Venus and camera stabilizing

[Yazata]

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..

He certainly did.

These are from JamesR's second, third and fourth posts on page 1 of this thread:

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.

Duh.

Just to spell it out for you, in case you're actually this stupid

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.

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.

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.

 

[C C]

[...] If you want this thread to stay on topic [...]

If going purely by the title and even the no-commentary video itself, the whole thread is in the wrong topic category. What I mean is that "UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters" has to be inferred or projected into the initial material. Someone who was a newbie to Mick West wouldn't initially interpret UAP agenda there.
_

 

[Magical Realist]

If going purely by the title and even the no-commentary video itself, the whole thread is in the wrong topic category. What I mean is that "UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters" has to be inferred or projected into the initial material. Someone who was a newbie to Mick West wouldn't initially interpret UAP agenda there.
_

I honestly don't know what more can be said about this OP. So Mick West goes out and shakes his camera around and makes the planet Venus look like it is moving. Fine. We accept that. But he offers no cases where someone actually mistakes it for a uap. He just sort of assumes ufo spotters do because they are too incompetent to notice it isn't moving to the naked eye or when the camera is held still.

 

[C C]

I honestly don't know what more can be said about this OP. So Mick West goes out and shakes his camera around and makes the planet Venus look like it is moving. Fine. We accept that. But he offers no cases where someone actually mistakes it for a uap. He just sort of assumes ufo spotters do because they are too incompetent to notice it isn't moving to the naked eye or when the camera is held still.

West doesn't mention UAPs or UAP deceptions even back at the YouTube page, which possibly suggests he might want an avenue for denial if what buffs project into it gets out of hand. "Yeah, go storm the palace if you want. But note that I'm not actually saying that -- I'm not responsible for your inferences."
_

 

[DaveC426913]

I honestly don't know what more can be said about this OP. So Mick West goes out and shakes his camera around and makes the planet Venus look like it is moving. Fine. We accept that. But he offers no cases where someone actually mistakes it for a uap. He just sort of assumes ufo spotters do because they are too incompetent to notice it isn't moving to the naked eye or when the camera is held still.

Yeah, thats called experiemental evidence.

It is as valid in the field of UAPs as eyewitness accounts - it just happens to lend credence to theory that eyewitnesses make mistakes, and that videos can be deceiving.

That's critical.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yeah, thats called experiemental evidence.

It is as valid in the field of UAPs as eyewitness accounts - it just happens to lend credence to theory t
That eyewitnesses make mistakes, and that videos can be deceiving.

That's critical.

You can also accidently steer your car into a tree but that doesn't mean alot of people are doing it. Mick provides nothing in terms of the probability of this camera error. Like some sleazy defense lawyer he just throws out things hoping they will stick.

 

[DaveC426913]

Mick provides nothing in terms of the probability of this camera error.

So what?

It's one tool in a toolkit of analysis. There's no downside to having more tools in one's toolkit (assuming one seeks truth, as opposed to mystery). No science relies on a single tool.

Stop being so anti-science; it makes you look like you're afraid your world will crumble if anyone shines light on it.

 

[Yazata]

I honestly don't know what more can be said about this OP.

Mick, probably correctly, points out a particular kind of camera artifact. That's valuable in alerting people to be aware of it.

I'm not sure what more we should conclude. Is it supposed to be a smoking gun explanation for most UFO/UAP sightings? That wouldn't be plausible.

It's certainly conceivable that some sightings might be explained this way. Probably not a great many though. Most people make visual sightings of things that seem extraordinary to them, before they pull out their cell phones to record it. So a cell phone camera artifact wouldn't explain the initial extraordinary sighting.

And this kind of artifact wouldn't be relevant at all to radar confirmation etc.

 

[Pinball1970]

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!"

Yes if you make a video with some movement and put it on YT it gives you the option of stabilising.

 

[Pinball1970]

Mick, probably correctly, points out a particular kind of camera artifact. That's valuable in alerting people to be aware of it.

I'm not sure what more we should conclude. Is it supposed to be a smoking gun explanation for most UFO/UAP sightings? That wouldn't be plausible.

It's certainly conceivable that some sightings might be explained this way. Probably not a great many though. Most people make visual sightings of things that seem extraordinary to them, before they pull out their cell phones to record it. So a cell phone camera artifact wouldn't explain the initial extraordinary sighting.

And this kind of artifact wouldn't be relevant at all to radar confirmation etc.

I don't know when the feature became available. The effect could explain some footage, the possibility must be in the pot for when the feature was built into the kit.

 

[Magical Realist]

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.y.

There is nothing new about posters reporting and complaining about being flamed and ad homed relentlessly. There is no Sci Forum rule telling us to suck it up and take it like a man. But there are certainly rules against flaming and insulting posters. You should know. You wrote them:

"Flaming of other members is unacceptable. If you are being flamed by another member, hit the ‘report’ button on the offending post(s); do not return fire."

 

[C C]

It definitely is high time to get back to the planet Venus and the inferred importance of a device like the camera stabilizer. In this Astronomy ...uh... Photography/Motion-Picture ...uh... Technology ...uh... Monsters, Ghosts and UFOs??? ...uh... subforum.

 

[DaveC426913]

"Aliens" is James' strawmanish and mocking term for the position I take on uaps--that they are piloted by non-human beings or else remotely operated as AI probes. In reality I only assert that uaps are some sort of technology beyond our current science. The implication of aliens is certainly there, but not asserted as anything more than a tantalizing possibility.

Yes. So you were way out of line with all that.

 

[James R]

He certainly did.

These are from JamesR's second, third and fourth posts on page 1 of this thread:

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.

Duh.

Just to spell it out for you, in case you're actually this stupid

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.

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.

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.

How this actually went, of course, is that I posted an on-topic comment, in which I made the reasonable suggestion that if MR wasn't willing to believe Mick West, he could repeat the experiment and convince himself that Mick West was correct. Instead of taking up that challenge, he decided to play the clown, as he so often does. I called him on that and now he's running to hide behind your skirts, as usual, while whining about the mean man who wants to take his comforter blankey away. As usual. MR is an adult, supposedly. Maybe you sh0uld talk to him and see if you can get him to grow up and take some responsibility for the crap he posts.

 

[gmilam]

You're saying all cameras cause this illusory motion effect when recording distant objects while jiggling it? I've never heard of it before.

Where did he say ALL cameras?

I don't personally know Mick West. Duh..

No one said you did.

I haven't the slightest interest in doing anything you tell me to do. I would've thought that was obvious by now.

A very simple experiment, yet you refuse to even consider it.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

 

[Magical Realist]

Where did he say ALL cameras?

So that would be a "no"?

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

I do? When did I start wondering that?

 

[Yazata]

Where did he say ALL cameras?

If this proposed camera artifact is supposed to account for all UFO/UAP sightings, then it would have to apply to all cameras used to photograph these phenomena. (It would also imply that all evidence for the phenomenon would have to be photography of a particular sort.) That's not plausible.

If we back off a little and say that it accounts for most sightings, then it would have to apply to most cameras used to photograph these phenomena. (And that most evidence is photography subject to the artifact.)

The most plausible way to interpret it is to say that it might arguably account for some small subset of sightings. Particularly fairly recent sightings where evidence consists of cellphone video showing a small point of light appearing to move around randomly.

A very simple experiment, yet you refuse to even consider it.

The issue here is less whether one of us can replicate Mick's camera stabilization artifact, than it is a question of how relevant that artifact is to understanding UFO/UAP phenomena. What kind of experiment would our "skeptics" propose to determine that?

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

I take him seriously.

 

[James R]

The most plausible way to interpret it is to say that it might arguably account for some small subset of sightings. Particularly fairly recent sightings where evidence consists of cellphone video showing a small point of light appearing to move around randomly.

I'm inclined to agree with you on the "fairly recent sightings" part. As for the "small subset" part, I think that requires further study. What proportion of fairly recent sightings involve poorly-filmed videos taken on cell phones, for instance? I don't know the answer, but it seems to me that, of the ones that attract MR's attentions on youtube, they would not necessarily constitute a "small subset".

The issue here is less whether one of us can replicate Mick's camera stabilization artifact, than it is a question of how relevant that artifact is to understanding UFO/UAP phenomena.

I take it, then, that you, at least, accept Mick West's experimental findings as reproducible and valid. That's good to know.

What kind of experiment would our "skeptics" propose to determine that?

The sort of investigation that NASA and the US military are currently undertaking will do nicely. Essentially, what is required is that we make a long list of UFO reports. We then classify that list by what evidence is provided by the person or persons reporting the UFO. So, we'll end up with a list that contains some reports with only word-of-mouth evidence, some with cell phone video evidence, some with military radar evidence, some with physical objects collected from the scene of a "landing", some with alien bodies collected from crash sites etc.

Once we have our (long) list collated by types of evidence, we count up the total number of reports. Then we count up the number that rely on cell phone footage as evidence. Then we will be able to calculate in a simple way the proportion of all UFO reports that rely on cell phone footage.

We could collect additional data (if available) to work out what brands and models of phones were used to obtain the footage in the cell phone cases. Then we could cross-reference that data with the cell phones known to use image stablilisation algorithms when taking video. Thus, we could develop a sense of the proportion of cell phone UFO footage that might be impacted by the feature that Mick West so helpfully pointed out to us.

The benefits of doing this would be many. For instance, it would help to reduce - possibly by significant numbers - the number of "unsolved" UFO reports, giving investigators more time to concentrate on the truly difficult cases. And yes, it would provide us with a statistically valid answer to your question: how relevant are camera stablilisation artifacts to understanding UFO/UAP phenomena?

You wouldn't be against collecting the data and doing such an analysis, would you, Yazata? I expect you would applaud any such effort. Right?

 

[gmilam]

If this proposed camera artifact is supposed to account for all UFO/UAP sightings, then it would have to apply to all cameras used to photograph these phenomena. (It would also imply that all evidence for the phenomenon would have to be photography of a particular sort.) That's not plausible.

I don't believe anyone said it could account for ALL UAPs. I believe the point is that there is no need to jump to extraordinary explanations when a simple mundane one can explain the situation.

Personally, I suspect that we are not alone in the universe. But Carl Sagan once said something to the effect of, the more you want something to be true the more critical you have to be as to what you will accept as evidence.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't believe anyone said it could account for ALL UAPs. I believe the point is that there is no need to jump to extraordinary explanations when a simple mundane one can explain the situation.

I think there's an even more practical lesson here.

The take away is to be more skeptical - particularly in a lack of context. Things that look to the eye like "obviously" unnatural, directed behaviour, very often turn out not to be so when more context is provided.

Examples:
In the "Go Fast" video, what appears to be very fast movement of a very small bogey turns out, when the actual data is analyzed, to be well within the parameters of a flying sea bird. Logic dictates that mundane causes are often there, even if we can't examine the data.

UAP enthusiasts right here in this thread talk about objects that "have no wings" when in fact they should be saying "no wings are visibly apparent".