripod to mark the heading of where the sun was setting and what heading I was facing to make sure that I can make the same observation each month as the sun sets.
I snapped a couple of photos of the sun setting and then turned my attention to the hills north of where I was standing.
I snapped a couple of shots and then came into the house to download them on my computer. As I was going through the pictures, I noticed these two triangle shaped objects that I had not seen while taking the pictures.
I then cropped the picture to enlarge the objects. At first glance I thought they might have been birds, but I've never taken any pictures of birds in flight that look like these.
Upon further observation of the objects, I noticed that the one on the left bottom appears to be behind some telephone wires that are approximately 150 yards down my driveway which makes the object appear to be very large.
The second object appears to be behind the leaves of the tree that is approximately 30 yards in front of me, and also appears to be very large. I took two pictures just a few seconds apart and the objects are only in one of the photos.
Im not saying these are UFOs; well I guess they are because I cannot Identify them.
I just wanted to send the pics in to you and maybe you can help me identify what they are.
Camera used - Canon EOS D60
SOURCE (http://massufosightings.blogspot.de/2013/06/ufo-sightings-mufon-cases-2-ufos.html)
To me, these two flying craft seem to be moving in opposite directions. Because of their aerodynamic shapes, we can pretty much know that the top aircraft is moving to our right. And it seem that we can see a cockpit in the forward nose (magnified). While the lower acft. is not as viewable, we can see the "cockpit" on our left end of it - thus it would be moving to our left. ??
Well I was hoping this would process off the roof but insead I got 2 dead objects. Zero fields that I can find, no atmospheric interference and no movement trails. Deuem is disapointed.They almost look like paper airplanes to me. The line could be added or copied to the front. Keep the tin foill hats on the mantle......Anyone else got an idea?
Quote from: deuem on June 26, 2013, 10:14:44 AM
Well I was hoping this would process off the roof but insead I got 2 dead objects.
There may a few explanations here as to the "Why's" Deuem.
QuoteZero fields that I can find, no atmospheric interference and no movement trails.
At first I thought this may be due to low light resolution of the image captured, then ran a Element request and found really nothing too show if it was a Photoshopped image or a direct image from SD Card, which it supplied none of these, Not evenif it was the camera mentioned, so did a few low tech. things too see if I could recreate the effects with in the high lines caught in the image.
First image is done with paint, though the lines are more prominent with in my example, point being is to show that the lines could have been added, but this is not an absolute for the answers, just an idea of what 'I' am interpreting as far as the image goes:
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/PossibleUFOhoaxMUFON_zps5fe19cc5.png)These lines are two gray hues the same exact color of gray to see the 'Stepping' of the lines are consistent with the high lines with in the image and that with a bit of tweaking, one could create the ghost effect with in a photo shop studio.Keep in mind, this may be only one of several explanations, and I know Deuem has a much more complex-ed scenario of the process, but may be the answer too whether this image is the real deal or not, I and I am rather a firm confider in the Deuem Process and what it does, so should have pulled out 'Something' if this was a genuine 3-D object captured. ;)
The second is three color scheme with Light Gray, dark gray and then Black for further comparison and all lines show stepping effect as in the original photo presented as the evidence:
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/PossibleUFOhoaxMUFON2_zps86fa6a53.png)
As I was trying too understand what we were exactly seeing, and realizing we do have some tree species that produce 'Flying Pod's' as form of species survival, It may very well be a case where a few of these pods were caught in mid flight and there by eluding the photographer's attention while they were falling through the area of the image captured.
(http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i246/Allred5923/200961221_zps4b69eb4e.jpg)This may also explain the ghostly/Transparent effects we see in the image, there by showing the wires to be in front of the alleged UFO image captured.
QuoteDeuem is disapointed.They almost look like paper airplanes to me. The line could be added or copied to the front. Keep the tin foill hats on the mantle......Anyone else got an idea?
I would like to reiterate that I am not sure what this image is exactly of, but I am leaning toward mis-identification, or out right Hoax. I don't see anything really supporting a Genuine UFO image capture, something is wrong with all presented here, and the objects, if they are of the same type sow some very concerning differences with in body & surface control areas inconsistencies, IMHO. :P
With Great Respect,
1Worldwatcher
ETA: To fix post structure with [ Quotes ]
If Mufon has the original of this and wants me to take another look, I will try it. Even at the source Zorgon listed the photo is only 208kb. 800x534 pixels. Garbage in, garbage out. My cell phone would take a better photo.
On the wires 1ww, I could put that section of the wire in front of anything in about 1 minute if I had the original. The higher the res, the easier it is. When done, dump res. All done in layers. In this low res photo I can count about 5 places where it could have ben fudged. But we have the low res and I hate to shoot anyone just for that reason. But low res or hi res, I still get nothing to write home about. When I look at alive photos, It does not matter the res, the process just gets better with res, not nothing and flat.
One thing for all to try, is blur. If you blur that photo they go out of focus very fast. Almost instant. Now try and blur other objects in other photos and compare the results. Things that are what I call flat will be taken out with just a small amout of blur while other objects you can still see with a lot more blur. This is just a cheap test to try. This is an Artistic view, not scientific. On a scale of 1 to 100, if something blurs out completly at say 10, there is a problem in my book. Try a face or 2.
To me they looks like moths or something like that, one going in each directions.
One thing I noticed is that the wire is darker but less blue in the place where the object appears, which is consistent with the object being in front of the wire but being translucent, as a fast moving insect would appear.
Also, with the camera pointing to north, the scene had too little light, so the photo probably has a relatively low shutter speed, the reason for the blurring of the (supposed) insects.
Quote from: deuem on June 26, 2013, 05:09:31 PM
If Mufon has the original of this and wants me to take another look, I will try it. Even at the source Zorgon listed the photo is only 208kb. 800x534 pixels. Garbage in, garbage out. My cell phone would take a better photo
(http://www.mufoncms.com/files/48324_submitter_file1__MikeDixonUFOOriginal.JPG)
(http://www.mufoncms.com/files/48324_submitter_file2__MikeDixonUFOCrop.JPG)
QuoteLong Description of Sighting Report
On June 21, 2013 I decided to start marking the sun set as it met the horizon to make me a rock calendar kinda like Stone Hinge. I am calling it Mike Hinge. I picked out a spot on the west side of my property placed a rectangle rock next to a fence post and spray painted the post gray. I sat my Iphone on top of my tripod to mark the heading of where the sun was setting and what heading I was facing to make sure that I can make the same observation each month as the sun sets. I snapped a couple of photos of the sun setting and then turned my attention to the hills north of where I was standing. I snapped a couple of shots and then came into the house to download them on my computer. As I was going through the pictures I noticed these two triangle shaped objects that I had not seen while taking the pictures. I then cropped the pic to enlarge the objects. At first glance I thought they might have been birds but Ive never taken any pictured of birds in flight that look like these. Upon further observation of the objects I noticed that the one on the left bottom appears to be behind some telephone wires that are approximately 150 yards down my driveway which makes the object appear to be Very Large. The second object appears to be behind the leaves of the tree that is approximately 30 yards in front of me and also appears to be Very large. I took two pictures just a few seconds apart and the objects are only in one of the photos.
Im not saying these are USOs well I guess they are because I can not Identify them. lol..
I just wanted to send the pics in to you and maybe you can help me identify what they are..
Thank you in Advance,
[Name removed/cms/tg]
p.s. I did notice prior to taking the photos my Iphone Compass was malfunctioning by loosing its magnetic north settings.
2 2013-06-22 2013-06-21
8:45PM {dr}These two objects appeared in a photograph. I didnt notice them while I was taking the picture. McAlester, OK, US
http://www.mufon.com/mufonreports.html
Zorgon, I followed your source link out to Mufon and they had the same low res photo there also.
You published what they had. Very Good.
What I would need is the original or an exact copy of it. How many cameras shoot this low of a res. So it has been altered in res so much that anything can happen. Maybe he printed it and scanned it? Like I said, if Mufon can get me a copy of the original hi res I will try it again. We need camera details.
By the way, to me they are not translucent. I can not see thru them anywhere. They are just there, dead!
If I had a 100% true sighting I would do my best to get a full res photo on line somewhere.
Besides, like I think, these two objects could be nothing more than large paper air planes being pulled by the lines shown. 2 Lines, 2 planes, 1 in each dirrection? Need a pulley at each end and some black string. They look like they are just flopping around in the air.
I think we are being had! The only thing that can pull this one out of the trash is a fantastic full res photo...That will be the day....
Deuem, What did Mufon say ??? Or are they waiting on us? lol
Quote from: deuem on June 27, 2013, 10:29:24 AM
What I would need is the original or an exact copy of it.
I think the first photo on zorgon's previous post is the original, this image here (http://www.mufoncms.com/files/48324_submitter_file1__MikeDixonUFOOriginal.JPG).
The EXIF data from the image:
---- ExifTool ----
ExifTool Version Number : 8.15
Warning : [minor] Possibly incorrect maker notes offsets (fix by 3886?)
Warning : Invalid CanonCameraSettings data
Warning : Invalid CanonShotInfo data
Warning : Invalid CustomFunctionsD60 data
Warning : Invalid MeasuredColor data
Warning : Invalid ColorBalance data
---- System ----
File Name : 48324_submitter_file1__MikeDixonUFOOriginal.JPG
Directory : C:/Users/xxxxx/Downloads
File Size : 1359 kB
File Modification Date/Time : 2013:06:27 13:59:44+01:00
File Permissions : rw-rw-rw-
---- File ----
File Type : JPEG
MIME Type : image/jpeg
Exif Byte Order : Big-endian (Motorola, MM)
Image Width : 3072
Image Height : 2048
Encoding Process : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample : 8
Color Components : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:2:2 (2 1)
---- JFIF ----
JFIF Version : 1.01
Resolution Unit : inches
X Resolution : 180
Y Resolution : 180
---- IFD0 ----
Make : Canon
Camera Model Name : Canon EOS D60
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
X Resolution : 180
Y Resolution : 180
Resolution Unit : inches
Modify Date : 2013:06:21 21:30:25
Y Cb Cr Positioning : Centered
Padding : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
---- ExifIFD ----
Exposure Time : 1/30
F Number : 4.0
ISO : 100
Exif Version : 0220
Date/Time Original : 2013:06:21 20:46:37
Create Date : 2013:06:21 20:46:37
Components Configuration : Y, Cb, Cr, -
Compressed Bits Per Pixel : 3
Shutter Speed Value : 1/30
Aperture Value : 4.0
Exposure Compensation : -2
Max Aperture Value : 4.0
Metering Mode : Multi-segment
Flash : No Flash
Focal Length : 100.0 mm
User Comment :
Flashpix Version : 0100
Color Space : sRGB
Exif Image Width : 2048
Exif Image Height : 1366
Focal Plane X Resolution : 3443.946188
Focal Plane Y Resolution : 3442.016807
Focal Plane Resolution Unit : inches
Sensing Method : One-chip color area
File Source : Digital Camera
Custom Rendered : Normal
Exposure Mode : Auto
White Balance : Manual
Scene Capture Type : Standard
Image Unique ID : FA380522814A40A198410B9CFA81E56B
Padding : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Offset Schema : 3886
---- Canon ----
Canon Flash Info : 0 0 0 0
Canon Image Type :
Canon Firmware Version :
Camera Body No. : 1120701224
File Number : 478-7862
Owner Name :
Canon Model ID : EOS D60
Canon File Length : 1375356
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0000: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0001: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0002: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0003: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0004: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0005: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0006: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0007: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0008: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0009: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x000a: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x000b: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x000c: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x000d: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x000e: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x000f: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0010: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0011: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0012: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0013: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0014: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0015: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0016: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0017: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0018: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0019: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x001a: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x001b: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x001c: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x001d: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x001e: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x001f: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0020: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0021: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0022: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0023: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0024: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0025: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0026: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0027: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0028: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0029: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x002a: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x002b: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x002c: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x002d: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x002e: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x002f: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0030: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0031: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0032: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0033: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0034: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0035: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0036: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0037: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0038: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0039: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x003a: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x003b: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x003c: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x003d: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x003e: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x003f: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0040: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0041: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0042: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0043: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0044: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0045: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0046: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0047: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0048: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0049: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x004a: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x004b: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x004c: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x004d: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x004e: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x004f: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0050: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0051: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0052: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0053: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0054: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0055: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0056: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0057: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0058: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0059: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x005a: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x005b: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x005c: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x005d: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x005e: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x005f: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0060: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0061: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0062: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0063: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0064: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0065: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0066: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0067: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0068: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0069: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x006a: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x006b: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x006c: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x006d: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x006e: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x006f: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0070: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0071: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0072: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0073: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0074: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0075: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0076: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0077: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0078: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0079: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x007a: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x007b: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x007c: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x007d: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x007e: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x007f: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0080: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0081: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0082: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0083: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0084: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0085: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0086: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0087: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0088: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0089: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x008a: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x008b: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x008c: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x008d: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x008e: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x008f: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0090: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0091: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0092: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0093: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0094: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0095: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0096: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0097: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0098: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x0099: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x009a: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x009b: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x009c: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x009d: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x009e: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x009f: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00a0: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00a1: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00a2: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00a3: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00a4: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00a5: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00a6: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00a7: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00a8: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00a9: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00aa: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00ab: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00ac: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00ad: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00ae: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00af: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00b0: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00b1: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00b2: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00b3: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00b4: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00b5: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00b6: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00b7: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00b8: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00b9: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00ba: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00bb: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00bc: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00bd: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00be: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00bf: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00c0: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00c1: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00c2: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00c3: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00c4: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00c5: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00c6: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00c7: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00c8: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00c9: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00ca: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00cb: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00cc: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00cd: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00ce: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00cf: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00d0: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00d1: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00d2: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00d3: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00d4: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00d5: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00d6: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00d7: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00d8: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00d9: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00da: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00db: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00dc: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00dd: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00de: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00df: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00e0: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00e1: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00e2: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00e3: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00e4: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00e5: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00e6: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00e7: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00e8: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00e9: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00ea: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00eb: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00ec: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00ed: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00ee: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00ef: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00f0: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00f1: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00f2: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00f3: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00f4: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00f5: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00f6: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00f7: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00f8: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00f9: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00fa: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00fb: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00fc: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00fd: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00fe: 0
Canon Camera Info Unknown 0x00ff: 0
Canon 0x00c0 : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Canon 0x00c1 : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Canon 0x00a8 : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
---- InteropIFD ----
Interoperability Index : R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
Interoperability Version : 0100
Related Image Width : 3072
Related Image Height : 2048
---- IFD1 ----
Compression : JPEG (old-style)
X Resolution : 180
Y Resolution : 180
Resolution Unit : inches
Thumbnail Offset : 6230
Thumbnail Length : 2124
---- XMP-rdf ----
About : uuid:faf5bdd5-ba3d-11da-ad31-d33d75182f1b
---- XMP-xmp ----
Creator Tool : Microsoft Windows Live Photo Gallery 15.4.3555.308
---- Composite ----
Aperture : 4.0
Image Size : 3072x2048
Shutter Speed : 1/30
Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 2124 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Light Value : 8.9
Scale Factor To 35 mm Equivalent: 2.4
Circle Of Confusion : 0.013 mm
Field Of View : 8.6 deg
Focal Length : 100.0 mm (35 mm equivalent: 238.3 mm)
Hyperfocal Distance : 198.25 m
Ok, got the hi res photo to work with this time. IMHO I Still say we are being had on this one.
We are being told this was a shot took late in the evening and the dusk is falling fast Wow, I wonder what this is then. A miricle?
Please look at the trees and where the shadows are. We can see light on this side of them like it is either 10am or 2pm. Nice green grass. Hum?
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Daytime-1.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Daytime-1.jpg.html)
Now, anyone that has ever looked at a Deuem process might know by know how it finds Sunlight. Out of everything it does that the best. Look at the rays. Is this dusk?
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/SunHigh.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/SunHigh.jpg.html)
The sun looks like it is high in the sky to me!
In one of my close ups processes if you looked at the screen on the right angle it looked like there was a wire for each nose leading down to the wire. I tried many times to get it to show better with no luck. Very fine fishing wire at a distance is almost impossible to catch. Matter afact, I did not catch the line I think I caught the effect of i from the sun.
I still think this is a hoax. The sunlight Deuem photo should all by itself confirm that....
When in doubt, go after other things....
By the way they are still both dead......
Deuem
Looks to be two gray colored delta winged RC toys flying around at high noon. They make em in all shapes and designs now days. I see now reason to take a photo of this scene other than to play some games with the ufo community and get hits with a little sad story.
If the game player would tell us where this was taken, we can google earth the location and see some logical observations on it.
Quote from: deuem on June 27, 2013, 06:04:38 PM
We are being told this was a shot took late in the evening and the dusk is falling fast Wow, I wonder what this is then. A miricle?
No, that's the result of changing the photo. The original looks like a photo taken after sunset.
QuotePlease look at the trees and where the shadows are. We can see light on this side of them like it is either 10am or 2pm. Nice green grass. Hum?
Shadows? Where? I only see shaded areas, not shadows.
QuoteNow, anyone that has ever looked at a Deuem process might know by know how it finds Sunlight. Out of everything it does that the best. Look at the rays. Is this dusk?
Yes.
QuoteThe sun looks like it is high in the sky to me!
To me it looks a little to the left and not visible, as there are no shadows.
QuoteI still think this is a hoax. The sunlight Deuem photo should all by itself confirm that....
Why?
QuoteBy the way they are still both dead......
Dead? ???
ArMaP, you are the best.
Yes, I am the one who is wrong and hoaxed you. Yesterday I flew my jet to that site took a nice daylight photo, flew back to China and coppied the UFOs into the daylight shot and ran it.
100% Deuem Hoax. How bout that. Is that what you want to read, because you don't want to read anything that makes sense. Yes sir, I hoaxed it 100%. Now you should be happy.
If you can't find the shadows in the trees and on the ground it is because I took them all out with my super powers. I zapped them away so you could not find them. Don't forget to look at those 20 foot high poles and all of the long dusk shadows they made. Sorry I zapped them also. Mufon asked me to do that to keep it real. I am a secrete Mufon agent hiding in China.
The original was done after sunset and the sun was below the horizion. We can all see that now that you pointed it out. Hurray. I think I will have to trash that Deuem program for light sources since it does not work. You see I drew in all of those sun ray above the horizon and made a mistake by turning them upside down. oops caught me....
If you don't understand what I mean by Dead or alive by now, You never will. I am not going to explain it over and over and over for the rest of my life. Please read my main thread from the start to understand "dead".
I think this is the first time I have gone on the hunt for a hoax here. Most of the time I just let them pass. If it wasnt for Zorgon and it being posted on Mufon I would have passed. Right now I am very sorry that I even posted anything. People ask me why I don't print more about what I see. I think you have your answer.
In the mean time I am going back to the computer and hand draw in all of those sun rays for the next Deuem hoax photo. They do take some time to draw in. I do them pixel at a time...
I guess for some stupid reason of mine, people would like to see some real work done and handed in instead of just talk.
So this photo is 100% real, taken at dusk and shows two UFOs playing in the yard. Fantastic photo. The most real UFO photo I have ever seen... I think Our Mr ArMaP can field any questions from here on. I know I am convinced. Thanks pal....We leave it in your capable hands.
I see the list of your friends is growing daily. Me, Sarge, 1WW, Thor and everyone else you love to death. You have a very nice way of making friends here. I thank you for giving me the pleasure....
Seems to me that MUFON now just accepts any old picture without doing any real research. Maybe we should test that... make a cool UFO picture and submit it and see what they do
::)
And THEYget 1 Million bucks from Bigelow go figure..
WHERE IS THE LOVE!!!!
Quote from: deuem on June 28, 2013, 11:24:27 AM
Yes, I am the one who is wrong and hoaxed you.
I didn't say you hoaxed me or anyone else, but I think you are wrong.
And yes, posting an altered image will get comments like that from me, because you did altered the photo, didn't you?
QuoteYesterday I flew my jet to that site took a nice daylight photo, flew back to China and coppied the UFOs into the daylight shot and ran it.
100% Deuem Hoax. How bout that. Is that what you want to read, because you don't want to read anything that makes sense. Yes sir, I hoaxed it 100%. Now you should be happy.
No, that's not what I want to read, I just want truth in everything, so when you post an altered image you should not present it as if it was the original.
QuoteIf you can't find the shadows in the trees and on the ground it is because I took them all out with my super powers. I zapped them away so you could not find them. Don't forget to look at those 20 foot high poles and all of the long dusk shadows they made. Sorry I zapped them also. Mufon asked me to do that to keep it real. I am a secrete Mufon agent hiding in China.
Can you highlight one shadow, instead of avoiding a real answer? Thanks in advance.
QuoteThe original was done after sunset and the sun was below the horizion. We can all see that now that you pointed it out. Hurray.
You asked a question, I gave you my answer. If you don't like my answers don't post public questions or add that you don't want to answer.
QuoteI think I will have to trash that Deuem program for light sources since it does not work. You see I drew in all of those sun ray above the horizon and made a mistake by turning them upside down. oops caught me....
It does work, but it only changes colours, right? Nobody needs the Deuem process to get an idea of the darker and brighter areas. And if there are any sun rays in the photo, I don't see them, I only see coloured pixels, of arbitrarily chosen colours.
QuoteIf you don't understand what I mean by Dead or alive by now, You never will. I am not going to explain it over and over and over for the rest of my life. Please read my main thread from the start to understand "dead".
I think I understand, but I always think we should write in a way that most people understand, even those that have not being following the several discussions of this last year.
QuoteI guess for some stupid reason of mine, people would like to see some real work done and handed in instead of just talk.
It depends on what you call "work".
QuoteSo this photo is 100% real, taken at dusk and shows two UFOs playing in the yard. Fantastic photo. The most real UFO photo I have ever seen... I think Our Mr ArMaP can field any questions from here on. I know I am convinced. Thanks pal....We leave it in your capable hands.
I already gave my opinion, and is just that, an opinion.
QuoteI see the list of your friends is growing daily. Me, Sarge, 1WW, Thor and everyone else you love to death. You have a very nice way of making friends here. I thank you for giving me the pleasure....
I didn't accepted the invitation to join Pegasus to make friends, and real friends don't stop being friends because of silly things like this, so if I am losing them it means that they weren't really my friends.
I just want the truth, without embellishments of any kind, and I think a friend would understand that and wouldn't get upset when I post my opinion.
I took a photo with the settings the closest I could get to the original and pointing to the north, as the photographer said he did, but there are three problems:
1 - It's a different camera, with a different lens and sensor
2 - I zoomed in too much
3 - Not knowing the location of the original photo we cannot know how long it was since the setting of the sun, more to the north would have more light than what I have here at the same time, more to the south and it would have less light.
The result is too dark, but the image is here (http://armap.no-ip.org/armap/pegasus/SAM_1207.JPG).
That's why I think that the original photo looks like a photo taken after sunset, pointing to the north.
PS: sorry for the slow server, it was the only way I found to post the photo without losing the EXIF data.
Armap, the difference is on how you post. No matter what I do and now others, all you do is pick it apart. You act like a vulture waiting for prey to fall. You never once started anything yourself. You are just one of those members that sit back and look for a fresh kill to chew on. In my post I did write it was IMHO and that is not good enough for you.
YOU ARE ACTING LIKE A TROLL.
If you got nothing to say of your own then just don't post. If you ever come up with an original idea, then post it. And we can then vulture you.
What you are doing rather you understand it or not is driving people away from this site. You are keeping a lot of people from posting because they are afraid of the Armap vulture will come in for dinner.
Armap, I know very well that you have never understood what I do. Still don't and never will. That is not my problem. I know you want to be Mr.analitical and many of us want to add artistic value to what we do. To express what we think. You have a hard time with that and take a stance of resistance no matter what the post is.
I would bet a weeks pay if I took the side of this photo being real that you would have linned up on the hoax side.
If you can't see the sun rays in my work then you never will. They are clearly above the horizon A sunset photo only has arcs above the horizon. I don't know of any clearer way to show this. I have done several hundred sun photos to back this idea up. What have you done?
If you can't see the shadows in the photo, again that is not my problem. They are very clear. Even the one under the tree. It goes out to the road.
I can not tell yet if this was don early morning or early afternoon. Would have to work on it more for NESW dirrections.
I took his original into photoshop and only did auto levels and the daytime print came out. The only way that would work is if it was daytime to begin with and then he changed the levels to make it dusk. I can process night time shoots for the rest of my life with auto levels and not get this. On a questionable shot I do this trick and many more. When you change a photo, you can change it back. When it is real you can not change it like this. You just make the dark lighter. Colors do not pop out, shadows do not pop out and it does not change the sun angle.
And please stop using the English chruch. When you want to pick ( snack on members ), the Engish comes out faster than a machine gun. So you know how to use it when you want too.
Bottom line, if you don't like what I posted, do a better job with your own work and stop nibbling on everyone else who tries. We are here to make friends, not chew on them for lunch.
Please notice where I wrote " Do a better job with your own work " Stop building your name by eating us...
Thanks
Hi deuem,
Don't let ArMaP get you down.... he attacks everyone.
Perhaps it is just a habit of his or an inferiority complex, quite common in this Program.
(Human and Earth Environment) ;)
In fact it is more common in the human species than not...
Just laugh it off... :)
Some of us do find your work very interesting.... So keep up the good work there D... 8)
Hi Matrix,
I am laughing it off. It is not me I am worried about, it is the rest of the people that won't post because of it. People have even told this to me. This is how Trolls work. They nag at everything till good people quit and they are left at the top of the world. last man standing deal. Any good people bail because they don't want to fight or get ridiculed. They just go back to what ever they were doing before. Debating is fun and I like it. Being picked apart for vulture food is not. And when good people go bad and start using the wrong words, they get banned. Lok at ATS and others what happens. It is a game Trolls play to stay on top. If they are not on top then they go looking for food. They never do their own work like we do. They just feed on us.
Quote from: deuem on June 29, 2013, 11:29:19 AM
Hi Matrix,
I am laughing it off. It is not me I am worried about, it is the rest of the people that won't post because of it. People have even told this to me. This is how Trolls work. They nag at everything till good people quit and they are left at the top of the world. last man standing deal. Any good people bail because they don't want to fight or get ridiculed. They just go back to what ever they were doing before. Debating is fun and I like it. Being picked apart for vulture food is not. And when good people go bad and start using the wrong words, they get banned. Lok at ATS and others what happens. It is a game Trolls play to stay on top. If they are not on top then they go looking for food. They never do their own work like we do. They just feed on us.
Hi deuem,
I know exactly how you feel, as I have been there many times myself, and yes you are right,
others do suffer and miss out on a lot of valuable information due to someone trolling.
But that is what trolls desire... to cover/hide their lack of knowledge regarding what the writer
is portraying.
ok guys.. i'm gonna go against the flow here...
yeah ArMaP can be a bit picky..but i like that in him...
all those question help me out on most things...if it's redundant - i skip over to the next post
maybe some of it is language..english is not his native tongue
but
i like that he asks a lot of questions
and is not good with the BS factor
maybe he gets too picky some time
but i have found that if you are on line at all
you had better grow a nice thick skin
or go sit on your fingers somewhere
or just don't answer....ya know..the old walk away thing
i know i haven't done it every time and my fat little fingers can spit fire now and then
i claim being human on those occasions..lol ;)
and i always try to remember the four agreement
not to take anything personally...that really gets you a step away from attack or poking or
just those old troll
here's the short version
The Four Agreements Quotes
"The Four Agreements
1. Be impeccable with your word.
2. Don't take anything personally.
3. Don't make assumptions.
4. Always do your best. "
? Miguel Ruiz, The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom
boy talk about bein preachy, huh.!!!
guess i better go back to pulling weeds
hugs
Being thick skinned is one thing but even rinos get eaten by vultures. No boby on this site needs to be asked the same dumb questions over and over again for our life here. I can remember just a month ago you wanting out for a similar reason. I don't wan't out I want the hunting to stop.
People from all over the world ask Deuem questions and I have never not returned some answer. It is the religious nit-picking of any entity me feels like nawing on that is very trollish.
With real debates you don't attack, you come up with a better plan and win from reason not picking.
For more than 4 years i have used the same program within Deuem to calculate the suns rays. I have done hundreds of them. From the Earth to the Moon. Even Mars. I have done them with the Sun in the picture and not in the photo. It is a safe bet that it shows the Suns rays 1,000 times better than maybe a UFO. I have done how many sunset shots for you, (SKY) Does anyone besides be actuatly look at them or is it for nothing. Look at the arcs of sun light. Where are they. When the sun drops on the horizon it will no longer show bottoms arcs. Just top arcs. Unless there is a water or mist refelection.
This is as proven to me as 1+1=2
Deuem is a tool in my software kit. It is very reliable for certain things and under an individuals interpetation for others. ( such as UFOs )
So I say again in big letters for all to see "IMHO" whick means to me an opinion, not force fed, not picking on any of us. Just what I think! Anyone can write what ever they think it is. To me this picture is a classic fraud from the start with built in faults including the time of day, which I hope I proved at least to myself. If a person would fake the time of day then the rest of the photo is questionable for sure. This is the first step in forensic work. Start with the entire photo and the story and move in to the details.
Remember most of all, none of us get paid for doing anything here. We only do it because we like it. We like it because it opens each others minds to new adventures.
If you gave me a free pie and I turned around and tossed in your face, would you be happy or give me another so I could do it again. If we plan on working together for years to come the internal nit-picking needs to turn to debating and focused work. Other wise it will end up a food feast and the good people will leave first. Ron will have only vultures left.
As far as what the Deuem Process pulls out, it fit's with the explanation that Deuem has given for further understanding, but I personally think there is more information about these rendering's of the process that needs absolutes or at least a proper math too discover exactly what it is being seen with in the images.
I will absolutely admit and submit my inability with in photographic prowess and understanding (But that is seemingly changing as of the time I have met Deuem and his process. :P ) and I am aware or ArMaps abilities of looking into such presented images and UFO type of evidence, just think that maybe ArMap can't see the tree's for the forest it present's. "IMHO" LOL :P
If we continually go by the "OLD" standards of what we know about photography and what kind of advancements can be acclimated for furthering research of such thing's, i.e. namely Deuem's Process.
I have no issue's accepting that the image would be considered 'Altered' as it were, but by the understanding I am coming too for the process and what it does, it is being 'Altered' too pull out greater detail of the information that we would not normally see with in such photo's or video's. If we are too just accept the basic science's with such photographic advancement, we would probably not have anything remotely capable of Night vision or Full Spectrum technologies to better understand under what condition what is actually there we cannot normally see with in the natural visual abilities of the naked eye perspective.
I do respect ArMAp greatly, but I also believe he has too start thinking out side the box for fuller understanding of what Deuem Process may be telling us to advance it too give a categorical understanding with in the Photographer community. It is something that most scientific minded people would think as a brilliant break through for such applications for detecting light and photon interactions in a very profound and meaningful way, and that is what is the most important when all thing's that we 'Think' we understand about such thing's as photography and advancement to further the field of the research, not hinder it with the something of known explanation, for it is not of this genre of photography we are seeing with in the processed images and videos. IMHO
Deuem has done some work ups for me as well Sky, and all I can say is "It is doing something that I have never really even considered before." it is revolutionary and quite basically, "Amazing!!" because if it is doing what "I think" it is doing, it will set a standard that has quite promising future with in all the Hoaxed and Skeptic's idea's of the UFO topical dissuasive understanding to lay rest to these types of thing's from thwarting the truth's that are out there.
There is so much more I could add in this conversation, but I wish too stick to the topic at hand of these apparently Hoaxed UFO's and there by setting a new decisive quandary with out any question if what we are truly looking at and too be able to toss the garbage out and respect the true images submitted.
With Great Respect,
1Worldwatcher
ETA: Fixed 'Greta' for Z....LOL :P Or he'll pick on me.. :'(
Quote from: deuem on June 29, 2013, 11:07:48 AM
You never once started anything yourself.
That's true, probably because I'm not that much of an imaginative person and probably because, in the past, whenever I started a thread (on another forum) nobody looked interested in the topic.
QuoteIf you got nothing to say of your own then just don't post. If you ever come up with an original idea, then post it. And we can then vulture you.
Why can't I post my opinion about what other people post?
QuoteWhat you are doing rather you understand it or not is driving people away from this site. You are keeping a lot of people from posting because they are afraid of the Armap vulture will come in for dinner.
That may be true, in the same way some people may be kept from joining because they see too much imagination and too little facts, I don't have any way of knowing what happens.
QuoteArmap, I know very well that you have never understood what I do. Still don't and never will.
That's your opinion.
QuoteI know you want to be Mr.analitical and many of us want to add artistic value to what we do. To express what we think. You have a hard time with that and take a stance of resistance no matter what the post is.
I don't have a problem with artistic value or artistic interpretations, I just don't like to see it presented as truth.
QuoteI would bet a weeks pay if I took the side of this photo being real that you would have linned up on the hoax side.
My opinion is always based on the material being presented, never on the person that presents it.
QuoteIf you can't see the sun rays in my work then you never will.
Answer me this, please: are there
really sun rays in the processed image or pixels that you interpret as sun rays?
QuoteThey are clearly above the horizon A sunset photo only has arcs above the horizon. I don't know of any clearer way to show this. I have done several hundred sun photos to back this idea up. What have you done?
I have done hundreds of photos of the sky, at several times of day and night, and I base my opinions on the real photos, not on processed data.
QuoteIf you can't see the shadows in the photo, again that is not my problem. They are very clear. Even the one under the tree. It goes out to the road.
That may be a question of definitions. To me, a shadow has clearly defined edges, resulting from the light rays of a direct light source being blocked by something. I don't see anything like that on the photo, as all the darker areas have blurred edges, and that happens where the light is not coming from a direct light source either from many, weaker light sources of from indirect sources.
QuoteI can not tell yet if this was don early morning or early afternoon. Would have to work on it more for NESW dirrections.
True, I am basing my opinion on what the photographer said, I always take that into account, as I wasn't there myself.
QuoteI took his original into photoshop and only did auto levels and the daytime print came out.
That's what the auto levels does, it changes the light levels to make the photo visible, even when the original is too dark (it's the equivalent of allowing for a longer exposure of the paper when printing a photo in a lab), it doesn't mean that the photo was taken during the day.
QuoteThe only way that would work is if it was daytime to begin with and then he changed the levels to make it dusk.
No, try it with a photo that you know was taken after sunset and you will see.
QuoteWhen you change a photo, you can change it back.
No, some changes, like the light levels, are not reversible, as you will get less colours/shades after doing that.
QuoteAnd please stop using the English chruch. When you want to pick ( snack on members ), the Engish comes out faster than a machine gun. So you know how to use it when you want too.
Did I say anything about that in this thread? Where? ???
QuoteBottom line, if you don't like what I posted, do a better job with your own work and stop nibbling on everyone else who tries. We are here to make friends, not chew on them for lunch.
QuotePlease notice where I wrote " Do a better job with your own work " Stop building your name by eating us...
I'm not building any name, I don't even care about that, I have more important things to do, like playing Zombie Lane. :P
Easy now.
After many years of watching I think that Amap is a decent chap.
He's come here with a pretty open mind, and in my book, that's good enough.
Would you want to be having this discussion with phage???????
Maybe
Maybe not.
Elvis
Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 29, 2013, 06:46:07 PM
Easy now.
All is good Elvis, has been coming to an end the past few months, but really isn't a big deal. ;)
QuoteAfter many years of watching I think that Amap is a decent chap.
As do I Elvis, he has taught me much about a few things, mainly photography as of late, but not by negativity, he has always been the UFO/Image guy, but Deuem's process bring's a fresh 'NEW' idea into the image classification realm's.
QuoteHe's come here with a pretty open mind, and in my book, that's good enough.
That may not be an entirely true analogy, but, for what it is worth, he does have a lot of 'Taught' knowledge to share, and has done so in explanation's of some topic's I do not have a good grasp on. Just that there is very little he knows about Deuem, but knows much more about Photo processing than I, so is very informative guy for sure.
QuoteWould you want to be having this discussion with phage???????
Maybe
Maybe not.
Elvis
LOL, how did Phage get into this conversation. Ha ha ha ha!
Just know that we do respect ArMap, just have too realize the full reason of why we are here and for how many times this seems to happen with him. he is not as open minded as you may think, but he is knowledgeable none the less, and does deserve merit for that part of his intellect.
1WW
I don't know who or what phage is. If I get banned, I will retire. So if Phage is going to do that, so be it. I don't get paid here.
This is exactly what Trolls do. They take a stance against good people until we break and leave the site so they remain on the top of the hill.
I am starting to get pissed off.
If every post you made I came in against it so would you.
Armap, you don't understand the math behind what I do and you never ever will. If you think for one second that those are not sun rays. what do you think they are. flowers in the sky. Me hand drawing the arcs in. Lucy in the sky with diamonds. Reflections off the moon? If you can, prove there not! You say you can't see the shadows? Are you kidding me? Are you looking at the same photo the rest of us are?
Yes you can post about what other people post. That is a good forum. You don't have to chew on them. How many of us have to complain to you about the same old vulture tatics you use.You are comming across that if it is not armaps way then it is no good. No matter what. You seem to take the opposite view just for the fun of it and we all know that now. I don't care how many people speak up for you. You are wrong in the way you post. You go after peoples integrity and not the post. That is why you are lossing respect.
I use my imagination to create things. i am a creative person. At least IMHO I am. it took months of creative imagination to plan and program the first Deuem. Most likely 99% of other people would have given up but I went the entire way to get it. I could see it even before I started it so I knew what I was after. I doubt that in your lifetime you will ever see anything like it. It is that fringe.
After months, our Mr 1WW is starting to get it. You have a problem because of the output. I bet if it streamed a million lines of code it would make you happy. I'm sorry that was not my dream. A photo was. One our minds could explore.
Another problem here sometime is the posted pixels of my work. I have to take photo from 10,000 sq or more down to 600 pixels. A lot of detail is lost. The finite detail I can see on my screen. Like what I think is a blurred fishing line from the noses of both craft to the wires. But I didn't print that because it is way to subjective. Move your head an inch and you lose the view. But something is there. But I can't prove it 100%
Yes it is my opinion that you don't understand my work. That is based on the countless posts you have made de-railling most everything I post. You are never happy unless you come out on top. I don't want to be on top. I just want to have fun doing what I like to do. Like Sarge told you. We do this because we like to.
Quote
My opinion is always based on the material being presented, never on the person that presents it
Seems to me that you have not been able to do much. You know better than I do that every single camera code can be changed. There are even free software sites for this. Running the camera details can be as fake as a photo. This is not a fail safe method for clearing photos.
Quote
I have done hundreds of photos of the sky, at several times of day and night, and I base my opinions on the real photos, not on processed data.
If you really, really understood me, you would be asking me to do the forensic work. What are you going to get out of looking at a photo? Strained eyes?
QuoteTrue, I am basing my opinion on what the photographer said, I always take that into account, as I wasn't there myself
So what are you going to do/say when you find out thru Mufon that this is a 3 dollar bill. Are you going to retire back to ATS and stop chewing on us? You want to believe some guy you don't know yet at the same time ridicule a member for presenting IMHO work. Yea! Nice guy...
I think you should go back to Adobe class if you think that levels will bring back any sunset photo back to daytime. It never has for me. And yes I have taken classes with Adobe back in the states. Not a third party.
Many people have asked me over the years why I don't do more of this debunk work. This is what happens and like a good boy I never will post anything like this again. You have just lost Deuem on this function. Matter of fact I am giving serious thought to giving up all UFO work here. It is wortless work that takes hours with no results. I should go back to stones. Everyone likes stones. Gem stones process very well and make great prints when spun. lol
deuem. See how it works..Some of the best posters on this site no longer feel like posting because of the consant ridicule by 1 member. We know, we post, we get hit. So why post, whala, troll wins.
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on June 29, 2013, 07:20:59 PM
All is good Elvis, has been coming to an end the past few months, but really isn't a big deal. ;)
As do I Elvis, he has taught me much about a few things, mainly photography as of late, but not by negativity, he has always been the UFO/Image guy, but Deuem's process bring's a fresh 'NEW' idea into the image classification realm's.
That may not be an entirely true analogy, but, for what it is worth, he does have a lot of 'Taught' knowledge to share, and has done so in explanation's of some topic's I do not have a good grasp on. Just that there is very little he knows about Deuem, but knows much more about Photo processing than I, so is very informative guy for sure.
LOL, how did Phage get into this conversation. Ha ha ha ha!
Just know that we do respect ArMap, just have too realize the full reason of why we are here and for how many times this seems to happen with him. he is not as open minded as you may think, but he is knowledgeable none the less, and does deserve merit for that part of his intellect.
1WW
Nicely now. This is a local shop, for local people.
There has to be measure here. Or we we are no better than the likes of glp.
So suck it up sisters.
We will not castigate or vilify.
That is the language of buffoons.
We need to talk within reason, or there is no reason.
So get your friging story straight.
And we will all learn .
Thankyouverymuch.
Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on June 29, 2013, 07:45:09 PM
Nicely now. This is a local shop, for local people.
Tell me about it, I have been here since the beginning Elvis. We all have respect for one another, but there are moments when the civilians must disagree, true? And with all that Deuem has brought to our beloved Peggy for his insight and the process he so openly shares with all, and me personally knowing of what he speaks of as far as ArMap is concerned, it becomes relevant, it has been a continual on going saga of butting heads and close minded arguments.
Go here: Deuems Standards and Research Thread (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=1335.0) read the 83 pages of discussion and get the entirety of the current understanding of why this is all happening.
I like ArMap, and I like Deuem, heck, there isn't anyone I don't like here, it all comes down to respect of one another for sure, as you had said, "We are all a community here." and that goes both ways in topic's of conversation, and hopefully Deuem isn't going to bail on the UFO research, we were just making great head way into the whole Deuem Process, and what it is it actually is telling us as far as 'NEW' and 'Remarkable' finding's with in such fields of research. With Deuem, we may be able to not only classify UFO's as they are being captured by images/photo's, we may be able to tell what these craft are influencing as far as propulsion systems and what and how it effects the ambient atmosphere both with Photon interaction and FTL possibilities.
There is a lot too be said for anything being discussed rationally, but, usually if I find no merit with in such threads or topic's being discussed, I do not partake, for I know all I can do is follow what is being discussed before real meaning is unveiled too me for too have insightful input or topical contribution too be apart of the answer, not a part of the problem.
As I have said, all is good, just seen this coming from a few months back. And I would hate to have to discuss Deuem's Process off the forums here because of the intermittent slamming with information that is said to be true, but for or from old ways of understanding, which ArMap continually use's as his side of the explanation, which I may add is correct, if one is using the technologies we are aware of today, and not with in what the Deuem Process and the 'New' resolution's we are getting for the information with in the information of these UFO/Paranormal photograph's and Images. Also does video as well. IMHO ;)
I at first was baffled by Deuem's intention's with his Process, and he has done some work ups for me personally. I even gave him known Hoaxed images on several occasion's too see just how 'Real' this whole 'New Technology' really did work, and he has caught every one of these known hoaxes with exquisite explanation and high in sight with what he thinks was done with in these images of question and the one's that had both of us stumped for their apparent importance of being credible UFO encounter's. Deuem Process is very real and very tangible, we just need too know why and how these divisional lines after processing show up the way they do with so many 'Wave Length's' of such information.
This is truly an amazing process, but being of the scientific minded for wanting to put some real mathematics and overwhelming resolve to it's understanding is where we are at, and with it being possibly the most complicated formatted process I have ever see, the devil is in the details with in these absolutes of the understanding. Hope you understand Elvis, Deuem's Processed images hold a great deal of uninterpreted information to get the statistics of the whole UFO/Paranormal Phenomena in range of proper deductive analysis, which is something that has never been achieved before.
Pegasus is already on the map as being serious minded research and discussion Forum, Deuem is one of those contributor's without a doubt, we need team player's too further the deciphering, not broken record rebuttals and rhetorical embellishing of thing's we already know are the facts, at least with in today's current technologies.
ArMap can be my wing man any time, I respect him that much, but he has too see what we are trying to convey as far as this process being 'NEW' and goes beyond current understanding of what we think we are seeing. Once we can get him in the 'Out of the Box' frame of thought, ArMap, in my personal opinion, will be of vital contribution for his intellectual prowess with in such fields as Photography and UFO/Paranormal research.
1WW
Guys, we went off topic at the top of this page, wtf is going on??
A few points to remember, please:
I agree with Sky, Armap is 'Mr. Analytical" asks a lot of questions & can sometimes even be irritating, BUT
He is always polite, you have to account for his english as not his native tongue.
It is always good to have balance, you can't have the YING without the YANG, and i would rather have Armap as our 'yang' so we always get a balance & not one-sided debates.
I also don't care what he does at ATS, here he is a respected member & part of the team, like it or not.
So let's please keep personal issues out of this & concentrate on the picture, and if anyone asks the same dumb question you can just post "see my quote on page xx" like we did on That Other Site.
And yes, Bill, it helps if one reads the entirety of that thread if one wants to contribute anything meaningful.
Heck i havent even seen the picture, sadly i don't have time to analyse anything :P
But i hope you folks will try to keep it real, & to the point, please.
PWM
I fired Armap off the internuts awhile back. He uses that tango spookz standard response without a proper formed inquiry.
Jeez, any more of this & we will have to split the thread:
1) Mufon photo discussions thread.
2) Armap bashing thread.
Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on June 29, 2013, 09:46:17 PM
Jeez, any more of this & we will have to split the thread:
1) Mufon photo discussions thread.
2) Armap bashing thread.
Yes, I was hoping we could figure out what we were seeing with Deuem's Process , even though it is pretty much a hoaxed image to me Personally, I still think it pertinent too understand with in the Deuem Process of how we define such analysis and deductive points of views.
I for one see all that Deuem has mentioned as far as the shadows and the 'Sun Rays' (After Deuem Process) and how they are extremely different from most of the images we get of the whole UFO phenomena.
I have tried to allocate the 'Strings/Threads' Deuem has pointed out, but for the life of me, can't allocate them for visual analysis for my personal satisfaction. of these high line poles are as the photographer says, I believe 150 Yards away, this would make those flying objects huge by comparison.
Regardless, too understand what is still detectable with using Deuem's rendered analysis. Too me it all still lay's on the fact that the process can detect waves of light as they are moving closer, and with the objects of discussion not being such a good reflector of these emitted light sources, tells me that they are either smaller than what they appear or were explained too be , or, they were added somehow through a CGI format as too be highly undetectable from said available analysis of Deuem Process that they just show up Dead as stagnant implanted objects.
Either way, Hoax or no hoax, the image has information important to deciphering Deuem Process and what we are 'Really' seeing with such images.
1WW
Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on June 29, 2013, 09:31:27 PM
It is always good to have balance, you can't have the YING without the YANG, ...
Ms. Nitpicky butting in... YIN not YING. The YING YANG is...or can be construed as...the nether orifice into which things go up. The YIN and the YANG are the dual spiritual elements and translate to this material duality of light/darkness, male/female, up/down, black/white, etc.
Carry on.
Sorry, Yin it is...
Me being a Shao-Lin and all... ::) silly of me.
Thanks for the update 1WW.
The point is, can we get back to a reasonable discussion?
Based on what i have read, this picture may well be a hoax, but may still be of interest re: the Deuem process.
We have yet to make the 'energised object' reference pictures for Deuem, but that will happen soon, then we have some kind of solid reference backround.
I will add that from my understanding of the process, it is prudent to apply it to any & all pictures where certain qualities of light etc are in question.
I still think this process offers 'real' ufo researchers the perfect tool to do their thing.
By all means carry on guys, i love the technical & logical debates, we are really breaking ground here & i hope that all participants realise this.
And by the same token, don't poop over someones thread just because you dont understand it. That happened to many of us, & it doesn't feel good.
What we are doing is pushing boundaries with our research & there are bound to be disagreements. This is normal & to be expected.
But i for one am very happy we are on track again :P
Now, about this picture... ??
Sound of boots in the main hall...
Zorgon and thorfourwinds have been aroused from a sound sleep and are not amused.
All hail Zorgon!
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e4ec58eb8973.gif)
Quote from: The Matrix Traveller on June 29, 2013, 11:21:26 AM
Don't let ArMaP get you down.... he attacks everyone.
ArMaP doesn't attack anyone :P He just has a certain style that can get on peoples nerves ;)
He is our token Skeptic :P If we didn't have someone on the other side of the fence how boring would this place get?
John doesn't post here much because their is no one here who attack him :P We all all a bunch of yes men with him Where is the fun of engagement in that?
When I first met ArMaP at ATS he was trying to get a group together called the "Fair Skeptics Society" One other member of that group Torbjon was the only other one that wasn't a Phage clone :P Seems you cannot maintain a "Fair Skeptics Society" :D because most of those are really just debunkers... not true skeptics :P
As a side note Torbjon gave me the creeps with the way he 'fussed' over his young daughter... kinda like Benet Ramsey. I got a creepy feeling about him... well a few months back I got email asking to send money to help get him out of jail... I will leave it at that
Now ArMaP has come a long way :D I know it seems hilarious that he is an ATS FSME in the field of UFO's :P But he has found a few images that he cannot explain away on the moon... and all it takes is ONE :D He also has issues with the hills in the Apollo pictures something we were going to do a thread on.
So yeah he can be annoying at times... but in a broken record kinda way :P
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on June 29, 2013, 10:07:12 PM
Yes, I was hoping we could figure out what we were seeing with Deuem's Process , even though it is pretty much a hoaxed image to me Personally, I still think it pertinent too understand with in the Deuem Process of how we define such analysis and deductive points of views.
Well I find it sad that MUFON collects photos like this without any further inquiry MUFON used to INVESTIGATE Now they are just a photo catalog site... and they got 1 MILLION BUCKS from Bigelow for THAT?
These two object could easily be moths close to the lens... there are many examples on youtube and the net showing moths that look just like these.
Quote from: zorgon on June 29, 2013, 11:56:35 PM
Well I find it sad that MUFON collects photos like this without any further inquiry MUFON used to INVESTIGATE Now they are just a photo catalog site... and they got 1 MILLION BUCKS from Bigelow for THAT?
These two object could easily be moths close to the lens... there are many examples on youtube and the net showing moths that look just like these.
OK, show us just
one.
And please explain the wire (that's 450 feet away) in front of the 'moth'.
Actually, wait just a sec and we'll give you all something to 'nibble away at' as Deuem would say.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/lg50aa500a.gif) (//http://)
Relative to attempts to verify the originality of photos - how would one actually do that, if for instance, these two OP craft, that we see there in the photo,, were actually operating within another dimension??
Or, could these craft be inter-dimensional, and possibly just be at the point of mutual dimension cross-over?
If there were a photo of such instance, is it possible that the "Deueum" process, nor any other photo analysis method, could explain the physics of the photo?
And relative to sci-fi thought, same questions for craft that are cloaked/partially cloaked, or craft going through the cloaking/uncloaking process?? ;)
(http://www.echoesofenoch.com/clipart_scifi_spaceships_005.gif)
Quote from: thorfourwinds on June 30, 2013, 12:02:22 AM
OK, show us just one.
(http://0.tqn.com/d/paranormal/1/0/E/I/rainbow_rods5_lg.jpg)
(http://worldufophotosandnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ARTICLE-NOVEMBER-2010-GLASTONBURY-ENGLAND-UFO-CASEBOOK.COM-ITS-THE-LARGES-ROD-I-HAVE-EVER-SEEN..jpg)
QuoteAnd please explain the wire (that's 450 feet away) in front of the 'moth'.
Well I could use the Tether debunk :P but I won't
Quote from: deuem on June 27, 2013, 10:29:24 AM
I think we are being had! The only thing that can pull this one out of the trash is a fantastic full res photo...That will be the day....
Re the wires how far are they away from the camera? How do you tell? Are you assuming they are power lines? What makes you think so?
What is I am taking the picture through one of these?
(http://www.rutland-electric-fencing.co.uk/Images/picFencePermanent.jpg)
(http://www.omegasolar.co.in/Solar-Products-Photo-Gallery/Solar-Fence-Big/23.jpg)
(http://electrobraidfence.com/images/electrobraid_cattle2.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/lighter_moths-800.png) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/Picture_1~0.png)
UFO SIGHTINGS: MUFON Cases - 2 UFOs Photographed Over McAlester, Oklahoma (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=4680.0)
Greetings All: ;D
Another wonderful, spirited discussion and what a great time to throw our hat into the ring of fire. :P
We'll start with
ArMaP the Dissembler.
QuoteNo, that's the result of changing the photo. The original looks like a photo taken after sunset.
The camera data indicates two and a half minutes
before sunset.
Gasp! Herein may lie a tiny grain of truth - ArMaP and Deuem are both right in what you see.
However, ArMaP has continually belittled the Deuem process because he sees things differently than many others.
Is the 'blue' that Deuem sees as 'blue' the same 'blue' that ArMaP experiences?
Enquiring minds want to know.
From ArMaP's EXIF data:
Date/Time Original: 2013:06:21 20:46:37
Create Date: 2013:06:21 20:46:37
From TWC
McAlester, Oklahoma
Sunrise/Sunset 21 June 2013
Sunrise: 6:15 AM Sunset: 8:49 PM
Azimuth: Sunrise 60° Sunset 300°
Length of Day: 14h 33m 30s QuoteArMaP
To me they looks like moths or something like that, one going in each directions.
Not a bad guess, especially the part
"... or something like that..."Classic. :P
Quote... with the object being in front of the wire but being translucent, as a fast moving insect would appear.
And where do you get these fantastic ideas?
"...a fast moving insect is translucent..."
defies the laws of physics,
as our favorite THC-sponge Robo might utter. :P
Please take a better look at your 'translucent moths.'
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/48324_file2MDixonUFOCropTA-800.jpg)
However, we might give you the benefit of the doubt
that it is possible that you may have
part of your postulation correct -
it could be moths
(it could also be a black ops top secret military project) - if you can provide any credible information to reinforce your presumption -
like a similar picture of these moths.
It should be easy for one sharing such knowledge,
as the unique centerline of the
fuselage ... errrr,
moth is quite unique to the design. :P
QuoteQuote from: deuem on June 26, 2013, 09:09:31 AM
If Mufon has the original of this and wants me to take another look, I will try it. Even at the source Zorgon listed the photo is only 208kb. 800x534 pixels. Garbage in, garbage out. My cell phone would take a better photo
(http://www.mufoncms.com/files/48324_submitter_file1__MikeDixonUFOOriginal.JPG)
Even in the dim light in the original, un-cropped photo, there appears to be a shadow - or shaded area - under the tree where it should/would be according to the sun's 'rays' in the Deuem processed photo. :P
(http://www.mufoncms.com/files/48324_submitter_file2__MikeDixonUFOCrop.JPG)
Considering that the telephone wires are 450 feet (137.15 meters) from the camera, and the 'moth' is clearly behind the wire, that would make it a fairly big moth,
n'est-ce pas? :P
QuoteLong Description of Sighting Report
On June 21, 2013 I decided to start marking the sun set as it met the horizon to make me a rock calendar kinda like Stone Hinge. I am calling it Mike Hinge. I picked out a spot on the west side of my property placed a rectangle rock next to a fence post and spray painted the post gray. I sat my Iphone on top of my tripod to mark the heading of where the sun was setting and what heading I was facing to make sure that I can make the same observation each month as the sun sets.
I snapped a couple of photos of the sun setting
and then turned my attention to the hills north of where I was standing. I snapped a couple of shots
...
I then cropped the pic to enlarge the objects.
At first glance I thought they might have been birds but Ive never taken any pictured of birds in flight that look like these.
Upon further observation of the objects I noticed that the one on the left bottom appears to be behind some telephone wires that are approximately 150 yards down my driveway which makes the object appear to be Very Large.
Aha: Data! :P 150 yards = 450 feet = 137.15 meters.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/pigeons-telephone-wire-700.jpg)
(image courtesy RED-GREY.CO.UK)
FYIThe telephone wires described are probably these:
Category 2 100-pair unshielded cable diameter = 0.83 " = 21 MM.
Aha: Data! :P
A pigeon is approximately ... you know the drill - go figure! :P
Check this out: :P
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/red-greyCOUK.png)
We personally resonate with this vibration:
The Rainbow Fish Book - reviews and photos (http://www.red-grey.co.uk/general/the-rainbow-fish-book.html)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/redgreyFISH-700.png)
Quote...Related Goods
stourhead gardens wiltshire, long haired syrian hamster, wedding dress size 10, toy buggies, square downpipe, letters wall, art of display, semi submersible drilling rig, slide buckles, singapore airlines airbus, two weeks notice movie, e 100, free jam labels, wheelchair platform lifts, zack ryder, latvian girl, pictures of hair styles for women, mini labradoodles, vacations japan, cbr 1000 fireblade,
QuoteThe second object appears to be behind the leaves of the tree that is approximately 30 yards in front of me and also appears to be Very large.
Aha: Data! :P 30 yards = 90 feet = 27.43 meters.
QuoteI took two pictures just a few seconds apart and the objects are only in one of the photos.
...
Gotta just love this red herring:
Quotep.s. I did notice prior to taking the photos my Iphone Compass was malfunctioning by loosing its magnetic north settings.
Deuem
QuoteOk, got the hi res photo to work with this time. IMHO I Still say we are being had on this one.
We are being told this was a shot took late in the evening and the dusk is falling fast Wow, I wonder what this is then. A miracle?
Please look at the trees and where the shadows are. We can see light on this side of them like it is either 10am or 2pm. Nice green grass. Hum?
We see the shadow - or shaded area - beneath the tree. It's actually quite obvious. :P
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Daytime-1.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Daytime-1.jpg.html)
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/SunHigh.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/SunHigh.jpg.html)
Deuem
QuoteNow, anyone that has ever looked at a Deuem process might know by know how it finds Sunlight. Out of everything it does that the best. Look at the rays. Is this dusk?
The camera indicates three minutes before sunset.
Your processed photo indicates otherwise.
We do admit that it is rather interesting (and convenient) that both objects are placed behind something.Signs of the times:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/eat_the_rich.jpg)
Quote from: thorfourwinds on June 30, 2013, 02:14:41 AM
it could be moths
(it could also be a black ops top secret military project) -
(http://images.gizmag.com/hero/2242_01.jpg)
Quote from: thorfourwinds on June 30, 2013, 02:14:41 AM
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/eat_the_rich.jpg)[/center]
Dandelion Salad with Vinegar and Oil DressingQuoteDandelions are a free, healthy food -- yum! :) My rating: 9/10.
(http://www.tammysrecipes.com/files/dandeliongathering350.jpg)
http://www.tammysrecipes.com/dandelion_salad_vinegar_oil_dressing
::)
EDIT----IMHO.
I worked this up in Auto Cad using dimensions given.
I get these results after scaling the photo to 3 sizes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At the tree 30 Yards = 27.43m
Ufo left 0.29m Ufo Right 0.29m
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At the wires 150 yards = 137.15m
Wire size about 0.03 dia, over 1 inch and I took half the wire...
A stupid question, but why 2 telephone wires?
Ufo left 1.46m Ufo Right 1.32m
Ufo right wingspan 0.64m
Road width at bend 5.6m
Right off ground 6.3m
Wires 5.0 m off ground
The projectory of the right Ufo shows at this distance and current angle that it is 14.38m from impacting the ground.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By using data from the above and the fence pole row on the left I calculated the tree line. The two green trees shown
Ufo on left 6.81m Ufo on right 6.14m
left Ufo off ground 16m
right Ufo off ground 21m
Trees in the back. Left green tree 5.24m tall, right larger tree 7.8m tall
At the tree line the photo is app 90.6m wide
The Ufo on the right is now 67.04m from impacting the ground
If the wires are attached to poles of the same height then it has a wire droop of 1.16m and at least a run of 68.5m 58m to the left and 10.5 to the right
If that fence on the left continued on the same path then the intersection plane with the photo is 20.83m to the left
This would mean that the electrical pole should be far on the other side of that fence if the wires were attached at the same heights right and left side. Who knows that? but if it was...
The sun is app 8 degrees to the left of photo center. The main tree shadow shows me about the same angle. Since none ofthe shaodows are clear it is hard to get real numbers.
That's all for now.
A close to sunset photo I did for starwarp
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Deuemdt.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Deuemdt.jpg.html)
I would expect something like this ut a lot less. All rays over the horizon
Original sunsel / dusk
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/SnapShot063220.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/SnapShot063220.jpg.html)
Auto Levels, I used auto levela and noting else. Never got any colors back.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/AutoLevels-1.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/AutoLevels-1.jpg.html)
Deuem, Nice Sun light waves scattered in the clouds.. Nature out did me. The original is fantastic.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/DeuemDT-1.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/DeuemDT-1.jpg.html)
Quote from: zorgon on June 30, 2013, 01:19:48 AM
Re the wires how far are they away from the camera? How do you tell? Are you assuming they are power lines? What makes you think so?
What is I am taking the picture through one of these?
(http://www.rutland-electric-fencing.co.uk/Images/picFencePermanent.jpg)
(http://www.omegasolar.co.in/Solar-Products-Photo-Gallery/Solar-Fence-Big/23.jpg)
(http://electrobraidfence.com/images/electrobraid_cattle2.png)
Nobody said anything about power lines !They were plainly identified as telephone wires. ;D
Nice try troll - :P
And get off Zorgon's line >:(
He'll be back from feeding the ferrets :-*
Any moment now :P
Quote from: zorgon on June 30, 2013, 01:19:48 AM
Re the wires how far are they away from the camera? How do you tell? Are you assuming they are power lines? What makes you think so?
When looking at the lines in his photo, I can assume nothing. I can only read what he wrote. Telephone wire(s)
I could say that a standard telephone wire strung at least 150 yards away from the camera would almost be impossible to see in the photo. Yet we se 2 very distent wires. Maybe he is confused and they are power lines. I don't know. They might even be string or wire attached to that tree, I don't know. Wires are hard to figure out. I can do droup and do some sizing if I have a relative object.
If I really had to get a more exact number, then testing would come into play. We would have to setup an example and do it at every few yards to see the results.
On these wires, if I set the focal plane of the photo to where he said it was 150 yards and measure it. It came out a lot larger that I would expect it to. A football field and a half. maybe he meant 150 feet. Think how large a goal post is and then look at it from 100 yards away?
Quote from: thorfourwinds on June 30, 2013, 02:14:41 AM
The camera data indicates two and a half minutes before sunset.
You're right, my mistake, I looked at the wrong time, the "Modify Date". I will take a photo at the right time today to see what I get. :)
QuoteHowever, ArMaP has continually belittled the Deuem process because he sees things differently than many others.
Is the 'blue' that Deuem sees as 'blue' the same 'blue' that ArMaP experiences?
Enquiring minds want to know.[/color]
I don't belittle the Deuem process, I just have yet to see evidence that it shows more than can be seen in the original image. That doesn't mean that I dismiss the result of the process of any image, I consider it as much as I do to any other processing.
In this thread I only mentioned the Deuem process after Deuem talked about it, and the only thing I said was that it was not needed to see the darker and brighter areas of the photo.
QuoteNot a bad guess, especially the part "... or something like that..."
Sometimes I'm not as technical as I should be. :)
It would have been better to write "some lepidoptera". :)
Quote
And where do you get these fantastic ideas?
"...a fast moving insect is translucent..."
Why do you make up quotes like that?
This is what I wrote:
QuoteOne thing I noticed is that the wire is darker but less blue in the place where the object appears, which is consistent with the object being in front of the wire but being translucent, as a fast moving insect would appear.
Quoteif you can provide any credible information to reinforce your presumption -
like a similar picture of these moths.
I will try to find similar photos, as even if these are moths, it's highly unlikely that I can find a similar picture of
these moths.
QuoteIt should be easy for one sharing such knowledge,
as the unique centerline of the fuselage ... errrr, moth is quite unique to the design. :P
Don't forget (or ignore) that the blurring changes the shape of the object.
QuoteEven in the dim light in the original, un-cropped photo, there appears to be a shadow - or shaded area - under the tree where it should/would be according to the sun's 'rays' in the Deuem processed photo. :P
First of all, could you please tell me what is more correct, to call that a shadow or a shaded area? Thanks in advance.
And yes, we can see that the indirect light comes mostly from above and a little to the left, as I said before.
QuoteConsidering that the telephone wires are 450 feet (137.15 meters) from the camera, and the 'moth' is clearly behind the wire, that would make it a fairly big moth, n'est-ce pas? :P
That's what happens when you use part of what I wrote and ignore the rest.
My opinion of those objects being moths (or some kind of lepidoptera) is based on these facts:
1 - any moving object photographed with a shutter speed too low to get a clear image will result on the object appearing translucent in the photo, as it was in several different places while the shutter was oppened.
2 - an out of focus or motion blurred object in a photo (or scanned image), as it appears translucent, it will show everything that is behind it.
That's why I think those are moths (or some kind of lepidoptera) closer to the camera.
QuoteThe second object appears to be behind the leaves of the tree that is approximately 30 yards in front of me and also appears to be Very large.
Aha: Data! :P 30 yards = 90 feet = 27.43 meters.
The answer is the same as the one for the object being in front or behind the wire.
QuoteGotta just love this red herring:
Quotep.s. I did notice prior to taking the photos my Iphone Compass was malfunctioning by loosing its magnetic north settings.
I agree, that's the most suspicious thing on the report.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/cropprocessed.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/cropprocessed.jpg.html)
I am not thinking translucent or transparent. To me it processed full but dead.
I can not pick out any movement either.
Yo Deuem, buddy:
Please, would you run the one with the wire in front?
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/48324_file2MDixonUFOCropTA-800.jpg)
Something is very wrong here and we would like to verify a nagging suspicion.
Plus, the lack of 'interaction' with the atmosphere is questionable.
Great work-ups!
Thank you,
tfw
Original Crop. nothing done to it
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Originalcrop.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Originalcrop.jpg.html)
A problem area arises when doing a close up and levels change to day time ( the mirical program )
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Problemarea.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Problemarea.jpg.html)
Deuem DT
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Deuemgo.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Deuemgo.jpg.html)
To me the wire looks like it does go in front of the object. It would be very easy to reset the wire there using layers on the same photo. Layers from another photo can show up, but the same one is almost impossible for me to tell. But it is very simple to do if you want to move it in front.
For a comparision, here is an American Football field. The goal post is a little over 100 yards away in the photo. Please compare that to a telephone wire
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Over100yardphoto.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Over100yardphoto.jpg.html)
I am confussed and will have to re-read my postings.
Quote
In this thread I only mentioned the Deuem process after Deuem talked about it, and the only thing I said was that it was not needed to see the darker and brighter areas of the photo.
I could swear that I wrote I used Photoshop and used the programs Auto Level function to get the day time photo. I know i am getting old but I don't remember saying anything about Deuem on light and dark. I will go back and read from the beginning. BRB
Quote from: deuem on June 30, 2013, 05:30:39 PM
I know i am getting old but I don't remember saying anything about Deuem on light and dark.
You didn't, that comment was about the image of what you call the sun rays, that I interpreted as meaning that it was meant to detect the position of the light, that's why I made that reference to light and dark.
Sorry for the confusion.
QuoteAnd yes, posting an altered image will get comments like that from me, because you did altered the photo, didn't you?
I altered it and stated exactly what I did. What would you suggest we do, just look at the gray photo and talk about it. I also did a lot of math. And so far with the exception of the sun light, not too much Deuem until late in the thread. Mostly Audo Cad and Photoshop so far.
You have written that it looks like moths, Ok, then is that considered a hoax in your book or is sending moths to Mufon ok with you?
Say an average moth is about 1 inch long. I went back on my Cad program and scaled the photo to that size and then slid it down to find the distance. It would have to be about 2.3 meters in front of the lens to get that shot. If the moths were in the shade then it would look solid to me. maybe the tree would wash out to be in the rear. It could also be just simple seed pods falling.
It could be a lot of things.
My Superman X-Ray vision
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/SnapShot071400.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/SnapShot071400.jpg.html)
Huh, What happened here? Is the entire sky gone? Along with the pesky critters?
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Casesolved.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Casesolved.jpg.html)
No I did not erase the sky nor the lines, nor the pests.
If you start with a photo, Move the tree to another layer, take out the sky, add the critters and wire then put the tree back on top One could get this. The cut line on the mountains is easy. Just use the original tree.
To me the shadow from the tree is a little different than the sun is showing me. So I say IMHO maybe? Still thinking........
Quote from: deuem on June 30, 2013, 06:39:18 PM
I altered it and stated exactly what I did. What would you suggest we do, just look at the gray photo and talk about it.
No, I just thought that the way you presented the altered photo was implying that that version was the real one.
QuoteYou have written that it looks like moths, Ok, then is that considered a hoax in your book or is sending moths to Mufon ok with you?
It's not necessarily a hoax (or the photo was not made with that intention), as something like that happening is quite natural.
If the sender thought that it was a moth close to the camera when he sent the photo then yes, it was hoaxing MUFON and everyone else reading the report.
As I don't know the guy's intentions I always start from an "innocent until proven guilty" point of view.
QuoteSay an average moth is about 1 inch long. I went back on my Cad program and scaled the photo to that size and then slid it down to find the distance. It would have to be about 2.3 meters in front of the lens to get that shot.
I agree.
QuoteIf the moths were in the shade then it would look solid to me.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. :(
Quotemaybe the tree would wash out to be in the rear. It could also be just simple seed pods falling.
I don't think they are pods falling because it doesn't look like there is any vertical motion blur.
QuoteIt could be a lot of things.
True.
QuoteIf you start with a photo, Move the tree to another layer, take out the sky, add the critters and wire then put the tree back on top One could get this. The cut line on the mountains is easy. Just use the original tree.
Hoaxing a photo like this is easy, I agree, but because it's easy it doesn't mean that's what happened.
PS: the sunset photos you posted on this thread have one thing different from what the report says. According to the report, he took the photos pointing the camera to the north, not to the place of the sunset.
I took one photo, but it was latter than I thought (or the camera clock is not correct), at 21h and a few (less than 5, if I'm not mistaken) minutes, with the closest settings I could use to the original, but as I didn't had the time to see how the photo turned out, I didn't see that it was too out of focus, but one thing is sure, it was too bright when compared with the photo from the opening post.
That means that the photo from the opening post was either taken at that hour but a different time of the year, that the photo was taken at that time of the year but the clock was not correct or that there was some change in the photo, either of the time/date or of the image itself or both.
(I still have my test the photo, if anyone wants to see it just ask for it. I will try to take a better photo tomorrow.)
As for the moths, I couldn't find a photo of a moth with motion blur, but I found a YouTube video (Miller moths swarm yard) from which I took these two images.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img13/9320/ivr9.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img542/9959/94ac.jpg)
I will try to make a good photo of a moving object appearing translucent tomorrow.
QuoteNo, I just thought that the way you presented the altered photo was implying that that version was the real one.
There ya go thinking again. I very clearly said it was a miricle photo. I even said I altered it with Auto levels. How in any way is that implying that my version was the real one. What I was implying is that it looks to me that the fella darkenen the photo and all I did was release it back to normal. I have never been able to get such results like this before. See even the Giraffe photo above. If the original Pixels are dark in color, I could work on it for a year to restore them. If someone just changed the contrast then one could just bump it back. If you or anyone else can preform this miricle then I would like to see it.
QuoteIf the sender thought that it was a moth close to the camera when he sent the photo then yes, it was hoaxing MUFON and everyone else reading the report.
I did try my best to add a note that would cover this but no one read it. If you have a photo that covers a lot of ground, say out to infinity from your feet. If anything is close to the lens it has a problem with focus. In this case it might be 2.3 meters compared to hundreds of meters in the rear. To focus the entire shoot is impossible. Focus means that every pixel is in focus, not some big blobs that look like things. My understanding of focus and your are very different and I don't want to get into it here, I have the camera thread for that.
But, as if by magic if you add a little blur to the photo, everything in tight or close to the camera will go away. Maybe you should try it a few hundred times and get back to me.
QuoteIf the moths were in the shade then it would look solid to me.
If a moth or a bug that has semi transparent wings if in the shade of a shadow then the translucent values go away for my process and it looks solid. Take that same bug out intot the sunlight and the wings will turn clear or clearer.
Before I go bug happy, I have never seen a bug that looks like this. It might be an Alien Bug. lol
Most moths have white or brown wings that are covered in pixie dust. They never show clear. Only bugs like dragon flies or bees show clear wings.
If this is a bug or a leaf pod, then someone need to identify it. I already wrote it could be 2.3 meters from the lens and how the photo could work. It needs to be identified. Anyone know what kind of tree that is?
No matter what I still don't like the fact that no one, including myself is picking up any movement. Moths flap their wings very fast and this photo should have looked like the Rod photos Zorgon posted. If you use an extreamly fast shutter speed you can catch them and freeze the flight path. I would have to run the math on a known moth to figure the shutter speed. But it has to be fast. A very fast shutter speed would also darken the photo. The faster the shutter, the more light you need. What was his shutter speed?
Quote from: ArMaP on June 28, 2013, 10:06:23 PM
I like comedy. :P
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/Vault/ArMaP_001.jpg)
LMAF But I think you need a bigger truck..lol
Quote from: deuem on July 01, 2013, 11:59:10 AM
LMAF But I think you need a bigger truck..lol
Is this one big enough (for now)? ;D
(http://media.knuttz.net/0708/gigantic-truck-11/gigantic-truck-001.jpg)
PS: I will comment the other posts when I get home at the end of the day.
Terex 33-19 "Titan" - If you want to know more about ArMaP's "family truck" ;), you can get it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terex_Titan
And here is another interesting photo of it, with several people around and under it!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14799288@N02/2729315354/
So, it would be safe too say that the Deuem process is picking up the natural lighting of the Sun but when this photo 'Could Have Been' photo-shopped or layered, the Deuem process is filtering through the garbage still picking up the illumination ring's of the Ambient Sunlight available during the original image started with?
This would definitely explain the lack of signature or ring's for the anomalies being discussed, and there are a few other thing's I ran across that may be a possible answer for what these might be, but, for ArMaps and Zorgon''s sake, I will keep them too myself for now. :P
Nice work up 'Z', a sign of true sarcasm and stereo typing, appreciate that. ;)
1WW
Quote from: deuem on July 01, 2013, 09:06:18 AM
If a moth or a bug that has semi transparent wings if in the shade of a shadow then the translucent values go away for my process and it looks solid. Take that same bug out intot the sunlight and the wings will turn clear or clearer.
OK, I understand it now, thanks. :)
But I wasn't saying that the moths had translucent wings, what I meant is that, because of the movement, they appear translucent.
QuoteAnyone know what kind of tree that is?
I don't have the slightest idea, my knowledge of trees is very limited, having been a city dweller all my life. :(
QuoteWhat was his shutter speed?
1/30 of a second.
Well I know the scale/size is all wrong but this is an example of an insect called a lacewing.
there around an inch long at most. just putting this example out there for you.
The "UFO things" I have NO idea. Bloody hoax'rs i'm sick to death of them IF this is another >:(
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Chrysopidae_(aka).jpg)
Quote from: deuem on July 01, 2013, 08:54:24 AM
But, as if by magic if you add a little blur to the photo, everything in tight or close to the camera will go away. Maybe you should try it a few hundred times and get back to me.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. ???
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on July 01, 2013, 02:59:53 PM
So, it would be safe too say that the Deuem process is picking up the natural lighting of the Sun but when this photo 'Could Have Been' photo-shopped or layered, the Deuem process is filtering through the garbage still picking up the illumination ring's of the Ambient Sunlight available during the original image started with?
Yes that seems to be the gist of it. Photo editting leaves traces unless you are very very good. Not sure how cloning from one real image to another would show on Deuem process. I will have to clone one and see what Deuem shows...
QuoteThis would definitely explain the lack of signature or ring's for the anomalies being discussed, and there are a few other thing's I ran across that may be a possible answer for what these might be, but, for ArMaps and Zorgon''s sake, I will keep them too myself for now. :P
Go on spit it out :P Get it out of your system :D Just remember a lot of you bitched about people being stomped on on ATS :D So one must be careful which boots one wears :P
QuoteNice work up 'Z', a sign of true sarcasm and stereo typing, appreciate that. ;)
Lol image based on a) Thors real truck and B) an email I got :P What was odd was how fast I found that on the web LOL
Quote from: stealthyaroura on July 01, 2013, 11:10:23 PM
I have NO idea. Bloody hoax'rs i'm sick to death of them IF this is another >:(
Was about to make a thread on that....
Here are some test photos.
1 - A photo taken close to the supposed time the photo from the opening post was taken (four minutes after). Different camera, different settings, too much zoom, but we can see that a photo as dark as the one from the opening post could not have been taken just after sunset.
Photo 1 (http://armap.no-ip.org/armap/pegasus/SAM_1361.JPG)
2 - A photo taken pointing to where the sun had just set. If we try to use auto levels on Photoshop or GIMP (I only used GIMP) it cannot show any detail, because the photo was taken pointing to the light source, so there's too much contrast.
Photo 2 (http://armap.no-ip.org/armap/pegasus/SAM_1362.JPG)
3 - A photo taken some 20º south of the point where the sun had set. Still to close to the light source, too much contrast between brighter and darker areas, auto levels doesn't show much detail.
Photo 3 (http://armap.no-ip.org/armap/pegasus/SAM_1363.JPG)
4 - A photo taken 90º to the left of where the sun had set. Although still not that good, auto levels does a better work, because the contrast is not as strong as on the other photos.
Photo 4 (http://armap.no-ip.org/armap/pegasus/SAM_1364.JPG)
PS: taking the brighter photo and darkening it, we can see that it's relatively easy to make it look like it was taken with less light, but the histogram shows signs of manipulation. Truth be told, the histogram of the photo from the OP, although not showing clear signs of manipulation, it's a little too "compressed", but I don't know if that's normal or suspicious. :)
Edited to change the photos to links, so it wouldn't slow down the page load.
GADZOOKS That pic is HUGE took forever to load :o
Now lemme ask you this
1) I take a photo and manipulate it in a photo program...
2) When done I take a screen capture of the finished result
What will the historygram show now? ::)
Quote from: zorgon on July 02, 2013, 02:07:05 AM
GADZOOKS That pic is HUGE took forever to load :o
Sorry, I have a slow upload speed, like all home connections.
I changed the photos to links, at least now the page load is not affected. :)
Quote
Now lemme ask you this
1) I take a photo and manipulate it in a photo program...
2) When done I take a screen capture of the finished result
What will the historygram show now? ::)
I will tell you tomorrow. :)
But, if you are working with a 100% zoomed image, I think the histogram will be the same, as what you see is what you get. A zoomed out image may hide some results from the histogram.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/White_House_Ezekelies_Wheel.jpg)
QuoteYes that seems to be the gist of it. Photo editting leaves traces unless you are very very good. Not sure how cloning from one real image to another would show on Deuem process. I will have to clone one and see what Deuem shows...
Yes, If you take 3 original photos and layer them, the process will run as normal. It has no idea of what it is looking at. It just runs the photo.
I did notice something else I did not like about the sun. It is very difficult for me to see the suns rays continue below the mountain line and show on the trees better. It should have done that better. I don't see it at all. Now this all by itself is not a smoking lead. It is an oberservation that leans towards a problem and would need a lot more work to figure out for sure. But I really don't like to see any problems in a photo. It should just process and be done.
The other problem was in the head of the left UFO. See the gray triangle smudge block in the problem photo. Again not a killer but an add to the wrong side of the list. ( If you are making one )
Quote from: thorfourwinds on July 02, 2013, 03:41:59 AM(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/White_House_Ezekelies_Wheel.jpg)
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/TheWheelGif.gif) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/TheWheelGif.gif.html)
Outside of the very clear cuts in the wheel, ( forget them ) Just look at the results.
The wheel is what I call dead. The only thing thing that happened is the process processed the colors in the wheel. It did not pick any extra waves, energy or rings, No atmospheric interference, no movement and what looks like a cut and past ring all around the object with blurring added.
The photo was very low res to begin with. I picked up NO sun rays at all. There is a chance that the sky has been altered or at least cleaned up around the building. I found a couple or eraser marks. This may have been done by someone else before you if you did not do it. Take out any antenas or gun turrets and secret service men.
I do get some reflective light from the ground spot lights. 6 of them. In the entire photo That is it for reflective light. The spot lights are reflecting some sun light and turning a bit into rings and adding a lot more color.
On the photo there is only a slight shadow or shading under the bushes on the right. I see no long shadows in the photo anywhere. So I am guessing this was shot close to noon. If that is so, the the object should also cast a shadow straight down or even slightly to the left. The ground is clear of shadows. Visual and processed.
If you want to use Photoshop, Copy a photo and paste it. PS will create a new layer with a working layer. On the new layer just chose the layer option multiply and you get the dark photo equal to the original. Next flatten the image and your done with the darkening. Nothing fancy on the dark work. 4 clicks and done. Again another one in the wrong list..
Quote from: 1Worldwatcher on July 01, 2013, 02:59:53 PM
So, it would be safe too say that the Deuem process is picking up the natural lighting of the Sun but when this photo 'Could Have Been' photo-shopped or layered, the Deuem process is filtering through the garbage still picking up the illumination ring's of the Ambient Sunlight available during the original image started with?
This would be a 100% correct statement as far as I am concerned. "Bingo". Moving real object from photo to photo should still process real. It makes life difficult to tell what is real. This is why I also went after the Math. Thor went that way also. math shows things that Deuem can not.
The only thing done to date that might make sence is the bug/seed pod 2.3 meters from the lens. But there are so many other problems with the story and photo it is very hard to believe this is a real honest photo that has not been changed to fit a hoax.
Has anyone seen if Mufon has done anything on this or have other groups worked it yet? Maybe there are more answers on line that I can't get to.
QuoteBut, as if by magic if you add a little blur to the photo, everything in tight or close to the camera will go away. Maybe you should try it a few hundred times and get back to me.
Quote
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that.
Sorry, I don't understand which part you are having problems with.
Magic
a little blur
Tight or close
go away
try a few hundred times.
I guess you understood, get back to me, cause you did that part ok.
MagicThe word magic is used here to refer to magic tricks. "Whala a flower", "See the girl, now see a tiger" Illusion is part of magic tricks and all English speaking people would understand why I used that word. A simple snap of my fingers and the object changes. Don't look here, look here.
A little blur. The opposite of a lot of blur.
In a photo manipulation program one can add the blur process to the photo. There are many types of blur techniques. In PS you can adjust the amount of blur from 0 to 156. I have noticed over the years that if an object is really close to the lens yet other objects are far away that this process will assist one to determine the location of focus. By adjusting the blur just a few points the 2 UFOs go so far out of focus that you can no longer see them yet the rest of the photo you can make out items.
Keep raising the focus to the limit and you will see that something in the photo will remain recognizable to you. That object is most likely right in the middle of the original camera focus. This is something one has to try over and over to get a feel for it. And since it is an artistic look you won't like it anyways. There has to be a mathematical calculation for this but I don't have it and no time to design it. It just works for me.
tight or close
These are words we can use in English to mean that an object is very close to you. It is tight. It is lose means it is farther away and not close.
go away
This means that the object will no longer be in focus for your eyes and will go away. It will disappear off the screen. The blur will give it the look of it not even being there. This is a process i use to tell if a UFO is a crack or bird dropping on a windshield.
It is also the same process i used to determine a very complicated ISS space photo where I figured out that a certain UFO was the result of a glue smudge of a footprint sticker put on the window and removed. It was one of my most memorable Deuem moments that lasted several months with all sorts of trolls and friends working on it. The Deuem process nailed it on the first pass and I called it a sticker on the window. It took me several months to prove it by searching archives but I did. Trolls ate crow and friends had a party. Bottom line the slight blur process worked and then Deuem backed it up on that photo. Many others with stuff on glass or car windows. They will go away. Blend in, disappear.
try a few hundred times
This means do it once, then twice, then a third time and keep doing it on different photos until you hit the 300 mark. After you have tried at least 300 different photos and have a solid background on blurring close objects to the lens, write a report and I will read it. I am interested in what you will find. Please don't bother me if you only do 1 or 2 photos and think you have it licked. It takes a masters eye and a lot of practice to get it right.
If you still don't understand what I mean, I am sure you will feel free to ask again.
Also if you research blur you will find a lot of information but it is much better if you do it yourself as a practice with photos to get your own artistic idea. If one can not see with artistic eyes the above letter will be worthless and sorry for the long explanation.
Life is not all Black and White, there is a lot of Gray to deal with.
If one lets his/her mind be open to both the analytic world and the artistic world you can then process both halves of your brain. Let them argue it out. All of the best problem solvers in the world start off with an Artistic image in their head and then apply Math to figure it out. Along the way the Artistic side and the Math side come to some agreements and we get things like Space Shuttles, Pyramids, Empire State Building, Atomic Submarines, Planes that fly around the world and other great achievements of mankind. They all start with sketches and common knowledge of the times. Everything we wear, drive and see around us started with Art. Without Art, Math would be just for counting apples. Mankind has used math to make art work..
Thanks for the explanation, Deuem, now I understand what you meant. :)
Quote from: deuem on July 02, 2013, 10:35:54 AM
If one lets his/her mind be open to both the analytic world and the artistic world you can then process both halves of your brain. Let them argue it out. All of the best problem solvers in the world start off with an Artistic image in their head and then apply Math to figure it out. Along the way the Artistic side and the Math side come to some agreements and we get things like Space Shuttles, Pyramids, Empire State Building, Atomic Submarines, Planes that fly around the world and other great achievements of mankind. They all start with sketches and common knowledge of the times. Everything we wear, drive and see around us started with Art. Without Art, Math would be just for counting apples. Mankind has used math to make art work..
If you replace "art" with "imagination", I agree. :)
More than just imagination but not such things as painting or works of art. They are the results of artistic. Just like 4 is the result of 2+2
Atristic is a part of the brain that is not Analytical....Its what dreams are made of !
Thats what Plato called "The Classic, Romantic Split"
You can see it every day in different peoples modality.
Some folk live think and act in colours and melodies and ideas.
and others live think and act in absolutes, and tangables and time frames.
Its always intrigued me.
Quote from: Elvis Hendrix on July 02, 2013, 04:37:40 PM
Thats what Plato called "The Classic, Romantic Split"
You can see it every day in different peoples modality.
Some folk live think and act in colours and melodies and ideas.
and others live think and act in absolutes, and tangables and time frames.
Its always intrigued me.
GOLD, my friend... ;)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10005/GoldBars400.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/lg50aa500a.gif) (//http://)