Beware of a world as seen through Man’s two I’s: Ignorance and Illiberalism.
Joined: Oct 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,731 Location: Heart of America Karma: 133
Is it cut and paste? « Thread Started on Jul 27, 2008, 11:40pm »
Since this has been so hottly debated and misunderstood… I have decided to post this example:
The Model
I used a model of the Roswell craft. I photographed it twice, both photos are the same distance away from the model but there is a lateral difference in distance of a little over a foot.
Photo 1
Photo 2
The models are the same size in both photos (as close as one can do such a thing).
The photos of the models are resized (the same amount each) to approximately match the drone in Ty’s KK and LL photos.
They are then simply cut and paste into KK and LL (after removing the drone in the photos).
The new photos are overlaid:
The above is the craft overlay.
The above is based on the background trees (without adjusting for difference in the angle of the trees), enlarging LL to match the tree size in KK.
If there is any question as to the issue being debated, it is one of two:
1. A camera is placed on a tripod (a “fixed” location) and a model is placed at a “fixed” distance away… rotated and tilted in place.
2. The model is already a CG creation (by what ever method)… and the size is not being varied, but rotated and tilted in place (see the 3D example) and pasted into the photo.
These possibilities must be eliminated before the assumption for the photos to be real can be made.
Re: Is it cut and paste? « Reply #1 on Jul 27, 2008, 11:54pm »
The problem is, that possibility does not want to be acknowledged by DRT, even though, based on the photo, and this above how it is done. Great work, as it makes it clear to me. I played with that flash example at yo and it was amazing.
The problem is, that possibility does not want to be acknowledged by DRT, even though, based on the photo, and this above how it is done. Great work, as it makes it clear to me. I played with that flash example at yo and it was amazing.
Marvin will have to prove how this possibility is a fact before it can be assumed that these photos are not real.
Sorry ES, it doesn't work the other way around... no matter how much you squirm..
Re: Is it cut and paste? « Reply #3 on Jul 28, 2008, 12:14am »
Err excuse me, the burden is on you guys. Remember?You have had the time and resources and financing, you formed your own website, and nothing has come from your end:) These threads will not close by you baiting using terms like squirming, we are not in desperation here. There are many other om members that see this quite differently than you and DRT see it. This will merely be ported over to the other websites not in agreement with you either. It makes more sense to us than anything presented by your side. Thank You .
Joined: Jul 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 375 Karma: 109
Re: Is it cut and paste? « Reply #5 on Jul 28, 2008, 1:16am »
Let's teach it a lesson it 'll never forget! For a devious dead it'll live to regret. It's clear, that the pig must die! We are of the opinion the pig must pay! We can't let it live for another day! We fear, if the rules apply, It's clear that the pig must die!
And I am sure, the believers will turn it to their good reading these words...
Re: Is it cut and paste? « Reply #8 on Jul 28, 2008, 2:42am »
Marvin, Thank you again for this example that helps us understand what is going on here. Which Brings what seems to me the very same problem with Rajs as diagnosed by Trovald. Perspective and a situation that could not be without the assistance of composting. Therein he stated clearly and concisely the following in the new perspectives thread.
Quote:
@spf33: camera changes fov but does not move. cannot do this by hand. try with physical camera. you can pivot in place but camera position also changes. unless raj set up tripod measured lens exact location and position and moved around lens pivot point. if this case 4 seconds miracle! spf33 just prove cg it is easy to do. physical world much more difficult. so which case is real?
a.entire thing hoax b.raj used tripod and set up shots c.raj used track dolly and gimbal d.raj take impossible photographs
@onthefence: deconstructed animation into seperate images. can detect perspective change. include everything in photo with light into second photo pivot in place. notice changes.
perspective basic basic basic. spf33 must move camera like in real world not rotate around camera field of view. in real world when you pivot in place you not only change field of view but you change position as well. this basic facts. cg camera can rotate field of view and maintain same position. see difference?
#D Perspective Bears OUT composite
Do you think that the Raj was more of the same in Chad, or was there an attempt at correction, but which shows a lack of either skill or appreciation matching the composts with real life situations.. Thank you for your very hard and outstanding work as well as others that has led much more closer to the truth . By the way I believe Trovald has just posted a better calibrated image in that thread, and he would appreciate some comments. Cheers
« Last Edit: Jul 28, 2008, 2:44am by enlightenedseeker »
Marvin will have to prove how this possibility is a fact before it can be assumed that these photos are not real.
Sorry ES, it doesn't work the other way around... no matter how much you squirm..
From that statement I can surmise the following. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You say these photos should be seen as real until they are shown to be fake?
Even when the object is related to Ufology. A field known to be targeted by hoaxers. And these pics are submitted anonymously to the internet!
The pictures should be examined skeptically, and research like above either confirmed by another source or refuted with reasonable explanations.
Point well taken. The pictures should not be declared hoax until proven so. However, if you want to assume everything is a hoax until proven otherwise, others may choose to remain neutral and others may believe. Until resolved it's in the eye of the beholder.
The problem is, that possibility does not want to be acknowledged by DRT, even though, based on the photo, and this above how it is done. Great work, as it makes it clear to me. I played with that flash example at yo and it was amazing.
Marvin will have to prove how this possibility is a fact before it can be assumed that these photos are not real.
Sorry ES, it doesn't work the other way around... no matter how much you squirm..
Tomi, what is missing here is this... you are looking at the proof. This "possibility" is more likely to be the fact than the shear random event of taking two photos while being on the move, of a moving object.
Here are two outstanding reasons why:
1. It takes planning, effort and a lot of work to make a set of photos like this example... it does not happen by simple random chance.
2. It duplicates what you see in Ty's KK and LL (you may want to read this part over and over again).
If these examples are not proof to someone, then it isn't because this evidence did not meet the burden of proof... it truly becomes a matter of what is being accepted (or rejected), and by whom.
The folks that are the squeaky wheel saying they do not see anything, or this is not proof of anything… well, the rest of the world apparently does not wear the same pair of glasses.
If these examples are not proof to someone, then it isn't because this evidence did not meet the burden proof... it truly becomes a matter of what is being accepted (or rejected), and by whom.
The folks that are the squeaky wheel saying they do not see anything, or this is not proof of anyhing… well, the rest of the world apparently does not wear the same pair of glasses.
The burden of proof is not met by your example only the possibility. IMHO
Re: Is it cut and paste? « Reply #12 on Jul 28, 2008, 3:35am »
Quote"Until resolved it's in the eye of the beholder."
Well said and this is true for both sides, making someones opinion to sound foolish or almost infantile as some here have been doing lately only personifies the ignorance portrayed by the comments. Both sides have just as much circumstantial evidence to point to real or fake. The continuing arguements must cease if we are to truly move forward.
I could care less at this point if both sides can work together. That point is moot right now. Obviously, we can't really work together without someone acting in a childish manner as we have all seen lately. If we could there would be more than the same 4-5 people speaking about the drones here.
Most people have become so turned off by the personal attacks and outright kiddie type attitudes shown lately that they have stopped posting or even reading here in some cases. That is truly sad because some honestly "on the fence" folks have left here and gone elsewhere for a more civil atmosphere. This can change very fast if the few who remain in a mode of bait and attack can get past the petty ridiculous attitudes displayed on a continuing basis here and those who respond to this bait would just ignore them if they choose to act in such a manner. If not, soon it will be only 5 people running around in circles hitting each other below the belt, getting nowhere fast.....oh wait, it already is.
Myself, I choose to only critique the attitudes and ignore the source of the arguements and not even try to get into the theory itself, as I have nothing to add from my field of expertise. The info and theory is interesting to us all but the smug attitudes and rude behavior shown by many is a sure way to chase away anyone with a truly open mind. Someone with an open mind is always willing to listen to the other side of the arguement without a need to attack them in anyway for the theories they put forth.
Yeah, I believe they are real, on a much more profound level than many others do, but I am also aware that this may also be a farce to drive a spike between us as a community and a growing group of awakening minds. Always remember, they the PTB are the enemy, not the drone reality believers, on the fencers, or the drone hoax believers or any of your fellow forum members or admins. I think some have lost sight of that here.
Marvin will have to prove how this possibility is a fact before it can be assumed that these photos are not real.
Sorry ES, it doesn't work the other way around... no matter how much you squirm..
Tomi, what is missing here is this... you are looking at the proof. This "possibility" is more likely to be the fact than the shear random event of taking two photos while being on the move, of a moving object.
Here are two outstanding reasons why:
1. It takes planning, effort and a lot of work to make a set of photos like this example... it does not happen by simple random chance.
2. It duplicates what you see in Ty's KK and LL (you may want to read this part over and over again).
If these examples are not proof to someone, then it isn't because this evidence did not meet the burden of proof... it truly becomes a matter of what is being accepted (or rejected), and by whom.
The folks that are the squeaky wheel saying they do not see anything, or this is not proof of anything… well, the rest of the world apparently does not wear the same pair of glasses.
Thank you, I had almost forgotten about poor TY and the motherload ship kk and LL. Hmm all thats missing is II in the middle there as for demonstrating possibilities, we must distinguish whats most probable from improbable. You imo have met that burden convincingly. Kudos. I have several emails, from non members, asking would you mind if your work was copied else where with full credit and attribution of course. There is so much of it, all good too, a tutorial in itself. Thank you
« Last Edit: Jul 28, 2008, 3:59am by enlightenedseeker »
Quote"Until resolved it's in the eye of the beholder."
Well said and this is true for both sides, making someones opinion to sound foolish or almost infantile as some here have been doing lately only personifies the ignorance portrayed by the comments. Both sides have just as much circumstantial evidence to point to real or fake. The continuing arguements must cease if we are to truly move forward.
I could care less at this point if both sides can work together. That point is moot right now. Obviously, we can't really work together without someone acting in a childish manner as we have all seen lately. If we could there would be more than the same 4-5 people speaking about the drones here.
Most people have become so turned off by the personal attacks and outright kiddie type attitudes shown lately that they have stopped posting or even reading here in some cases. That is truly sad because some honestly "on the fence" folks have left here and gone elsewhere for a more civil atmosphere. This can change very fast if the few who remain in a mode of bait and attack can get past the petty ridiculous attitudes displayed on a continuing basis here and those who respond to this bait would just ignore them if they choose to act in such a manner. If not, soon it will be only 5 people running around in circles hitting each other below the belt, getting nowhere fast.....oh wait, it already is.
Myself, I choose to only critique the attitudes and ignore the source of the arguements and not even try to get into the theory itself, as I have nothing to add from my field of expertise. The info and theory is interesting to us all but the smug attitudes and rude behavior shown by many is a sure way to chase away anyone with a truly open mind. Someone with an open mind is always willing to listen to the other side of the arguement without a need to attack them in anyway for the theories they put forth.
Yeah, I believe they are real, on a much more profound level than many others do, but I am also aware that this may also be a farce to drive a spike between us as a community and a growing group of awakening minds. Always remember, they the PTB are the enemy, not the drone reality believers, on the fencers, or the drone hoax believers or any of your fellow forum members or admins. I think some have lost sight of that here.
These issues have not been and will not be resolved...unfortunately.
The only thing to do is to lock the drone board at OM.
OMF Books and DVD's - CLICK HERE
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/sendtopic.png "[Send Topic To Friend]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/hover.gif "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/U1.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/U2.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/OnCraftTest.gif "[image]")
![[image]](http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/OnCraftBGTest.gif "[image]")
Logged![[image]](http://i588.photobucket.com/albums/ss322/instantmartians1/MarvinObservation.gif "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://i24.tinypic.com/2lvjxx0.gif "[avatar]")
.
![[avatar]](http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j311/jeddyhi/iss_sts119.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff265/Readers07/hicks.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii218/murnut/surfround.jpg "[avatar]")
