Print

[please delete my account]

Believe we've already covered this in June...I pointed out the bing image and Ric provided GeoEye image from 2011 with the comment that there is nothing there...

http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1225.msg25595.html#msg25595

[Brad Beeching]

Has anyone been able to examine the photo's under a stereoscope? I realize that they are prob'ly not very common, or maybe they are, I don't know, but it seems that they can make details pop out in what would appear to be 3D. After all, the were indispensible to photo analysis for the majority of the 20th century....

Brad

[Doug Giese]

Has anyone been able to examine the photo's under a stereoscope?

Brad,

I don't think that would work. The brain expects to view the two images creating a stereo view to be imaged at the same time, separated by the distance between the two pupils (the observation or 2nd 'camera' position). If you see a 3D movie, take off your glasses and you'll see the two images are just slightly different (I saw 'Gravity' this weekend and they did a fantastic job with the 3D effects!). Even if one image were resampled to move the observation distance from where it was taken to the correct distance (e.g., the pupil to pupil distance), the time/altitude/attitude would still be wrong. In a 3D movie if you took off your glasses, you'd see a big difference between the images. The sun shadows and relative geometry between the two views would be way off kilter. I think the difference between a true stereo view and our synthesized view would give the viewer a real headache, and not provide any useful information.

I recall a previous post about using stereo views but it's left as an exercise for you to find it

[Tim Mellon]

Has anyone yet come up with an explanation of this bright object in Frame #43? It does not look to me like a defect in the film as the bright object seems to be surrounded with a darker boarder.

[Chris Owens]

Has anyone been able to examine the photo's under a stereoscope?

Brad,

I don't think that would work. The brain expects to view the two images creating a stereo view to be imaged at the same time, separated by the distance between the two pupils (the observation or 2nd 'camera' position). If you see a 3D movie, take off your glasses and you'll see the two images are just slightly different (I saw 'Gravity' this weekend and they did a fantastic job with the 3D effects!). Even if one image were resampled to move the observation distance from where it was taken to the correct distance (e.g., the pupil pupil distance), the time/altitude/attitude would still be wrong. In a 3D movie if you took off your glasses, you'd see a big difference between the images. Theto  sun shadows and relative geometry between the two views would be way off kilter. I think the difference between a true stereo view and our synthesized view would give the viewer a real headache, and not provide any useful information.

I recall a previous post about using stereo views but it's left as an exercise for you to find it

A stereoscope is very useful with aerial photos if the aircraft was flying a straight course and a timer was rigged to cause  the camera to snap pictures at regular intervals. Since most of the things of interest (rocks, trees, etc) aren't moving, what you have in two consecutive images is essentially the same as though both images were taken at the same time with two cameras many yards apart.  Looking at two consecutive images from a roll through a stereoscope gives a lot of information; various geographic and defense mapping agencies used to hire hundreds of people to spend their day looking through rolls of film that way.  This only works really well if the camera is fixed relative to the plane (not hand held and pointed out the window) and the pictures are taken at precise known intervals.

[Tim Collins]

Are not stereoscopic pictures taken with a special camera specific to that purpose? I would venture to guess that any possibility for stereoscopic viewing with these photos, coincidental as it may be, would probably require no small amount of manipulation to make it actually work. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it's worth a try  if somebody has the inclination or know how to take it on. 

[Ric Gillespie]

I'm going to purge this thread of all sniping, including my own, and in future I'll remove any posting from this and any thread that is not constructive discussion or an informed critique of substantive issues.

[Tim Mellon]

Has anyone yet come up with an explanation of this bright object in Frame #43? It does not look to me like a defect in the film as the bright object seems to be surrounded with a darker boarder.

Tim,

Does the same 'object' appear in a different photo of same area?  That would be one way to help determine whether it is a flaw or a real object, I believe.

I see a suggestion of shadowing (darker border you mentioned), but I can't tell if it's true shadowing off of a real object, or just some effect of flaw / film or glare and a halo effect, etc.  Seems like a real object could be bright enough to blind us as to details (glare) and possibly create a dark halo effect too - but over my head technically to say, I'm sure. 

In any case, looking at the same area in a different photo might tell you the most about whether real or flaw.

Jeff, we have additionally examined frames #18 and #44, but do not see the same bright object. Could be obscured by vegetation in either case, due to angle of view. (I trust we are using the same frame numbering system).

I lean towards defect now.

[JNev]

Has anyone yet come up with an explanation of this bright object in Frame #43? It does not look to me like a defect in the film as the bright object seems to be surrounded with a darker boarder.

Tim,

Does the same 'object' appear in a different photo of same area?  That would be one way to help determine whether it is a flaw or a real object, I believe.

I see a suggestion of shadowing (darker border you mentioned), but I can't tell if it's true shadowing off of a real object, or just some effect of flaw / film or glare and a halo effect, etc.  Seems like a real object could be bright enough to blind us as to details (glare) and possibly create a dark halo effect too - but over my head technically to say, I'm sure. 

In any case, looking at the same area in a different photo might tell you the most about whether real or flaw.

Jeff, we have additionally examined frames #18 and #44, but do not see the same bright object. Could be obscured by vegetation in either case, due to angle of view. (I trust we are using the same frame numbering system).

I lean towards defect now.

My thought is simply from what I've learned by following Glickman and others 'in the know' on this site and elsewhere that a real object would tend to make a repeat appearance in other frames shot of the same area, but perhaps more shadowed, or brighter, or shaped differently because of change of aspect, etc.  If it does not appear in repeat, and the 'feature' lacks clear 'interaction' with it's surrounding environment or clear suggestion of discernable 'features' within the whole of the 'object' then it is likely merely a flaw.

It has been intriguing to be able to study these pictures in such detail, although I have to confess others did far more heavy lifting than moi.  I quickly realized my poor skills and eyes probably could not sift many needles out of such a haystack.  I also confess coming to a personal belief that anything that would be truly noticable from the altitude these were taken would likely be something the NZ crowd may well have noticed and looked into further themselves, long ago. 

The odds of finding personal effects, short of an open parachute, etc. seem remote to me.  The odds of the NZ crew overlooking aircraft wreckage after such a survey seem equally as remote to me.  Just MHO, of course, other's MMV, no doubt.  And as I said, my skills are not so notable anyway.  But I am grateful for having had the opportunity to see these unique photos.

[Ric Gillespie]

Any news guys? Richie, Ric, anyone?

The study group has done a great job examining the 1938 photos.  Now it's up to Jeff Glickman to review what they've found. 

[Tim Collins]

How about throwing us a bone Ric - how many items of interest did you guys find?

[Greg Daspit]

Just curious about the large dark spot on the SE reef? oils spill? natural?
What is the thinking on it?
Also the small pond looking area just inland of it with light spots around it looks odd(not the big pond/ lagoon spillway near the lagoon but the small area with a light ring around it and a few light spots next to it close to shore.

[Jeff Victor Hayden]

Going through all of the posts in the 1938 photos Study Group Thread and the images therein I stumbled across something I hadn't noticed before. In the first image I had drawn a circle around '? just beyond the surf line'. In the second image I pointed out something which resembles a trail in the bush. When studying these two images next to each other on one of my PCs I noticed that you could draw a straight line between the '? just beyond the surf line' and the start of the 'trail'. It's as if you could wade from '? just beyond the surf line' in a straight line through the water to the start of the 'trail'. Probably just a remarkable coincidence but all the same, what a coincidence.

[Tim Gard]

That's a compelling case you've presented.

Just the sort of detail we've been hoping for.

 

[Ric Gillespie]

In the second image I pointed out something which resembles a trail in the bush. When studying these two images next to each other on one of my PCs I noticed that you could draw a straight line between the '? just beyond the surf line' and the start of the 'trail'.

I think the apparent trail is very interesting and the open area at the end needs to be investigated.  I don't buy an association with the  beyond the surf line. You can draw a straight line between any two points.