(Re)search methodology

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

(Re)search methodology

Postby Buckwild » Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:42 pm

Hi all,

I open this thread in regards to the thread opened by Mosfet called : Best UFO video (ever)

I want to give my take about it by splitting this sentence.

Best = In comparison to and what (?)
UFO : Unidentified Flying Object (a lot of work needs to be done...)
Video : A serie of images captured at different frame rates depending on the vc model
Ever : Since vc exist and in comparison to and what (?)

As you can see, this sentence as it is, does not mean anything objective and raises more questions than it brings answers. That's the reason why I open this thread.

One of my goals is to create a personal database with UFO/UAP videos. I started my quest by starting to define criterias and my search logic or pattern. Defining the object of research in an objective way (that could be measured, interpreted and compared to, analyzed if you prefer). In other words, what we would call a UFO is probably the most complicated part but once done (not done yet), the goal is to create a filter and the criterias that you use allow us to build such a filter.

Here are the steps :

1a/Determine and define the research questions
1b/Determine and define the object of research
2/Select the video captures and determine data gathering and analysis techniques
3/Prepare to collect the data
4a/Collect data that meets your search criterions
4b/Collect data that does not meet the object of research but that still meet your search criterions
4c/Collect data in the field (with your own instruments) and include experimentation
5/Evaluate and analyze the data
6/Prepare the report and the conclusion(s)

As you can see, there are quiet a few steps that are part of the (re)search methodology. This methodology defines what the activity of research is, how to proceed, how to measure progress, and what would constitute unambiguous & objective success. How is it (or could it be) done ?

Each step can be divided in different & complementary steps. That's the hard part if you ask me, and my intention is to work with you on this. I am not infallible or omniscient, so your help, experience and neurons are needed and will be put to the test (and not to rest :wink: ) :arrow: (me to :mrgreen: )

Before, I go into further details regarding each step, I want to ask you one question :

Are you intererested ?


Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am


Re: (Re)search methodology

Postby elevenaugust » Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:43 pm

This is a very good idea, as we are nowadays flooded by lots of videos that are, for most of them, either misidentifications or forgeries...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this have ever been done anywhere; lot of work though...

I will be glad to help anyway. 8)
IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line! www.ipaco.fr
User avatar
elevenaugust
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:55 pm

Re: (Re)search methodology

Postby nablator » Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:21 am

Hi Buck,

A few preliminary comments.

1a/Determine and define the research questions
Does 1b/ exist would be a good question.

1b/Determine and define the object of research
Any testable hypothesis will do, or several.
Looking for uncommon accelerations for example.

Why not:
2/Setup the automated observation (hardware)
2a/quality and quantity
Discuss frame rate, resolution, light sensitivity, storage, etc...
2b/usefulness, relevance, possible incertitude inherent to the chosen setup
The only way to ensure that most artefacts, glitches, small objects (flies, raindrops, etc.) are not responsible: multiple cameras. The only way to compute distance : parallax.
2c/credibility
A network of cameras owned by many people is better than two cameras owned by the same guy, both on his roof.

3/Setup the automated preliminary analysis (software)
To reject as much data as possible without human intervention.

4b/
If there is any, the criteria need to be changed, otherwise the results will be ambiguous. Best way is not to be too ambitious. Look for something that can be easily tested.

Are you interested ?
Maybe. :)
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: (Re)search methodology

Postby Buckwild » Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:11 pm

Hi guys,

Thanks for your input.

I do not have time right now to answer you Nab', but (to Elevenaugust) I do not know if this has been done before. The only person on earth from what I know who "built" the object of research by defining a list of hypothetical observable manifestations is Scot Stride (JPL/NASA/S3ETI) Freitas & Valdez might have done it before him, but I've never found any of their work related to this specific question.

Here is an introduction to his work :
http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/SETV/S ... rial4a.pdf

Yes it is gonna be a very long thread.

Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: (Re)search methodology

Postby mosfet » Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:51 pm

I remember during the drone saga there was mention of software developed which could be applied to a photograph which could determine fakery. I've only seen a few remarkable and noteworthy videos. One in particular was a daytime sighting of a high altitude daylight triangle which was pretty convincing. I'll post a link if I can find it.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: (Re)search methodology

Postby Buckwild » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:38 am

Hi Nab',

Nab : 1a/Determine and define the research questions
Does 1b/ exist would be a good question.


1b = 1a (Determine and define the research questions)

1b is included in the research questions but I want to stress the fact that the object of research would not be exogenous vehicles/spacecraft/drone/probe, etc...but something that is flying by its own means and that outperforms (i.e : flight envelope) presently known flying devices and/or that is interesting because of some other properties/features like aerodynamical considerations just to name one. The goal is not to test the SETV hypothesis* but to filter out some candidates that meets the criterions that we would/could elaborate.


* : http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/AOP/SO ... stract.htm


Nab : 2/Setup the automated observation (hardware)
2a/quality and quantity
Discuss frame rate, resolution, light sensitivity, storage, etc...
2b/usefulness, relevance, possible incertitude inherent to the chosen setup
The only way to ensure that most artefacts, glitches, small objects (flies, raindrops, etc.) are not responsible: multiple cameras. The only way to compute distance : parallax.
2c/credibility
A network of cameras owned by many people is better than two cameras owned by the same guy, both on his roof.


2, 2a, 2b, 2c = 2, 4c and 5 :

2/Select the video captures and determine data gathering and analysis techniques
4c/Collect data in the field (with your own instruments) and include experimentation
5/Evaluate and analyze the data


Nab : 3/Setup the automated preliminary analysis (software)
To reject as much data as possible without human intervention.


Good call ! Existing software like Ufo-capture (payware) and Reactive UFO capture (freeware) can filter out some things/events already. We'll discuss that later. Nasa will soon present similar software that will be available on the market.

Nab : 4b/
If there is any, the criteria need to be changed, otherwise the results will be ambiguous. Best way is not to be too ambitious. Look for something that can be easily tested.


I totally agree with you ! Empirical feasability is a priority. My next step in this thread will be to make an in-depth presentation for each step separately. That will help us/you in the preliminary questions phase.

Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: (Re)search methodology

Postby Buckwild » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:50 am

mosfet wrote:I remember during the drone saga there was mention of software developed which could be applied to a photograph which could determine fakery. I've only seen a few remarkable and noteworthy videos. One in particular was a daytime sighting of a high altitude daylight triangle which was pretty convincing. I'll post a link if I can find it.


Hi Mosfet,

A couple of different software already exist, do you remember the name of the one you are referring to ?

Humm, a daylight "triangle" video, let me guess, it was filmed in Florida during Labor day ?

Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: (Re)search methodology

Postby elevenaugust » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:58 pm

mosfet wrote:I remember during the drone saga there was mention of software developed which could be applied to a photograph which could determine fakery.

Hi Mosfet!

Maybe you're talking about "ELA" Error Level Analysis.

Error level analysis (ELA) works by intentionally re-saving the image at a known error rate, such as 95%, and then computing the difference between the images. If there is virtually no change, then the cell has reached its local minima for error at that quality level. However, if there is a large amount of change, then the pixels are not at their local minima and are effectively original.

SOURCES:
http://www.nameofscience.com/2010/05/image-error-level-analysis.html
http://www.errorlevelanalysis.com/
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/357937/how-experts-identify-the-fakes

However, this great tool is not that great since seems like there's some false positive errors...

-----------------------------------------

Or maybe you're talking about JPEGSnoop, which also use the JPEG compression rate to detect forgeries (Huffman tables, quantization, chrominance and luminance tables, etc...)

"One of the latest features in JPEGsnoop is an internal database that compares an image against a large number of compression signatures. JPEGsnoop reports what digital camera or software was likely used to generate the image. This is extremely useful in determining whether or not a photo has been edited / tampered in any way. If the compression signature matches Photoshop, then you can be pretty sure that the photo is no longer an original! This type of analysis is sometimes referred to as Digital Image Ballistics / Forensics".

SOURCES:
http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop.html

Not a smoking gun for fakes, but a good indication anyway...
IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line! www.ipaco.fr
User avatar
elevenaugust
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:55 pm

Re: (Re)search methodology

Postby mosfet » Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:48 pm

I think that was it. So whats the bottom line? Any good or not? Some still believe the drone photos are real.

I can't recall the video siting, but Texas or CA comes to mind, should have saved it. Could be Florida?
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: (Re)search methodology

Postby elevenaugust » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:21 pm

These two softwares cannot work on videos, only on JPEG stills.
IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line! www.ipaco.fr
User avatar
elevenaugust
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:55 pm

Re: (Re)search methodology

Postby chrLz » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:46 pm

elevenaugust wrote:These two softwares cannot work on videos, only on JPEG stills.


And if you read their documentation in full, there are MANY provisos, they can give false positives/negatives, and you need to bear in mind that any digital image can be faked to match anything, if you have the time and ability. Which is why, imo, the image/video is just a very small part of any investigation. The other facts, evidence and corroboration (if any!) surrounding the imagery is what is most important...
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: (Re)search methodology

Postby elevenaugust » Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:03 pm

chrLz wrote:
elevenaugust wrote:These two softwares cannot work on videos, only on JPEG stills.


And if you read their documentation in full, there are MANY provisos, they can give false positives/negatives, and you need to bear in mind that any digital image can be faked to match anything, if you have the time and ability. Which is why, imo, the image/video is just a very small part of any investigation. The other facts, evidence and corroboration (if any!) surrounding the imagery is what is most important...

Yes, you're absolutely right.

However, in all my photos investigations, I only met once the case were someone totally faked the EXIF datas in order to make the photography appears to be real.
Only a full background investigations was able to identify the forgery...

But this is very rare, as the real ability to manipulate photographies to completely hide tampering traces is uncommon.
Usually, common sense, scientific approach and methodology, and experience is enough to detect most fakes and misinterpretations.
IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line! www.ipaco.fr
User avatar
elevenaugust
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:55 pm

Re: (Re)search methodology

Postby mosfet » Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:45 pm

This could be the video, but even if not seems genuine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jqtQBhRVbM
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm


Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

cron