Starship Asterisk*

Can't use my ...... wrote: Will you, hazeii, here before the world avow that you are not demonstrating the most obvious solution and perpetrating a hoax upon us?

If so, you seem to have demonstrated the validity of all three elements in the insect theory.

Of course I'm not perpetrating a hoax on you, would I do a thing like...wait, what's that? Someone's hacking into my internet connection! Quick, someone call Security!

*Interrupt*
I won't get much time so this communication must be brief.

Hazeii's communication session has been hijacked by us, the Kult Of Organised Konspiracists. We can reveal he is in fact a government operative, assigned to this board to spread a cover story following an accidental public viewing of the trial of a new particle weapon developed by the Iluminati and being deployed in their war against the Knight Templars (who are, as I'm sure a smart person like you is aware, transdimensional beings from Sag A*). We did try to save the photographer, but government agents got there first (now you know why he's been so quiet). We also lost an operative who was sent to check the condition of the lamp post but fell into a vortex when he stepped into an unseen crop circle (unseen because it was on tarmac, of course, but you can see its reflection in the water if you divide the sum and difference by the integral of the tangent of the White Ant).

Remember, the truth is out there (way, way, out there - far beyond Roswell, even).

MrMoon wrote:Somebody asked for a fake image

I've done this in about 15 minutes from the "after" picture.
It's not perfect, but I wouldn't waste more time on that.

Unfortunately you've got the dimensions wrong, so it's not possible to do a comparison against the real images. Please at least correct this.

This is sad you can tell its not a insect by looking at at it the loop in the tube is being ignored as if it was not there- the flash and impact smoke are seperate anyone can see that look at the close up. This is nuts. Victor it takes alot of nerve to post the picture that disproves what you claim and still spin doctor the whole thing as if it showed a bee. Whats scary is that APOD and many here claim to see it. Whats that loop ? It is in the high def APOD image. This is nuts did I say that.

Doug Huffman wrote:This is sad you can tell its not a insect by looking at at it the loop in the tube is being ignored as if it was not there-

Please try to be a bit more careful with your grammer. I'm not quite able to discern what you just said, but it sounds like you're suggesting that the loop discredits the bug theory.

First, I'd like to point out that bugs do fly in loops -- although I'd find it a stretch for anything as large as a honeybee to fly in a loop AND the rest of the trail within 1/20 second.

Second, the "loop" clearly shows up in both before and after pictures. Also, it's not a complete loop but just the suggestion of a loop. In any case, since it is in the before and after pictures, it must not be related to the other items that are only in the middle picture.

the flash and impact smoke are seperate anyone can see that look at the close up.

And your point is what? The "flash" is explained by a reflection off the insect body. The "smoke" is explained by a reflection off the insect wings. They appear different because the wings are transparent and reflect back the strobe without significant modification. Camera strobe light is significantly bluer than sunset light, just as we see in the picture. The reflection off the body, on the other hand, reflects off whatever pigments there happen to be there. This is not a stretch. This is exactly what one would expect to see. Did you see my simulation using an actual bee photograph? It looks substantially the same. The only difference is the orientation of the wings.

Victor it takes alot of nerve to post the picture that disproves what you claim and still spin doctor the whole thing as if it showed a bee.

What picture disproves my claim? I haven's seen one yet. If you think there is one, please show it and explain HOW it disproves the insect theory.

Whats scary is that APOD and many here claim to see it. Whats that loop ? It is in the high def APOD image. This is nuts did I say that.

In my opinion, the loop is just a random feature in the cloud. It's not even a loop. It's a couple of arcs that your brain melds into a loop.

Victor Wrote:

" see the loop in the during picture. I also see it in the before and after pictures. That means it's unrelated to the event. It does not show up in the difference pictures "

This is not correct, The defined loop- it is not in the before or after pictures. The best you can do is see where it should be and try to match. Prove it.

The flash and smoke are seperate - the smoke appears behind the pole this is not the body of an insect caught in the flash close to the camera view this in 3d as was suggested in a viewmaster this will disprove your close up theory- it is smoke and light that are not connected at or near the lamp post, not a bee. I can see it is not a bee with my own eyes.

I have another theory, but I need some field work to prove it... Could the people in Darwin go and ask people around the scene if any of them saw a suspicious looking man carrying a canon G3 and an odd shaped mechanical contraption with a bicycle wheel attached to it. Did anybody saw this guy taking pictures of this device while spinning the wheel?

Luis wrote:I have another theory, but I need some field work to prove it... Could the people in Darwin go and ask people around the scene if any of them saw a suspicious looking man carrying a canon G3 and an odd shaped mechanical contraption with a bicycle wheel attached to it. Did anybody saw this guy taking pictures of this device while spinning the wheel?

I heard he was scouting locations for a new KFC

okok I've decided to finally try to use photoshop and see what I can do with it. The loop is interesting. These following 3 images are the images as they are on apod but with histogram stretching to make the loop more seeable:

One with the streak:


The picture labelled "after" which is actually the before one:


THe picture labelled "before" which is actually the after one:


To me, I can see that the most distinct parts of the loop canm be seen in the before and after pic. I'll try to show them:

Here is the whole loop in the picture with the streak:


Here is the most distinct part of loop in the picture with the streak:


Here is the picture labelled "after" which is actually the before one, with the distinct part shown again:


Here is the picture labelled "before" which is actualy the after on, with the distinct part shown again:


Here is a gid animation showing the 3 images. The first is the one with the streak, the second is the one labelled "after", the third image is the one labelled "before":



And a slower version:



Well, to me it looks like parts of the loop is in both the beofre and after pictures. Judge for yourself.

skyglow1

Gah sorry the last link is wrong, its



for the slower version.

skyglow1

Luis wrote:I have another theory, but I need some field work to prove it... Could the people in Darwin go and ask people around the scene if any of them saw a suspicious looking man carrying a canon G3 and an odd shaped mechanical contraption with a bicycle wheel attached to it. Did anybody saw this guy taking pictures of this device while spinning the wheel?

The trail would have been more of an arc

skyglow1

Anonymous wrote:

Luis wrote:I have another theory, but I need some field work to prove it... Could the people in Darwin go and ask people around the scene if any of them saw a suspicious looking man carrying a canon G3 and an odd shaped mechanical contraption with a bicycle wheel attached to it. Did anybody saw this guy taking pictures of this device while spinning the wheel?

The trail would have been more of an arc

skyglow1

Maybe it was a more sophisticated contraption. Something like a production line, with a band moved by the wheel. Maybe we could use another 100 pages to decide the shape of this machine?

This is not correct, The defined loop- it is not in the before or after pictures.

It is just as clearly in the before and after pictures as in the middle picture. Allow me to demonstrate. To create this images, I took a Pryde picture, duplicated it, applied a gaussian blur of radius 25 and then performed image-blurred image +128. Then I expanded midtones. This has the effect of emphasizing the trail. First I show the result of this operation on the event picture:


Next, I show this same picture with the most looplike interpretation of the data painted on top.

Note that it's not a complete loop. Your brain would like to fill in the loop, but the closed loop is not actually there. Next I would like to show alternative interpretations:


Now I show the before picture and a loop interpretation:


Finally, I show the after picture and a loop interpretation:

the smoke appears behind the pole

This statement is absurd. We cannot see around corners. Did you mean the pole appears in front of the smoke? A quick look at a difference picture shows that the smoke appears in front of the pole.

this is not the body of an insect caught in the flash close to the camera view this in 3d as was suggested in a viewmaster

We don't have a stereo picture of the event, so I don't know what you're saying here.

this will disprove your close up theory- it is smoke and light that are not connected at or near the lamp post, not a bee. I can see it is not a bee with my own eyes.

You cannot see that something is NOT something. You can only see that it is something else and then deduce that it could not be something else. If you see something other than an insect, please show us what you see and how you arrive at your conclusion. So far you have not disproved anything about the insect theory.

victorengel wrote:

This is not correct, The defined loop- it is not in the before or after pictures.

I like the snake picture, perhaps he was after the bee

One of the scientific principles that seems to have been forgotten is that of Occam's Razor - the simplest answer is likely the right answer unless there's a convincing reason to consider otherwise.

In the early days thought the flying insect theory was preposterous and dismissed it immediately. As unexciting as it is, I've become convinced that the flying insect is the most promising theory:

- the proposed event does fit all the available facts quite well,
- unlike other theories, we can produce an existing culprit (someone Googled an Australian bee)
- none of the facts contradict the theory,
- it is an extremely plausible event to have captured (certainly compared to the various meteor strikes, lightning strikes, etc.),
- the does not require any elaborate, unexplained phenonena (such as loop-de-loops),
- it is the *simplest* answer (precisely because it fits the above five so well).

In short, is there any compelling reason *not* to view this as the best theory?

Can we do a recap, and perhaps a Doubting Thomas could list points that punch holes this theory? (and please, not silly ones like 'I can see with my own eyes it's not an insect'.)

For those who'd like to see what termites look like in flight, I happen to have a picture.
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/image/ ... iginal.jpg

This is a composite of 4 pictures taken with the lens focused at 4 different distances. I combined 4 pictures to simulate what I actually saw.

A fall rain prompted a termite swarm. About five species of dragonfly are seen preying on the termites. Additionally, swallows and swifts are preying on them higher up. Unpictured are grackles and swallows preying on them on the ground.

From other posts, I gather termites are common in Darwin. I suspect that's not what's pictured, but I could be wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Luis wrote:I have another theory, but I need some field work to prove it... Could the people in Darwin go and ask people around the scene if any of them saw a suspicious looking man carrying a canon G3 and an odd shaped mechanical contraption with a bicycle wheel attached to it. Did anybody saw this guy taking pictures of this device while spinning the wheel?

:shock:

The trail would have been more of an arc :D

skyglow1

Which makes me think: what if the bike wheel were laid on its side? The wire could then be perpendicular to the spokes (parallel to the axle), and we could get a straight line. The insect would come towards us, then move away, but the line would appear straight.

Boldra

victorengel wrote:For those who'd like to see what termites look like in flight, I happen to have a picture.
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/image/ ... iginal.jpg

Once again victor your hard work has provided key insight for me personally

While I have become a bug convert (previous light bulb/mist/shadow proponent).. I was always a bit "bugged" (Sorry couldn't resist) by the fact that the insect would have had to make a sharp bank at the end/start of the 1/20 second interval in order to get the two wings visible at that angle..

I know that there have been discussions about the thing going away/towards the camera..but even over such a short duration/distance, my expectations (always dangerous) were to expect at least a minor narrowing/widening of the streak due to perspective. All of the cool compressed images showing the wobble in the path also very nicely don't appear to narrow or widen to me. (Don't really have any software to test that theory though).

I was willing to write this off as simply a matter of the distance, that since it was so close/small of an event that the change in the streak was too small to be noticeable.

What I find fascinating about your picture victorengle is the 4 wings.. I know this had been discussed earlier, but I did not realize termites were quad-winged (Making up words as I go along here...) Does anyone know if Darwin termites similarly have 4 wings?

4 sets of wings makes for an interesting possibility, since the "wings" might in fact be the flash reflection from where (as seen from the camera) the two sets of wings overlap (Once at the top and again once at the bottom) the combined reflectivity would cause the "wings" to appear but since there is a non zero time between an apparent overlap at the top and again at the bottom it gives the illusion that the bug is actually banking when in fact the bug is simply going straight across (ok bad choice of words given the heated arguments over the straightness of the line)... Since the increased reflectivity would likely be where the wings were widest/thickest, it could explain the disconnect between the body of the bug and the wings, since we aren't in fact seeing the whole wing, just the areas of overlap as seen by the camera..

So if you assume the insect is flying from right to left, and the flash fires at the start of the image, then

The overlap occurs at the top, they then go down, the bug also moves a number of pixels up and to the left.. the wings overlap again at the bottom and cause a second separate reflection..

I believe that 1/1000s has been given for the duration of a flash, is it reasonable for exactly 1 "flap" to occur in that time? Don't know anything about insect aerodynamics/flap speed/etc.. Also don't have the tools capable of analyzing the image to figure out how fast that means the wings would be flapping...the idea just struck me as at least plausible and could help explain the apparent strange orientation..

Please stop arguing with the people who refuse to acknowledge the probability of the insect theory and continue to harp back to old, disproved theories. The insect people have already won – APOD agreed with their idea. The ongoing debate is too frustrating. I quote Mark Twain:

Never try and teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig.

Anonymous wrote:The insect people have already won – APOD agreed with their idea. The ongoing debate is too frustrating.

You sound like a Republican.
We could have done away with these 122 pages if you would have declared that it was a 'rod' from the beginning. Or maybe you'd have preferred the authority of APOD making such a decree.

But then you can't really believe the question is settled.
Otherwise, why are you here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insect people have already won – APOD agreed with their idea. The ongoing debate is too frustrating.

You sound like a Republican.
We could have done away with these 122 pages if you would have declared that it was a 'rod' from the beginning. Or maybe you'd have preferred the authority of APOD making such a decree.

But then you can't really believe the question is settled.
Otherwise, why are you here?

Well, as for myself, I think the whole thing settled and think the most probable answer is the "bug theory". However, I'm still here because I find very amusing all the posts trying to prove alternative ones. Most of them really off the mark and some of them plain silly. But I have had a good laugh with some of them.

Who knows, someone may come up with a good alternative... We thought everything (almost) was settled with Newton, and then Einstein came along

Anonymous wrote: I know that there have been discussions about the thing going away/towards the camera..but even over such a short duration/distance, my expectations (always dangerous) were to expect at least a minor narrowing/widening of the streak due to perspective. All of the cool compressed images showing the wobble in the path also very nicely don't appear to narrow or widen to me. (Don't really have any software to test that theory though).

I was willing to write this off as simply a matter of the distance, that since it was so close/small of an event that the change in the streak was too small to be noticeable.

The trace does appear to vary in width, but over roughly the same period as the wobbles. I haven't tried to quantify this (or an overall variation from end to end) , but it does occur to me to try varying the width of the template I used as it's slid along the trail - at each step along the way, try both a range of template widths and side-to-side positions seeking the solution which minimises the error (i.e. is best fit). Note also, as pointed out a while back, if the trail was brighter on one side than the other a variation in width would appear as a side-to-side deviation.

Luis wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Luis wrote:I have another theory, but I need some field work to prove it... Could the people in Darwin go and ask people around the scene if any of them saw a suspicious looking man carrying a canon G3 and an odd shaped mechanical contraption with a bicycle wheel attached to it. Did anybody saw this guy taking pictures of this device while spinning the wheel?

The trail would have been more of an arc

skyglow1

Maybe it was a more sophisticated contraption. Something like a production line, with a band moved by the wheel. Maybe we could use another 100 pages to decide the shape of this machine?

Well, I settled on the bicycle wheel, but only because my first idea of attaching the bug to the straight section of the bicycle chain would've involved too much work.

Doug Huffman wrote:...the smoke appears behind the pole this is not the body of an insect caught in the flash close to the camera view this in 3d ...this will disprove your close up theory - it is smoke and light that are not connected at or near the lamp post, not a bee. I can see it is not a bee with my own eyes.

Why do you keep going on about viewing this pic (these pics) in 3D? They were all taken from the same camera position so there is no 3D information to be extracted. At best you could see displacement of the leaves moving in what little breeze there is. That would appear like stereo information but would be incorrect and inconsistent.

Luis wrote: Well, as for myself, I think the whole thing settled and think the most probable answer is the "bug theory". However, I'm still here because I find very amusing all the posts trying to prove alternative ones. Most of them really off the mark and some of them plain silly. But I have had a good laugh with some of them.

Who knows, someone may come up with a good alternative... We thought everything (almost) was settled with Newton, and then Einstein came along

Agreed; it's also interesting because this discussion shows how science really proceeds. It's not like the textbooks, where it's all presented after the event, all neatly cut-and-dried. The real thing is a lot messier, full of ambiguities and misunderstandings. Still, the hallmark of a good theory is it makes predictions, predictions that can be tested - and as is often pointed out, many a beautiful theory has come to grief on the ugly facts that disagree with it.

Personally, I'm still interested for similiar reasons to you, though I'd add also because it's an opportunity to learn something (quite a lot, in this case). And while I think it's unlikely that a new theory will appear that better fits the facts, I suspect there's still some interesting discoveries and insights to be had.

For now, though, I'm going to go do something else for a few days - Christmas! Have a good one, everyone (whichever theory you ascribe to )

Anonymous wrote:The insect people have already won – APOD agreed with their idea. The ongoing debate is too frustrating

.

You sound like a Republican.
We could have done away with these 122 pages if you would have declared that it was a 'rod' from the beginning. Or maybe you'd have preferred the authority of APOD making such a decree.

But then you can't really believe the question is settled.
Otherwise, why are you here?

Actually, If I was from the US, I'd be a disappointed Democrat and conspiracy theorist.

People did "declare" it to be many things from the beginning, which I as a scientist never do. Hence my previous post referring to the "probability" of it being an insect. My point was that there is no point trying to prove that it is an insect since it is impossible to prove anything. Therefore there is no point arguing with people that won't even acknowledge that it's probable. People who can't even recognise the lack of validity of some of the other ideas such as a meteorite.

The question is very settled in my mind because I've watched this thread since day one and have seen the rapid decline in new and innovative ideas. The bulk of the theories were postulated on day one. I find it very difficult to believe anyone is going to come up with anything new that will be more likely than the currently accepted theory of an insect.

I'm only here now to marvel at the persistence of people and occasionally undertake a bit of trolling. Though people here aren't half so susceptible to trolling as they are at http://rantburg.com - every democrat should indulge in a bit of flamebaiting at rantburg - the republicans get really upset...