by yesferatu » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:21 am
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If the lights are symmetrically spaced around the object, assuming it is 3D, the chances are high that you'd not see that symmetry by virtue of your viewing angle. I guess it would be a 1/360 chance.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I did consider that as a possibility of proof of a hoax. I'm glad you brought that up. That is a problem, I agree. I can say then, there is a 1 out of 360 chance it is a hoax. <br>The other "problems" as mentioned on this thread are problems in a linear way. <br>For instance, this whole notion the damn thing has to maintain crisp edges. That is assuming things in our skies we don't understand are non-amorphous, nuts and bolts "3D" objects. Pray tell, why would that be?<br>The history of sightings has the preponderance for amorphous "other-dimensional" qualities being the norm in the vast majority of accounts. <br><br>Here is an idea on the lights in their array, and I would like anyone to comment if this may be up their alley (or feel free to laugh at this question). If one point of light is set to rotate around a circumference and the speed of that rotation is at a certain velocity, would a video frame record random points on the circumference, or a blur, or would it simplify the signature of the light into a basic geometrical pattern....I am thinking how our eyes work with rotating objects, and I am just curious. You might say, "It would be a blur of light!" and I might agree, but lights and video can do interesting things, especially considering different types of lights, such as strobe, etc. <br>If you are convinced 100% it was faked, fine, no need to answer that my question is retarded. Just some optical/video practical science is all I am looking for here. <p></p><i></i>