Starship Asterisk*

hazeii3 wrote:

Luis wrote:...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

...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. ...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)

And we know Einstein is wrong too, so there's more discussion ahead (but at a higher level, and in other dimensions, than this group).

Hazeii3, thanks for your humour and experimental apparatus. I suspect a dead fly was never put to better use.

Well all we have to do now is to discover what type of bug it was.I favore a flying beetle myself they are very fast and there bodys are large enuff to make that shadow befor the flash.

As someone trained in insect taxonomy, I can safely say that you will never identify the type of insect from that photo. You can only eliminate a few unlikely types (eg dragonfly is wrong shape). Be content to assume it to be an insect.

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.

I will not re-make the fake image with the right dimensions. It's not worth it. I just did it to show that it's a very simple thing to do.
Imagine that there was no "trail picture" and that I was the first one doing it. how could you tell it was a fake?

It was said that the picture was compared to the before and after and that there is no evidence of jpeg re-compression. what if all the images available have been re-compressed? how would you tell the diference?

by the way, I'm sorry for rushing about the loop, I should have been more careful, it is indeed in all the pictures. Altough it is a great coincidence that the trail is just as thick, as dark and as tangent to it...

I think that it might have been a star that reflected off of a mirror and hit the lamppost. That's how I think that the lamppost stopped working. And I think the streak in the sky was a shuttle that might have been coming down.

7 year old
Ariel Leventhal

I think that it was a electromagnetic surge from a nearby power plant that knocked out the power to the lamppost. That streak was a smoke trail from the electricity in the surge.

Noah Leventhal
Age 11

Tabu wrote:Well all we have to do now is to discover what type of bug it was.I favore a flying beetle myself they are very fast and there bodys are large enuff to make that shadow befor the flash.

8) Well, here we are discussing size again.

Remember, a gnat flying across the lens might appear the right size.
Then again, so could a 10 ton smoking ball coming for miles.

Granted, we agree that an insect is the most likely cause.
And you're right, we can continue this dialog and eliminate various insects.
If you wish to propose a candidate, such as the beetle, a picture of your nomination taken at 1/20sec shutter, f5.6 lens, and focused to infinity with the flash synched to 1/1000sec. would be good evidence. But submit anything you find.

Upload it to http://www.savefile.com/filehosting for hosting and use the URL they give you as input to this board's URL or IMG tools.

The dragonfly has been suggested for elimination, although they are about in the recent post here feasting on the flying white ants [termites]

And please continue to ignore those egoists who are professional experts in almost everything and want everyone else to "shut up". They lack the social skills for continued dialog.

HawaiiArmo wrote:Doc Bluto, you are once again dodging a very important aspect of the issue. By your sense of logic, you can rule anything out by saying that there's no arguement because it's a hoax. I can apply the same thing to life, maybe none of us exist outside of someones elaborate dream. Go prove that? Does that mean that none of us exist? Very few people would concur with the statement, yet there are a few givens that we all accept. We assume certain things at every turn.
What I'm saying is, let us take your logic to this task, let's say that the picture really was a hoax. Well, you still have to figure out how the hoax was created?

You missed it again. I'll restate and hope you can comprehend.
First, I don't need to dodge, there's no burden of proof on what I am saying. It's the digital image at the wharf thatis the question. Clumsy attempt at shifting the burden of proof.... you see, when you make extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary proof. You have no proof at all. Therefore, your extraodinary claims (whether it be crop circles, bigfoot, or 5th dimensional bug) are moot. If this trips you up, then, you've proven my earlier point: egos and emotion are in the way and clear logical thinking in impossible.
Second: You ask.. lets assume the picture was a hoax. You stated: still have to figure out how the hoax was created. [then]. And I have to ask seriously, are you kidding me? You can't figure this out? You can't do this with any half capable graphics app? You are joking? No wonder you can't see the logic... you don't have either the experience or the know how, and therefore, you are operating from a position of insufficient information. Ergo, your emotional state will prevent you from pursuing logic. In other words.. you will see what you want to see and no one, no how, can offer you anything to change your mind. Tsk tsk... that's a shame.
Third: I never said it cannot be other possibilities... I am discussing the likelihood, the probabilities, of their accuracy. You missed that because you refuse to acknowledge that. Thats is your issue, not mine. And hence, back to square one. The burden is on your extraordinary claims for the real image, not on my pictures I created experimentally.

Have you tried to create some yourself? I bet not. That would burst your own hard fought stubborn stance. Peace.

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.

Very nice job MrMoon... thanks.
And that almost wraps it up for those unwilling to believe this could be a manufactured image.

If you want to believe digital imagery... be forewarned...you are going to fooled a lot in the coming years.

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, I have it on high authority (Democratic Party) that it IS a "rod"... so there you goober!

MrMoon wrote:

MrMoon wrote:

I will not re-make the fake image with the right dimensions. It's not worth it. I just did it to show that it's a very simple thing to do.
Imagine that there was no "trail picture" and that I was the first one doing it. how could you tell it was a fake?

What is so absolutely funny is... they couldn't. Not in a million years... You are so correct!!!! What is disturbing is the utter disregard for that.

I understand, "people" hate to feel foolish. Avoidance of that drives them to say and do goofy stuff. Ego's in the way, as I always say... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

They won't even TALK about your image... oh sure, they'll keep on with "the bug" and "the smoke" and "the tube" and "the rods" and "the lightning" and "the contrail"... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA You only got one comment about your picture. What a RIOT!!

And yet... even when presented with EXACTLY what was asked... it won't be good enough!!! Proves my point... EGO clouds reason!!!! Yeah... I'm pointing to you folks out there hahahahaha

OK, sorry, Have a nice holiday everyone.


BUSTED!!!

OK. After some considerations, I do think MrMoons picture does it for me. I'm throwing out the bug theory and now, sadly, agreeing with Doc Bluto. I do not want to .. but I think Doc is right here finally. OK.

I think I have to relook at this... perhaps MrMoon is correct. Yes yes... after some thinking and a day away from this, I have decided that I will confess. I am thinking now after seeing the loop in the image that it has to be an alien brain gathering machine. It's after me too -- I must run away and hide in the crop circle with Mr Bigfoot. Quickly too, before the rods spot me.

Oh my. I was wrong. I was listening to Coast to Coast to other night, and I had a ghostly vision. It was me. I was in Mel's Hole... and I was beckoning to me. I was saying... to me.... I will believe anything as long as it is a digital picture. But then. I didn't like me saying that to me and I stopped listening to me. And then, Fred started talking to me. He said: go to the crop circle and find the hidden rods and UFO's... Fred told me that Bigfoot was a Gray... and I believed him. So... obvioulsy..... I will believe streaks from the sky. All hail the streak!!!!

I mean, "I'm gay."

Doc Bluto wrote:

MrMoon wrote:

MrMoon wrote:

I will not re-make the fake image with the right dimensions. It's not worth it. I just did it to show that it's a very simple thing to do.
Imagine that there was no "trail picture" and that I was the first one doing it. how could you tell it was a fake?

What is so absolutely funny is... they couldn't. Not in a million years... You are so correct!!!! What is disturbing is the utter disregard for that.

I understand, "people" hate to feel foolish. Avoidance of that drives them to say and do goofy stuff. Ego's in the way, as I always say... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

They won't even TALK about your image... oh sure, they'll keep on with "the bug" and "the smoke" and "the tube" and "the rods" and "the lightning" and "the contrail"... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA You only got one comment about your picture. What a RIOT!!

And yet... even when presented with EXACTLY what was asked... it won't be good enough!!! Proves my point... EGO clouds reason!!!! Yeah... I'm pointing to you folks out there hahahahaha

OK, sorry, Have a nice holiday everyone.


BUSTED!!!

Mr Doc Bluto,

Repeating 'HAHAHAHAHAHAHA' over and over like a mad scientist is hardly mature. But then again, you do not claim to be.

There is an element in all this that you seem to miss. For many - perhaps most, this is a kind of game. A hypothetical conundrum that stretches people's imagination and deductive skills.

There does not ever have to be an 'answer' for this problem. It's just enjoyable debating.

If you can understand this point, then you are not purely a single-dimensional personality engrossed in their own self importance.

Have a nice day.

Boy, do I feel stupid. I can't believe how much time I have wasted in here considering other possibilities and trying to disprove them.

Of course it is a fake. I sat down with Photoshop 6 and managed a credible copy in just a few minutes. Should have got down of my high horse a lot earlier.

I recommend that if anyone else in this thread hasn't seen the light, do what Dr Bluto suggests and try it yourself.

If you haven't got Phtoshop shop, don't worry - you can do a very convincing fake just by setting the camera up to take a flash photo at 1/20th of a second, f5.6, focus at infinity and throwing a dead bee past the lens just as it takes the picture!! No way the "bug guys" can fight that!! HAHAHAHAHA.

Once we get a majority in here I reckon we should take a vote and declare it "case closed". Maybe we can get someone from NASA and show them how easy a photo can be manipulated and then they can throw their authority in behind the groundswell of popular opinion too.

Man, is this going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons for any discussion about any picture; "moon landing" photos, documentary films, newspapers, Britney Spears naked, anything and everything! They could all be fake! And there's no way you can prove otherwise.

For that matter, God could have done it.

What.... So we are all now going to say this is a fake? I find that a bit weird. Firstly, why would this Pryde guy want to make an image like this, and not put forward any claim as to what the picture is showing?

If you haven't got Phtoshop shop, don't worry - you can do a very convincing fake just by setting the camera up to take a flash photo at 1/20th of a second, f5.6, focus at infinity and throwing a dead bee past the lens just as it takes the picture!! No way the "bug guys" can fight that!! HAHAHAHAHA.

I just don't get it! Why would you waste your time making a fake by throwing a bug in front of the lense, when we know the place around where the photograph was shot has many insects? Is it such a crime that you catch a picture of a bug in flight and that we must immediately say it is hoax or fake?

I don't see any reason why Pryde would've wanted to make a hoax and not participate much in the discussion of what the picture is. I mean, I don't see myself wasting time and making a fake image in which the outcome is just a bunch of people discussing about what the image is.

About MrMoon's image, I would like to consider 2 possiblities and as to which is more likely. Firstly, Pryde made a fake image such as MrMoon's with no intention as to the outcome (correct me if I'm wrong about no outcome). Or, Pryde caught a picture of a bug flying across and simply doesn't know what the picture is showing.

I believe the second case is more likely, Pryde is just a good fellow whos stumped about what an interesting image is showing, and APOD is referring to the group of apod viewers to try and work it out.

And there's no way you can prove otherwise.

Can you prove its a fake though??? You seem to think that "Of course it is a fake." Me wants proof >_<.

They could all be fake!

Key word here "could", I thought you said it must be fake for this particular image, cause you say any picture.

If everyone simply ended discussions like this, we would get nowhere in finding out what things were. You can end the discussion with saying its a fak or hoax, but I believe it has to have some proof that it IS a hoax. I don't consider being able to create an fake just like the picture that we're talking about means that it is proof that it is a hoax. If someone were to post an image, and some photoshop master could recreate pretty closely, does that mean that the image is a fake?? What if we had the same exact case with a different picture which was actually not a fake? And someone managed to create a fake that looks like it? You mean automatically its a fake or hoax?

That just don't cut it for me, I still stand by the bug theory because it seems most probable to me. And also, I don't get this about ego thing, cause I used to think it was the bulb exploding. Then I leaned more towards the bug theory, because I have an open mind. And sure I'll believe in the hoax or fake explanation, but it just to me looks like the bug theory is more probable, and I lean towards it, not because of my ego.

skyglow1

Obviously, my point was totally missed. I wasn't stating Crop circles, or bigfoot as fact. What I was saying was, they were clearly hoaxes, but someone went out to disprove it. They actually did the fieldwork to disprove those hoaxes.
The rest of my point being, you can be from one of 2 camps on this. Either you start with the assumption that this was a hoax, or you start from the assumption that this wasn't. I'm starting from the assumption that this wasn't. It's likely I may be wrong, but just as likely as those purporting the haox are wrong. Thus, it's a paradox that you cannot resolve. There is no way for me to prove that the photographer hoaxed it, just as there's no way for you hoax theorists to prove that he faked it.
Thus my arguement being, the only way for Doc Bluto (as well as the infantile moron who goes around hijacking other's names without actually reading what they're saying) to be proved more correct is to kidnap the photographer, scruitinize him under a lie detector, and prove without reasonable doubt that it was a hoax. I will paste most of my previous post, and you can TRY to actually read it, without assuming stupid conclusions.
This kind of reminds me of the whole Crop Circle paranoia. There were a lot of people like you saying, it's clearly a haox, because UFO's don't exist, but they never did anything to prove it. It took a few adventurous and capable people to go out and recreate crop cirlces as they seemed to appear and proved that it really was a hoax. Well, Hazei did that, he proved that what we have on the picture is an insect, and it's clearly possible for a bug to create such an image. Now, whether the photographer knew how to manipulate the setting, tha'ts a different story.
You can work on 2 assumptions, and just as you believe mine is wrong, it's equally as likely that your assumption's incorrect as well. You know nothing about the photographer who took the photo in the first place. You can use this arguement just as easily to support your assertian as I can. There really is no way out of it. It truly is a logic paradox. Even your belief in a hoax starts on an assumption that it was a hoax. Why should we start on that assumption? What pushes the arguement towards this being a hoax? You say the most simple, and clearest explanation is that this is a hoax? Why is that? What makes it so simple and clear that it was a hoax? Hazei clearly showed that it's possible for an insect to do this. There is no proof that you can use for your arguement. Basically, in order to fully support your arguement, we'd have to kidnap the Photographer, strap him to a lie detector, and try to see if he's telling us the truth. Of course, if everything checked out, you'de still be biased towards your initial reasoning. You'de probably say something like, Lie detectors are not always accurate, maybe the technician was a novice, or the suspect knew how to cheat the detector, or that it's unscientific. There's no way out of the arguement, unless you follow a line of reasoning or assumption. Let those of us who believe it to be the truth to follow our assumption, and you can follow yours. So far, there's nothing you've done to convince us towards your line of reasoning. Basically the only difference between our assumptions is our distrust in people. Maybe someone cheated on you recently, or your parents weren't there for you, thus leading to your initial distrust in people. I'm sure from your point of view, I'm too naive to think clearly because I haven't been shot at by my step-father, or had friends of mine rob me blind when I wasn't looking, or whatever line of reasoning youd'e use. Thus, in order to avoid this paradox, I'm gonna lean to one assumption over the other.

(this thread seems to have degenerated since I was here last)

I repeat my assertion that there is more going on in the event frame than what is revealed by the diff pictures.

If you get out your digital color meters, set them to average four pixels, and put it over the hottest spot of the yellow flare, you should get the RGB color 91,80,71. That is the color I used for this particular filter.

In the first triple you can see, from top to bottom, real before, event, and real after. In the second triple, the colors have been filtered narrowly along the color vector 91, 80, 71. In the third triple, the same colors have been filtered out of the original image. There are definitely diagonal JPG artifacts here, but there is something behind the artifacts that is bigger than what we have been considering.

To see what I am getting at, look at the second and third triples, and mentally do a diff between the top and center images, and between the center and bottom images.

If I understand the bug theory correctly, and I've not had time to read lots of posts, then for say 90 percent of the time the shutter is open the bug is traveling along the dark trail. Then the flash effectively goes off for the last 10 percent of the time, and creates the anomaly at the end of the trail from flash reflections off the insect. That means that the colors in this image at the end of the trail should include 90 percent of the light coming from the water when the bug was not present. If we say the bug has reflective parts and non reflective parts, then the non reflective parts should obscure 10 percent of the light from the water without adding light from its own reflections.

It seems then that a color analysis of the image should reveal the 90 percent of the water reflections added to the bug reflections, and show that there is a missing 10 percent of the water reflections where the bug obscured them.

I'm not quite sure how that relates to the images I am getting, but in theory, if the people creating bug images use a similar background color to the water reflections, and if their bugs include both reflective and non reflective parts, then a color analysis of their images should show effects that are either similar to or distinct from the images that I am getting. That may be a way to show that there are features in the image that cannot be accounted for by the bug theory, or not.

MrMoon wrote:

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.

I will not re-make the fake image with the right dimensions. It's not worth it. I just did it to show that it's a very simple thing to do.

Well, it's not a very good fake if the image dimensions don't even agree with the EXIF data.

hazeii3 wrote:OK. After some considerations, I do think MrMoons picture does it for me. I'm throwing out the bug theory and now, sadly, agreeing with Doc Bluto. I do not want to .. but I think Doc is right here finally. OK.

I detect Doc Bluto has now resorted to pretending to be hazeii. Funny how fakers always get found out.

HawaiiArmo wrote:Obviously, my point was totally missed.

No accident and in hindsight, good judgement.