bsvalley
paranormal master
http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/39337882.html
have fun guys.
have fun guys.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
ufo in wichita
- Thread starter bsvalley
- Start date
Free episodes:
Schuyler
Misanthrope
Interesting analysis on ufodigest.com, comment #3, here: http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0209/wichita.php. The commentator is a professional photographer:
"It's a "blackbird," all right.
I am a professional freelance photographer with 40 years experience. My interest in UFO's and extraterrestrial life goes back to my father, a radar operator in WWII. Although I have never seen an authentic UFO myself, I retain an open mind.
Given the controversy about this photo, I asked Mr. Vander Ploeg to send me a copy of the original photo, containing the metadata file, which he did. The metadata file includes information recorded by the camera at the time the photo was taken, which enables a more thorough analysis.
The metadata file shows the photo was taken with a 200mm lens, which would be the equivalent of a 300mm (long telephoto) lens on a 35mm. camera. The shutter speed was 1/3200 of a second, almost fast enough to freeze a bullet, and the lens opening was f11.
The trees and clouds are sharp, so the camera was focused at a great distance, which I estimate at 100 feet or more – close to infinity. Referring to published depth-of-field tables, I found that if the camera was focused at 100 feet, the depth of field, or area in focus, was shallow – only 33 feet at best. If the camera was focused on infinity, depth of field would begin at about 600 feet and extend to infinity. Knowing that, it becomes apparent that this is a small object which appears out of focus because it is close to the camera, not a large object at a distance. I therefore conclude it is a backlit, flying crow or raven caught with its wings mid-flap so the pinion feathers disappear against the bird's black body. The crow is carrying something shiny in its beak like a cellophane cigarette wrapper. Crows are known for this unusual behavior. The noise reported by the photographer may have come from another aircraft visible as a small black dot over the trees, or by a jet, several of which can be seen leading contrails.
Comparison with other photos of flying crows available on the internet convinces me my interpretation is correct. There is no shame in being mistaken about a puzzling phenomenon, which this picture certainly is.
#3 - Malcolm J. Brenner - 02/16/2009 - 19:01"
David, is this analysis and explanation of depth of field correct?
"It's a "blackbird," all right.
I am a professional freelance photographer with 40 years experience. My interest in UFO's and extraterrestrial life goes back to my father, a radar operator in WWII. Although I have never seen an authentic UFO myself, I retain an open mind.
Given the controversy about this photo, I asked Mr. Vander Ploeg to send me a copy of the original photo, containing the metadata file, which he did. The metadata file includes information recorded by the camera at the time the photo was taken, which enables a more thorough analysis.
The metadata file shows the photo was taken with a 200mm lens, which would be the equivalent of a 300mm (long telephoto) lens on a 35mm. camera. The shutter speed was 1/3200 of a second, almost fast enough to freeze a bullet, and the lens opening was f11.
The trees and clouds are sharp, so the camera was focused at a great distance, which I estimate at 100 feet or more – close to infinity. Referring to published depth-of-field tables, I found that if the camera was focused at 100 feet, the depth of field, or area in focus, was shallow – only 33 feet at best. If the camera was focused on infinity, depth of field would begin at about 600 feet and extend to infinity. Knowing that, it becomes apparent that this is a small object which appears out of focus because it is close to the camera, not a large object at a distance. I therefore conclude it is a backlit, flying crow or raven caught with its wings mid-flap so the pinion feathers disappear against the bird's black body. The crow is carrying something shiny in its beak like a cellophane cigarette wrapper. Crows are known for this unusual behavior. The noise reported by the photographer may have come from another aircraft visible as a small black dot over the trees, or by a jet, several of which can be seen leading contrails.
Comparison with other photos of flying crows available on the internet convinces me my interpretation is correct. There is no shame in being mistaken about a puzzling phenomenon, which this picture certainly is.
#3 - Malcolm J. Brenner - 02/16/2009 - 19:01"
David, is this analysis and explanation of depth of field correct?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
as a professional photographer with 48 years experience, i would concur. it looks like corvus brachyrhynchos.
David Biedny
Paranormal Adept
Malcolm's analysis is exactly correct - something out of focus with those particular aperture and shutter speed settings would indeed be small and closer to the camera than the trees.
dB
dB
bsvalley
paranormal master
you guys amaze me. I took a photography class in high school but mostly I just used the dark room to sleep off hang overs from pool leauge. Thanks for the explanations. And we wonder why this subject isn't taken seriously when this is the stuff they put on the news and they supposedly have profesional photographers that work there and none of them came up with half the conclusions you guys did. wow
