| User | Post |
|
2:20 pm
March 22, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2956 |
|
|
Post edited 2:22 pm – March 22, 2011 by Nosfer
In the Serendipity and Flying People thread Revenant posted a test consisting of a shaky video of a girl flying for you all to analyze. The provenance of the film was unknown as were a lot of other things. Here is another to peruse in the form of a still image. This is of slightly better provenance as it was shot by me. All EXIF info should be intact. I will not give any distances, but will say that this was shot at 750mm and f/7.1 if anyone would like to back out the depth of field from that. I have no idea how this will show in the thread, though, as far as size  I've had to reduce it some but no other editing has been done other than a crop of the far edges. Maybe this should be in the Crypto thread instead since it's possibly an unknown species of shark. Any thoughts from the SV investigators?
 
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
4:09 pm
March 22, 2011
|
Leslie
| | |
| Investigator | posts 157 |
|
|
Where was this shot?
I do know that some sharks can swim in fresh water, and have heard some stories of just that happening, although it can't be for very long. I'll see if I can dig up some info on it. However, this particular thing does not look too 'sharky' to me. 750mm huh? That sounds like a good distance away. Could be another type of fish, or, (and this is what I first thought) it is something sticking out of the water like a rock, tree branch, twig, log, etc.
Was it moving in the water? Or was the water moving around it?
|
|
|
4:27 pm
March 22, 2011
|
Axel Olrik
| | |
| Investigator | posts 184 |
|
|
Anatidae! Or Gaviidae….so Daffy or Loony?
|
|
|
4:31 pm
March 22, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2956 |
|
|
Post edited 4:34 pm – March 22, 2011 by Nosfer
Post edited 4:37 pm – March 22, 2011 by Nosfer
Axel Olrik said:
Anatidae! Or Gaviidae….so Daffy or Loony?
Neither. (Wrong family, but right class)
Nor is it an inanimate object sticking out of the water.
Location: Wyoming at about 7250 ft elevation, very far inland :)
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
5:01 pm
March 22, 2011
|
Axel Olrik
| | |
| Investigator | posts 184 |
|
|
Post edited 5:07 pm – March 22, 2011 by Axel Olrik
Podicipediformes?
|
|
|
5:08 pm
March 22, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2956 |
|
|
Post edited 5:10 pm – March 22, 2011 by Nosfer
The specific family/order at this point isn't as important as explaining the form.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
5:09 pm
March 22, 2011
|
Axel Olrik
| | |
| Investigator | posts 184 |
|
|
|
5:11 pm
March 22, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2956 |
|
|
Yes as in what is it that what it is is doing in order to give us the big picture.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
5:15 pm
March 22, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2956 |
|
|
One of the main points here is the idea of quality. I wish I had thought to take some cellphone pictures at the same time to post for comparison. Recall the brief discussion in the English Nessie thread:
http://www.skepticalviewer.com…..sh-nessie/
Do people with good gear not see these things, or is it that those who do realize what they have a photo of. Once they do, it stops there whereas those taking grainy cellphone pictures can't decipher what it is and thus the image makes it to the tabloids?
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
5:50 pm
March 22, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2956 |
|
|
|
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
6:14 pm
March 22, 2011
|
Axel Olrik
| | |
| Investigator | posts 184 |
|
|
En masse, "a cover."
Actually, what first tipped me off was, that when blown up, you could see that there was a "bubbling" disturbance where the object emerged from the water and the suggestion of some structure(s) on the right that were not consistent with shark anatomy. That, and there was a break at the top edge of the "fin" and the surface was matte, rather than shiny and wet.
Then I realised that objects rising from the water in the background were reeds. Which gave an indication of the object's size, its environment and probable activity. I first thought feeding duck or loon, then grebe…with its tail up out of the water as it foraged below the surface. The objects on the right were its hocks as it paddled in place and the bubbling was the churning of the water by its feet.
Almost all those details would have been lost in a grainy cell phone picture.
Coot simply did not occur to me.
|
|
|
6:28 pm
March 22, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2956 |
|
|
There's no doubt especially in the original, you can see part of the foot right behind as he dives and the split becomes very telling. I did play around some trying to emulate the quality in the English Nessie picture by changing the gamma/saturation and adding appropriate noise and blur and the sharkfin look gets a lot more convincing…cropping out the reeds would have helped, too lol but I wanted to post as original as possible, I only did a resize for here.
Perhaps as equipment gets better (although the basic laws of physics/optics are going to cause problems achieving it with cellphones) we will finally get some good looks at these "cryptids" or we will at least see less blury blobs being put forward.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
Login 
Register 
The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
