• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Misperceptions

Relfn_DSCN4263.jpg

I tried another photo about 1430 today, when the reflection was visible. Oddly it doesn't seem so noticeable in a zoomed in shot as it does with the naked eye, when it seems like a bright man made lamp.
 
Just now I saw an arrow-head shape cursor moving diagonally across my monitor screen.
'Ruddy Heck', I thought, 'what has Win 10 come up with now?'

Then I realised it was actually a tiny moth crawling across the screen! I blew on it and it flew off!

(We've had heavy rain today, so I've had the (top-hinged) windows open wide for a wash. Just as well the rain kept most of the insects under cover, or more of them might have come in.)
 
Here's a news story that seems appropriate here:

UPDATE: Police called out to search for "late night gardener"
Will Frampton / Sunday 26 July 2015

POLICE launched a major hunt involving a helicopter, armed officers and a dog unit for a man brandishing a weapon in the dark – only to find it was a gardener holding a rake.

Stephen Hogan had been working late in his back garden with friend Wayne Dodd when police swooped on their home in Stanpit, Christchurch.
They had earlier received a 999 call from a member of staff at a nursing home two doors down who reported seeing a man holding what appeared to be a weapon.
After making their way through the home, the two policemen found Mr Dodd, 43, holding up a rake from where he had been helping to landscape an area of Mr Hogan's garden under an external light.

The episode follows an incident earlier this month, when tree surgeons working in a back garden in Poole were raided by armed officers after the sound of a nail gun was mistaken for live ammunition.

Mr Hogan, a 55-year-old plumber, had bought a heavy roller to help with the garden project on Friday and he, his son Sean, 23, and Mr Dodd helped to put it together.
Mr Hogan said: "All of a sudden there was a lot of commotion coming from out the front.
"My wife Alison looked outside and saw about five police cars and armed police officers and dogs. We could hear the police helicopter above us.

"Then two policemen approached the front door.
"The said there was someone with a weapon in the area. They asked to come into the back garden and asked if someone was out there because their ‘eyes in the sky’, as they called them, had seen someone.
"They came in and found Wayne with the rake and then left.”

Mr Dodd said: "I was rolling an old part of the garden and saw the helicopter was up. By the time the two policemen came, I was raking over the ground and then they just left."
Mr Hogan said: "We were more bemused than anything.
"It is reassuring that the police checked it out so thoroughly but in the end they did all that just to see what was going on in our garden.
"It didn't help that after leaving our house the police just packed up and left without telling the neighbours it was a false alarm.”

A spokesman for Dorset police said: "At 11.41pm on Friday, we had a report of someone with a weapon but it turned out to be someone who was doing some late night gardening using a rake.
"It was a misinterpretation of what the caller had seen."

http://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/new...t_to_search_for__late_night_gardener_/?ref=ar
 
*Night Of The Bloody Rake-ist ... they messed with the wrong gardener and now he's back .. tagline: you'll reap what you sew, coming to cinemas soon* :D
 
Swifty said:
*Night Of The Bloody Rake-ist ... they messed with the wrong gardener and now he's back .. tagline: you'll reap what you sew, coming to cinemas soon* :D
Click to expand...

...and its sponsored by `Too Much Cheese Enterprises` ;P
 
I think this fits here:
This strange picture has completely baffled the internet
By CGBen | Posted: April 19, 2016

Another day, another optical illusion that has the internet completely stumped - but this one's genuinely baffling.
Savannah Root posted this image on Facebook, and it's since been shared more than 6000 times and like by 32,000 people.

She said: "I stared at this picture for an hour trying to figure out what it was, once you figure it out coment below, please don't ruin it for everyone".

Any idea? Our guesses ranged from "upside down rat-moth" to "fat spider with arms" to "a small man with wings flying through some fog".

Needless to say, none of them are correct.

The thing is, once you've seen it you'll wonder why you didn't spot it straight away. Scroll down for the answer.

...

http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/st...led-internet/story-29137440-detail/story.html

I actually got this quite quickly. (I concentrated on a part I was fairly sure of, and worked out how to fit the rest to it.)
 
rynner2 said:
I think this fits here:
This strange picture has completely baffled the internet
By CGBen | Posted: April 19, 2016

Another day, another optical illusion that has the internet completely stumped - but this one's genuinely baffling.
Savannah Root posted this image on Facebook, and it's since been shared more than 6000 times and like by 32,000 people.

She said: "I stared at this picture for an hour trying to figure out what it was, once you figure it out coment below, please don't ruin it for everyone".

Any idea? Our guesses ranged from "upside down rat-moth" to "fat spider with arms" to "a small man with wings flying through some fog".

Needless to say, none of them are correct.

The thing is, once you've seen it you'll wonder why you didn't spot it straight away. Scroll down for the answer.

...

http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/st...led-internet/story-29137440-detail/story.html

I actually got this quite quickly. (I concentrated on a part I was fairly sure of, and worked out how to fit the rest to it.)
Click to expand...

I got it straight away but then thought that if everyone else was so confused, it couldn't be that obvious.
 
As the debacle around Loquaciousness's garage showed,
I can see a face anywhere
. But not this time. But my other half and elder daughter both saw it straight away. :huh:
 
Nice one. Reminds me a bit of the observation skill question "where is the arrow in this picture?"

You should get it within a minute or so!
 

Attachments

  • FedEx.jpg
    FedEx.jpg
    85.4 KB · Views: 53
This morning I glanced in the window of a local charity shop and saw a book displayed. I thought it was called - well that's the odd thing, I've forgotten what I thought it was, but I thought it was rather grim in that setting.

I did a double-take, and looked at it again. It was called "Devon Thatch", with a pretty picture of a sunny thatched roof! But a few hours later, I found I'd forgotten what I thought I'd seen. Playing around with a few words, the nearest I can come up with is 'The Devil's Touch' (a bit Dennis Wheatley!), but I don't think that was it, somehow. It is probably a common phrase for it to jump straight into my mind on misreading the title.

Can anyone offer any alternatives?
 
rynner2 said:
Playing around with a few words, the nearest I can come up with is 'The Devil's Touch' (a bit Dennis Wheatley!), but I don't think that was it, somehow. It is probably a common phrase for it to jump straight into my mind on misreading the title.
Can anyone offer any alternatives?
Click to expand...

Not a common phrase, but if you squint at the above title you might get 'Demon Hate'. At a push.
 
Yesterday when driving back from a long day's cycling we had Steely Dan's greatest hits or something playing. Suddenly we both heard the Drifters' 'Under The Boardwalk' playing.

Being sunstroked and tired we didn't realise for a minute or two how strange this was. By then the CD was back on Steely Dan playing Rikki Don't Lose That Number.

Played it again and sure enough, it was Boardwalk. We even sang the Tony Soprano line in the right place and giggled.

This was on a noisy road with the windows open. On a quieter stretch we listened again and this time it was definitely Rikki. Baffled.
 
Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility
By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent

Slow-motion video replays of crimes shown in courtrooms may be distorting the outcomes of trials, according to a US study.
Researchers found that slowing down footage of violent acts caused viewers to see greater intent to harm than when viewed at normal speed.
Viewing a killing only in slow motion made a jury three times more likely to convict of first degree murder.
The research has been published in the journal PNAS.

The importance of video evidence in courtrooms has grown in tandem with its supply in recent years.
As well as the mountains of smartphone recordings, CCTV also routinely captures assaults, robberies and even murders. Some police officers even wear on-body cameras.

Courts all over the world are willing to accept these recordings in evidence and they are sometimes shown in slow motion, to help juries make up their minds about what really happened within the often chaotic environment of a crime scene.
A key point in many murder cases is the intention or otherwise of the accused. So the researchers carried out a number of experiments to determine the impact of slowing down the replay on observers.

In their first study participants, acting as jurors, watched a video recording of an attempted robbery of a store, which ended with the shop assistant being shot dead.
They were shown either a regular speed or a slowed down version. Watching the slow-motion version quadrupled the odds that these mock jurors would begin their deliberations ready to convict.

The researchers believe that the slow motion version is giving observers the sense that those carrying out the violent acts on tape have more time to think and deliberate - and the observers therefore believe there is more intent in the violent actions.

"Slow motion can be a better version of reality, sometimes it's very helpful for seeing how actions unfolded," said lead author Eugene Caruso from the University of Chicago.
"But at the same time we found that it seems to have an effect on our perceptions of someone's inner mental states, and there it's really not so clear that slowing things down gives us a more accurate perception of what was going on in someone's mind at the time they were acting."

...

The authors also look at the issue of slow-motion replays in sports, and found significant bias when referees or umpires had more time to consider a decision - particularly when doling out punishments. According to Prof Caruso, the use of slow-motion should be limited.
"The reality that the referees actually see in real time, I think is fair as the one to use for that judgement."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36940475
 
I've noticed that in sport, too - on MOTD or whatever, they'll show a foul at full speed, and then slow it right down, to the point where it looks as if the tackler has been aiming at his opponent's shin for a good 5 seconds. This will then be used as evidence of intent by the supposed experts in the studio. In reality, the whole thing is over in a flash, and often just a case of mistiming by the offender. Fortunately, referees don't (yet!) have the benefit of slow-motion replays, else they'd be sending off a half-dozen players every game.
 
rynner2 said:
Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility
By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent

Slow-motion video replays of crimes shown in courtrooms may be distorting the outcomes of trials, according to a US study.
Researchers found that slowing down footage of violent acts caused viewers to see greater intent to harm than when viewed at normal speed.
Viewing a killing only in slow motion made a jury three times more likely to convict of first degree murder.
The research has been published in the journal PNAS.

The importance of video evidence in courtrooms has grown in tandem with its supply in recent years.
As well as the mountains of smartphone recordings, CCTV also routinely captures assaults, robberies and even murders. Some police officers even wear on-body cameras.

Courts all over the world are willing to accept these recordings in evidence and they are sometimes shown in slow motion, to help juries make up their minds about what really happened within the often chaotic environment of a crime scene.
A key point in many murder cases is the intention or otherwise of the accused. So the researchers carried out a number of experiments to determine the impact of slowing down the replay on observers.

In their first study participants, acting as jurors, watched a video recording of an attempted robbery of a store, which ended with the shop assistant being shot dead.
They were shown either a regular speed or a slowed down version. Watching the slow-motion version quadrupled the odds that these mock jurors would begin their deliberations ready to convict.

The researchers believe that the slow motion version is giving observers the sense that those carrying out the violent acts on tape have more time to think and deliberate - and the observers therefore believe there is more intent in the violent actions.

"Slow motion can be a better version of reality, sometimes it's very helpful for seeing how actions unfolded," said lead author Eugene Caruso from the University of Chicago.
"But at the same time we found that it seems to have an effect on our perceptions of someone's inner mental states, and there it's really not so clear that slowing things down gives us a more accurate perception of what was going on in someone's mind at the time they were acting."

...

The authors also look at the issue of slow-motion replays in sports, and found significant bias when referees or umpires had more time to consider a decision - particularly when doling out punishments. According to Prof Caruso, the use of slow-motion should be limited.
"The reality that the referees actually see in real time, I think is fair as the one to use for that judgement."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36940475
Click to expand...

Well, that's one interpretation of this article as written. There's an assumption here that the larger number of guilty verdicts are wrong, or in the case of sports, that 'bias' might just be better decision making. I read the paper through (all six pages, delightfully short). I note that there are question marks about the 'peer review' process of PNAS:

https://raphazlab.wordpress.com/201...the-peculiar-case-of-pnas-contributed-papers/

The paper nowhere discusses the (arguably) control condition, that is, not that slow motion produces a different judgement than 'real time' but whether or not that judgement was more or less accurate as a result.

One might argue that slow motion shows more detail and gives a more accurate result.

For example, micro-expressions might become more evident as do fleeting changes in body language both of which could show an intent that otherwise might not be seen.

I think it's a paper designed solely to quash slow motion video for the use of capital crimes' prosecution, irrespective of the truth of the matter being tried. I'd speculate that the use of capital punishment examples in the paper hints that the motivation for the paper may simply be an veiled argument against capital punishment.
 
I've just been editing some Olympic photos I took off the Computer screen. When I finished I looked up at the tabs I have open at the top of the screen - one read 'Corbyn death'! :eek: That set me back a bit!

It took me a while to realise it was not about the politician J.C. but it was a story I'd been thinking of posting to The Lone Coastguard thread:

Emergency and rescue services' desperate attempts to save man's life after car fell from cliff

By maxc73 | Posted: August 21, 2016

More details have been revealed about the emergency and rescue services' desperate attempts to save a man's life, after a car plummeted from off a cliff in the early hours of this morning.

Coastguard and lifeboats were called to Corbyn Head, Torquay, at 1.41am.

etc...

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/eme...9640551-detail/story.html#wcqLJRbZI71doOJe.99

But this is still slightly odd, because the words 'Corbyn Death' do not actually occur in the Headline or the URL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top