So last week I wrote about a picture of a moth or bird or something that was being claimed quite credulously to be an angel. The picture is fuzzy enough to make its subject unclear, but an angel it certainly ain’t.
But what is it? The comments were aflame with speculation. But now, via The Blog Of Phyz, it looks like the the author of Xenophilia may have cracked the case: the "angel" may very well be a hummingbird.
He takes a picture of a hummingbird and fuzzes it out until it more or less matches the original picture. Very clever.
In fact, this technique is used by astronomers. I’ve used it myself! When Hubble was launched with a flawed mirror, the images were slightly fuzzy. I had these images of a ring around a star, but it was really hard to figure out if it was a torus, an unresolved line, a shell (like a soap bubble), or what. So I wrote a computer program to create a simulated shapes, and then fuzz them out as if they were viewed by Hubble. It worked! I was able to figure out the ring was most likely an oddly-shaped torus.
Back to the "angel", the results of the Great Hummingbird Fuzz-Out may not be conclusive, but they’re pretty persuasive, and I think it’s easier to believe in hummingbirds than angels. I have hummingbirds feeding in my garden regularly, but angels, well, there they obviously fear to tread.
November 16th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
I’m putting my money on it being the elusive Ivory Billed Woodpecker. I’ve begun preparation on a paper to Science detailing my claims.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:08 am
Hummingbird did cross my mind the first time around since it did seem to have the silhouette. But what elicited doubts was my colloquial understanding that they flap their wings at a pretty fast rate. If this is true for all times its aloft, the next question is whether the shutter speed of the camera at that time was short enough to “freeze” the wings. Which brings up the question of whether there was enough ambient or artificial light and flash to do so. And right now I still have no idea what lighting illuminated the object. Looks like flash to me. I wonder if the digicam they used recorded the camera/exposure data.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Well, according to a Google search result,
“On average, a hummer flaps about 60-80 times per second in normal flight, up to 200 per second at top speed”
(found here:
http://www.hiltonpond.org/ThisWeek060822.html )
So, I think it would be possible for any exposure equivalent to 1/250 s or shorter to give the impression (in that fuzzy image) of frozen motion. Particularly bearing in mind that, at the top and bottom of each stroke, the wings are virtually stationary for a brief moment, and the wings look to be at the top of a stroke in the picture.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:11 am
Although I go along with the existance of angels, I am with Phil on this photo.
My study of the subject of angels is that they have the ability to blend in and not be noticed. It is even speculated that an “angel” could be a normal person who just serrendipitously is in the right place at the right time.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:50 am
Sticks- do you have any evidence that your hypothesis might be correct? Is there any way you can think of testing your hypothesis? After all- if angels have the ability to always hide from prying eyes then it would seem impossible to ever detect their presence.
An aside… I disagree with pretty much everything you write- but I give you a lot of credit for engaging in debate and not running when presented with difficult questions. I think your contributions to the readers’ discussions on the BaBlog are worthwhile- if only to let others know an alternative point of view.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:10 am
It does look very much like the object was illuminated by automatic flash on the camera; in which case, the shutter speed is irrelevant: the short duration of the flash (which can be less than 1/1000 of a second) is enough to freeze motion.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:45 am
Christian Burnham wrote
Is there any way you can think of testing your hypothesis?
In the conventional way most liekly not. Most of what I get about angels comes from how they are portrayed in the bible as opposed to how Hollywood handles them and the various common place imagery that is around. Now I realise this will not be considered evidence as it is based on an ancient text rather than experimental science, however I considered it was enough to rule out the possibility that the image taken was an angel. According to the texts, that is not how they work. I was using the faith world to come to the same conclusion as everyone else here about the nature of the image. Kind of trying to show that the science world and the faith world do not have to be mutually exclusive and they can be on the same side.
Christian Burnham wrote
After all- if angels have the ability to always hide from prying eyes then it would seem impossible to ever detect their presence.
Like certain elementary particles huh?
Yes that is a bit unfair and I do hope they detect those things.
any hue
That is the nature of the beast as it were. If you consider the folklore and what the texts say about these beings, they are intelligent beings and we should expect that they remain hidden. That said, many years ago I once recorded a programme off of either BBC Radio 4 or BBC Radio 3 which was about angels. They had the usual stuff about shops cashing in by selling angel memorabelia (This was way before Buffy BTW). They also had testimonies from people who claimed they had met angels. In one account the angel was disguised as a Yorkshire plumber who fixed a woman’s boiler for no fee and when he left, he disappeared.
A number of these accounts seem to be of that ilk, I did find this site although some sound like they were coppied from Snopes, however on the radio programme we heard directly from those who claimed the experience.
I do realise this can not count as evidence and even with-in the faith community there will be some who will doubt the veracity of these accounts.
But as I said, there is the third possibility that an “angel” can be nothing more than a helpful person or even animal in the right place at the right time to save somebody, in which case the sceptic can just say coincidence, and they may even be right.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:57 am
Sticks:
One thing that separates angels from elementary particles is that elementary particles are elementary! It’s a lot easier to imagine an as-yet undetected particle than an angel who hides from our vision. Angels are macroscopic complicated things that demand an even more complicated explanation (if they exist).
November 17th, 2006 at 3:58 am
I’ve seen hummingbirds feeding on insects in the early evening. One year they even nested in the light at my front door. They do not live by nectar alone.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:25 am
A HummingBird Doest Not Live By Nectar Alone.
*cough*
November 17th, 2006 at 4:28 am
Sorry the allusion to the hunt for elementary particles (neutrinos?) was supposed to be a bit of humour, and I find the hunt for them just as interesting. Has Phil done anything on about them? Sorry if that offended anyone.
The explanation for angels is simply they purported to be supernatural servants of God, who are used when dealing with mortals. It is also argued that they are normal people or annimals who render aid unexpectedly for no reward, usually according to the folklore through the providence of God, but possibly due to shear coincidence. You pays your money and takes your choice Have you ever found yourself in a position where you were able to rescue or come to someone’s aid?
Meanwhile, I came across another set of accounts of “angelic interactions” with people on this site. Some of them do have e-mail addresses linked to them for theoretical follow up, but they do sound a lot like stuff from Glurge Gallery.
How much salt you take with these I leave up to you.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:23 am
Aww, now . . . I often have Southern Ultrabaptist Angels feeding in my backyard, scaring away the squirrels. Damned Archs . . .
November 17th, 2006 at 6:00 am
I like the photo analysis, but I am not sure the wings are an exact match for the ruby throated hummingbird. However, there is no doubt - it is a bird - and it sure looks like SOME sort of hummingbird as well.
Al’s comment on the flash is spot-on.
JC
November 17th, 2006 at 7:48 am
I said in the other topic that the lack of tail-feathers would rule out a bird, but I never thought of having darkly-colored feathers like that. Come to think of it, my digicam does tend to make dark objects really dark and bright objects really bright when there’s very low light, such as this.
Still, I’d think if we could get hold of the original copy and take the contrast way down, the head and tail-feathers would show up. It doesn’t work for this copy, but there’s no telling how many alterations it’s been through since she took the photo.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:23 am
Necessity may be the mother of invention, but DISSENT is definetly its father.
If we were all in agreement all the time, we’d still be sitting in caves whining,”Dang, I’m freezing my buns off. Wish someone would invent fire,,,”
GAry 7
PS, I saw an angle once. She about 60 years old, of recent African ancestry, and floated along the sidewalk, while surrounded by a soft golden glow.
It WAS the day after new years eve and I AM a DeadHead,,,
November 17th, 2006 at 8:42 am
I disagree with the photo manipulation being some kind of evidence or indicator. It’s to arbitrary. Much like the “evidence” that Phil is a lizard man.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:27 am
I agree with Zoot as far as the photo manipulation.
To me, the picture is just an anomoly of optics/light. Maybe of a real object/bird) maybe from a reflection off an object.
We need allot more info, which is attanable, but only if we contact the owner of teh picture. Like: How big is this anomoly relative to something else in the picture? Was this something that appeared in some corner of a picture of the scenery?
They say they were in a ferris wheel…How high? At night? (do [humming] birds fly that high at night?)
If this thing was the subject of this picture (i.e. not in the corner of a picture of another subject) then how close was it to the shooter? etc etc etc.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Except that anybody can do the same manipulations and come to similar results. When I run the filters she claims she ran to make Phil look like a lizard man, I get what appears to be a filtered picture of Phil, not what appears to be a filtered picture of a “lizard man” edited into a filtered picture of the background Phil used to be standing in front of.
We aren’t really arguing whether it’s a broad-tailed hummingbird vs. a ruby-throated hummingbird, or a hummingbird vs. a pigeon, or a bird vs. a moth vs. a bat.
What we’re really arguing is that there are several creatures that easily resemble that picture, and are much more plausible than an angel. Then we’re having a fun discussion of the specifics because we’re geeks that way.
I agree that it would be nice to have more info to pick it apart more easily (such as an original copy of the picture), but I also have a feeling that the person who took the picture will object to us getting better information to analyze her claim in depth.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Aoot, the photo manipulation is not proof of the identity of the original image. We all agree on that. The photo manipulation shows that it is possible for it to be a hummingbird. A known hummingbird image altered to match the conditions of the original picture bears a strong resemblance to the image. Ergo, it could very well be a hummingbird. It does not rule out that it’s a moth instead, but it does make angel a much less likely explanation.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:22 am
We have only this close-up, so it can be a badly lit angel-shaped necklace.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
PK, go to the link, go to the video, and you get a view of the full image in the video segment. Not much better, but you see the overall context.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Irishman > I guess that’s my point. It could have been any number of things, so the demonstration becomes kind of manipulative. In selecting a scenario and doing the photoshopping stunt as though it could show anything you are essentially doing a mental slight of hand.
Or let me put it this way, if that manouvre indicates that it _could_ have been a hummingbird then this picture indicates that it _could_ have been a Boeing 727:
http://hem.bredband.net/b120780/Boeing.jpg
Even if it’s just in the space of plausabillity, it’s a misdirection.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
It definitely looks like a moth to me. the main thing that points to it’s identity as a moth as opposed to a bird is that even with the flash/focus distortion you can pretty clearly see the separation between the pairs of wings on each side. although it’s possible that is either an artifact of the camera or some processing since it was taken, you would expect to see pretty much exactly that wing silhouette for various moths, whereas you’d have to rely on a secondary explanation for most plausible birds.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
It is mother natures version of a sentient creature, the hummingbird - slightly edited to give credence to those who believe in angels. Interpretation is the most human form of choice, whether its believable or not. I, like our moderator Phil, choose the most plausible explanation, unless proven otherwise.
“When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from
childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible
for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately,
and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem
to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I
could do it myself.” - Mark Twain
November 17th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
My first thought was that this is a hummingbird moth,. Some of my own amateur pictures of a hummingbird moth can be seen on my blog at http://anothermonkey.blogspot.com/2005/08/more-insects-in-my-garden.html. These pictures are enlargements - which leads me to wonder, what does the original of the “angel” photo look like? How much of the image is taken up by this object? Is this a blow-up of just a small portion of the picture?
Hummingbird moths are neat, because at first glance they look like hummingbirds, until you notice the six legs.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
What’s in a species name?
Pareidolia by any other name would still look just as fuzzy.
It doesn’t looks too much like a hummingbird. I still say seagull. Maybe someone ought to try the technique with a seagull.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Arrgh. That link is messed up.
http://anothermonkey.blogspot.com/2005/08/more-insects-in-my-garden.html
November 17th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
I have to admit that I did my own photo-analysis before I saw the one comparing it to a humming bird… I also used Photoshop and changed the contrast, sharpness, etc. I noticed the red in the head area and blue in the wings… but also noticed what might be reflections off of antennae above the head, leading me to believe that this is indeed some sort of moth. If not a moth, I still wouldn’t be surprised to find out it is a bird. I won’t link the processed image since it looks almost exactly like the processed used to compare the original photo to a hummingbird.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Sticks, you rock!
Everyone, listen to his sound files
November 17th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Just my two cents…
How is anyone getting a seagull out of that pic? The wings are way too short relative to the body, even if caught in mid-flap.
The first time I saw the pic, I initially thought of a hummingbird based on the pose, but I find I’m leaning toward the moth idea.
By the way, slightly off-topic, but I’ve seen an ultrasound image of an unborn baby whose face looked exactly like the skeletal figure which appeared on most Iron Maiden album covers. I know it didn’t “mean” anything, but it was pretty cool.
November 18th, 2006 at 7:29 am
I think those that are seing this image as a “bird” are forgetting (or are not aware of) camera “depth of field” - and how a small camera behaves under dark conditions.
The original shots were taken in dark conditions. I am willing to stake some reasonably valuable item that the person behind the camera was NOT an “experienced photographer” (goodness knows she wasnt a very original THINKER!) and was using (no proof of this - yet) a “point-and-shoot” small camera. I am also willing to bet that something I generally sneer at - the flash being used for extremely long shots - was employed. I sneer because I am a snob and know that outside of maybe 20′ with a small camera. a flash is useless. Taking distant shots with a flash on is just silly - but I also know that sometimes, you just can’t shut it off - or don’t know how. I also know that SOMEtimes, it us useful to have on - but I am basing my assumptions on the photographer not knowing any of this.
A small camera will have a small aperature, but in this mode it will be “wide open” - giving an area of “reasonable focus” out maybe 20 feet. The object is not in focus, so it is probably inside of this distance. It is also nicely reflecting the flash - only good to maybe 15-25 feet on a small camera (enhanced by light, reflecting colours)
So - this object can be presumed to be closer than 25 feet from the camera - and is therefore, not very large. If it were outside this range, it would be A: clear(er) and B: dimmer (unless it emitted it’s own light
It is, therefore, a rather small object. I really like the hummingbird moth idea. I have yet to see the one my kids have seen around my house. My daughter actually had one fly right into her once - and I have never seen it! They all SWEAR it is a hummingbird though - until they get close and see that is is really a moth. Wild!
JC
November 18th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
How many humming birds fit on the head of pin?
Better yet—how many Boeing 727s’ fit on the head of a pin?
November 18th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
“How many hummingbirds/Boeing 727s fit on the head of a pin?”
Depends. For a sufficiently large pin…it could be many.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:33 am
So an angel accidently was filmed the other day. So God drags the angel onto the carpet, bursting with anger he begins a verbal thrashing of the angel. “Now I have to go back in time create a creature called a hummingbird and collectively reinstate it as memories in all the mortals, ME how can you be so careless?” (God says ME instead of God I guess). I guess the angel must have been on his way to a pin dancing or maybe he was going to a date with Tinkerbell. Submitted for your amusement.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:05 am
First guess says its some sort of a bird, some what over exposed and a bit out of focus. Lets face it both of these errors are pretty common with many photographers.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:49 am
I still say it’s a Moth, but it’s interesting that Harold, (at 2:59pm), commented about a Hummingbird moth. Not having seen a hummingbird itself, (I don’t think they are represented in Australia), I cannot really be sure about it. But I have noticed an insect, about the size of a very thin bee flitting around flowers, in what I guess would be reminiscent of the insect described as a hummingbird moth. And the photos in that link are sort of familiar.
Somehow though, I imagined it to be too small not to be noticed whilst up in the ferris wheel, as it would have to be very close to satisfy the dynamics of the photo, ie, like a few inches away from the camera. I, too, wondered about the slight hint of antennas above the head, but considered that a long shot.
It is also obvious that more than a few people have not opened the links to view the original full photo from the ferris wheel to see the conditions under which it was taken.
Go on, take another look.
In the Xenophilia link, the “Shopped” version of what is supposedly, and “eventually” became a hummingbird very clearly, seems too manipulated. Was it done for clarity by a reverse process? Was taking a clear picture and fuzzing it up to illustrate the point, and showing that by un-fuzzing it, it could fit the queried photo? I’m not accusing anybody of fraud here, merely that they were illustrating a point.
Phil appears to have worked with the computer programs that enhances images, that sharpen edges, and add and/or reduce brightness, contrast and color etc., and the shots of the bird are to me, too good. I appreciate what has been done though.
My vote is still a moth, but I don’t know which species. I leave that to the locals. And whatever became of Jonathon Livingstone Seagull anyway? (Another Elvis type Sighting?).
Ivan.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No it’s Super Grover!
November 20th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
I was finally able to watch the video and see the original photo (at least, I assume there was no cropping.) In that photo the antennae are much more obvious than in the close-up image here.
Watching that video the message semmed to be less “Angels are among us! See the evidence!” and more “These people are gullible idiots! You’ve gotta hear them!” Sadly, based on my personal experiences with many people with a similarly low level of critical thinking, I would not be surprised if these folks had never seen a hummingbird moth, or had ever bothered to take a close look at things like bugs in the garden or stars in the sky.
November 23rd, 2006 at 2:31 pm
icemith, the Xenophobia demo is a reverse process, taking a clear picture of a hummingbird and altering it to resemble the conditions of the picture. It is intended to show how a hummingbird could appear similarly. That is all it is intended to show. Don’t read too much into it.
January 15th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
people the pic was taken at night, the news article never said that they saw the object while taking the picture! it wasnt until they got home that they saw the angel!!!! not while taking the picture!
April 1st, 2007 at 8:59 pm
[…] At least this one was at the Vatican and not at a state fair. […]