Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by foghorn, Aug 24, 2023.
Venus and camera stabilizing.
That old Venus sure gets around.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Huh. That looks pretty spectacular until you see how it occurs.
A good thing to watch out for.
Looks like he needs to invest in a new camera.
There's nothing wrong with the camera.
You're saying all cameras cause this illusory motion effect when recording distant objects while jiggling it? I've never heard of it before.
This is not a camera artifact; it is an operator artifact.
Look in particular at 00:09 -00:11, you can see objects (light bulbs) in the foreground, and it reveal that it is the operator that is moving. The point of light in the far distance appears to move relative to the middle distance trees, but is is an illusion caused by parallax as the operator moves.
What makes this illusion work is that the subject is zoomed in, so you don't notice it's the the operator moving.
The camera does have a feature called image stabilization, which helps keeps subjects stabilized in the field of view. This is a feature that can be very useful, but it can also lead to confusion if used to fool viewers.
It's no different from any other feature such as a flash, that allows you to shoot in the dark. But most of us recognize when a flash is being used. We don't say "Hey! That camera is making night look like day! He should get a new camera!"
Operator error, equipment error, it all comes down to the same thing with Mick West: people are idiots and can't tell when something caught on camera or video is moving or not moving. That's a generalization I'm not willing to make in order to debunk uaps.
It's odd that you say that.
You saw the same video and misinterpreted what it was telling you, directly supporting the very idea that people really do misinterpret what they see (and presumably don't have to be an "idiot" to do so).
And yet you fell exactly in that generalization.
I'll trust your actions over your words.
Why don't you do the experiment yourself?
Instead of whining and complaining about it, try to prove that your amazing iphone, or whatever you have, doesn't do the same thing as Mick West's camera.
Previously, if you were asked "is that point of light in the video moving, relative to the tree?", I'm sure you would say "yes", based on the video footage (which, as we know, you always accept without question).
Why the sudden change now, MR? Is it because you know who made this video and you just don't like the guy, so therefore you want to invent excuses and try to explain away the obvious truth of what this video is trying to show you?
Right.. I personally know all the ufo spotters out there. We're all just one big conspiracy James.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I just assumed Mick West made the video himself. It's got his picture on the upper left corner. Which means it's not really an example of someone making such an obvious blunder.. Something that Mick evidently believes occurs often but offers no evidence of..
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I see you have engaged your Selective Stupidity Field again, in order to avoid understanding the point made in the video, which is well within your capacity to understand.
Why not try to engage your brain for a moment, before firing off an angry response? You might look a bit less of a clown if you tried that.
He did make it. So, you know who made it. Right? Duh.
Just to spell it out for you, in case you're actually this stupid: there is no "blunder" here. The video shows exactly what Mick wanted it to show. It shows that, in ordinary operation, the "scene stabilisation" processing that occurs in many modern cameras and smart phones can produce illusions of movement that are not real.
Of course, as you said, "people are idiots and can't tell when something caught on camera or video is moving or not moving."
Are you an idiot, Magical Realist, or can you always tell?
Also, why didn't you do the experiment, like I suggested?
I don't personally know Mick West. Duh..
Nope. Here's what I actually said before Dave quoted me out of context:
See the difference? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I haven't the slightest interest in doing anything you tell me to do. I would've thought that was obvious by now.
Doubling down on stupid again? Is this sort of nonsense really the best we can expect from you, going forward?
This sort of stupid obstinence and refusal to learn anything new is one reason why you'll most likely remain stuck in your narrow and uninteresting world of pseudoscience and fantasy for the rest of your life.
What happened to you to make you unwilling to learn anything new? I'd honestly like to find out. Probably you lack the self-awareness to have any idea what the actual reason is, though.
The only two things I have learned from you is 1) skepticism is a belief system that skeptics will fanatically defend to the death, and 2) insulting and putting people down, both explicitly and/or in tone, is not the way to go for making a good argument or simply having a fruitful discussion. It only exposes the insecurities of the poster who is doing it and suggests the weakness and emotional fragility of their own position.
You clearly have never taken time to think about what I have tried to teach you about skepticism, because you're still making fundamentally erroneous claims about it after years of being exposed to how it works.
Skepticism is not a "belief system". It's an attitude or stance towards examining claims (about anything, not just woo). It also piggy-backs on the investigative methods of science. And, of course, it relies on critical, rational thought. A belief system, in contrast, has a set of tenets that are taken to be unquestionably true, or as so obvious that they are axiomatic. But a religious-like belief system (such as the blind faith in the existence of space aliens) goes much further than that - into a dogmatic acceptance of things that are essentially unevidenced.
As for insults, I'm actually glad you feel insulted when I suggest you might be a functional idiot, Magical Realist. It suggest to me that perhaps, deep down, you have both a sense of self-awareness and reflection, and perhaps a little niggle of shame lurking away in the darkness. Nevertheless, you seem quite happy to keep acting the fool. It's a problem you'll need to solve for yourself. If you'd really prefer not to be considered a clown, you really need to stop acting like a clown. I think you could do it if you tried.
James made it about the general topic of skeptics vs believers when he attacked me and called me stupid and an idiot and a clown. Maybe you should keep up with the conversation..
Demonstrably false. It was you in post 13 that generalized it to a "skeptics" thing:
Until then, James was simply criticizing your unwillingness to examine the evidence with an unbiased mind and realize what the explanation was when told to you. Which - in a field that lives and dies with analysis of available data - is a pretty fair criticism.
Consider that, if you got your facts straight more often, you might not be accused of clowning around so much.
Now, does anyone have any actual analysis about the thread topic?
James has done what he always has done, derailing a thread to make it all about me and what a terrible person I am. Attacking me and calling me names is his modus operandi. If you want this thread to stay on topic, then I suggest talking to him. He's the big hot shit moderator around here afterall.
You're sliding into trolling again.
The world you live in, Magical Realist, is rife with irrationality and bullshit. Reason, critical thinking and impartiality are always under attack. It is a brave minority of people who defend such things, against the tides of dogma, tribalism and self-interest.
You are correct that these things need defending. You don't understand why that is, because you're on the wrong side of the fence, with most of the mindless mob. But you're wrong about where the insecurity lies. Provisional beliefs held for rational reasons are always subject to revision for rational reasons; no rationalist is insecure about that - it's an accepted and welcomed part of being a rational person. The only insecurity lies in being surrounded by rabid mobs of people who like to burn books and to purge society of critical thinkers, so that they can gain and hold onto power using manipulative dogmas.
Some of those people have captured your mind, and now you're a slave of sorts. The means for your liberation are available to you, but you've been so lulled into a false sense of security that it doesn't even occur to you that you're trapped.
You will dismiss all of the above as bullshit, naturally, because not thinking has become a comfortable habit for you.
Your silly aliens aren't remotely important, Magical Realist, let alone threatening or "devastating" to free thinkers. It's you who is stuck in the rut. Wake up.
Science has no "edicts". You're brainwashed. Wake up.
How this actually went, of course, is that I posted an on-topic comment, in which I made the reasonable suggestion that if you don't believe Mick West, you could repeat his experiment and convince yourself. Instead of taking up that challenge, you decided to play the clown, as you so often do. I called you on that and now you're running to hide behind Yazata's skirts, as usual, while whining about the mean man who wants to take your comforter blankey away. As usual. Grow up.
Separate names with a comma.