Great Pic of a triangle in Indiana !!

reply to post by jritzmann


Hi jritzmann,

Thanks for your expertise here, can you please check this thread also, a guy claims a pic for saucer shaped UFO.
Thread

I put the JR craft on top of triangle in a gif. I brought the "paste" craft to a similar color tone. You be the judge if this is a copy and paste fake.
Next i have the photograph of the craft broken down into the individual color channels. I studied it a bit and the jpg compression is the same throughout the whole image and even going through the craft.
If you look on the right side of this image you see where I took the arrow and am showing just one channel. The compression difference is obvious.

As far as someone adding channel noise to blend this in, it would be a tough job considering the channel compression is blocky but with more of a vertical striation.

This compression type is typical of lower range cameras and I would guess some sort of "fujifilm" camera.

is it a fake? It sure is CLOSE to the other craft but I'm not convinced it's a fake right now.

Jeff: I've done some further analysis on the meier craft and I just can't say it's real now. I have ONE more thing i want to look at but now I've been pouring over it.. sigh.. I hate to concede the wedding cake.

b

[edit on 12-2-2008 by Bspiracy]

i live in south central Indiana, and there was snow on the ground during the time that this picture was taken, and the only way that there shouldnt be snow, is if the person who took the pic lived further down south. it doesnt give a location in the article, so one may only speculate.

and if it is real: damnit! i freaking miss everything!

Originally posted by Bspiracy
As far as someone adding channel noise to blend this in, it would be a tough job considering the channel compression is blocky but with more of a vertical striation.

Not tough if it's done before compression, or, by adding it to a preexisting compressed image and compressing again. Even compression is largely used by people to hide a multitude of sins.

The dead give away is the noise layer above the powerlines.

Originally posted by MrPenny
reply to post by Alpha Grey

 

Cool picture.....why does the object look to be in better focus than every thing else in the scene?

yeah....


what he said

why dose it look more in focus
then everything eles


[edit on 12-2-2008 by loki42]

The firtree seems to have an anomalus top section, JR is this a result of
manipulation? the very top seems to be offset to the left while underneath
the bottom power line is another UFO (as seen in china picture with no running lights, hidden behind the tree:-) but sticking out to the left

By eagle1229 at 2008-02-12

reply to post by Eagle1229


You cant really say with organic objects, the tree's branches may actually be that way, and due to heavy pixelation look odd or out of place. Too many people dont realize the effects of pixelation and compression, and a lot of summations are made out of that.

As far as the second object, again, that could very well be the tree, with the effect of additional blocking. I dont personally see it as a mistake in composite, or anything of note. The china UFO used was lifted directly, and lifted rather poorly with either a bad alpha mask or worse, a lasso or wand tool.

As poor a job as it is, I'd go for the latter.

If it's a real UO shot candidly, then it's the greatest event in light matching ever...the odds of an object with peripheral lights in the sky (with exact altitude, remember alt. effects perspective) being seen at exactly the same vantage point (with lens distortion, don't forget that) by a camera are millions to one.

As far as I'm concerned is just a badly done composite. Really bad.


[edit on 12-2-2008 by jritzmann]

It does look like the China UFO. And it does look like there is some kind of object behind the tree or something that made it "bulge."
But I can't really say if it is fake or real because I don't know much about photo analysis.
edit: it is interesting that both pictures are from the same website.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by tinfoilsrule]

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by indierockalien

 

The shape is the result of pixelation at the time of composite. You'll see in the blow up, a very light darkened upper edge. The result of a bad composite, and already degraded photo (if not with noise added to further obscure the composite edges.

Sorry, I can see you are not a photo or digital expert. Your conclusions are based on assumptive and non-professional speculation. Your "opinion" is only an opinion. You do not understand composite digitization process to a sufficient degree.

The image is first, low-light so without enough photons hitting the CCD it compiles into larger packets of light information. That creates the grain. The patterns will correspond to type of chip and software/firmware the camera uses to image the data it receives from the chip.

It is VERY hard to fake the grain (noise) to a trained digital tech. Even if you impose a filter effect or try to mask by layering over a faked image a transparent patterned, or algorithmic effect filter.

I have done computer graphics since 1983, have worked or been a beta for NEC, Adobe and others. I have retouched and studied faking technologies and can tell you with a fair amount of certainty an amateur cannot do this with "off the shelf" software or filters easily or that even with such technology, do not know how to cover earmarks a professional can see.

Also, the Chinese image and this are very different, (thanks for the comparative, saved me the trouble) and the differences also cannot be faked without actually faking the whole image and not just cut-paste.

In fact all the attempts here so far are just seeing pictures in clouds, or optical neural pattern recognition artifacts.

I will initially sign off on this as probably 95% real, but would need (in all cases) the "original" image to get the other 5% certainty.

But no original = no proof possible. Period.

ZG

[edit on 2/12/2008 by ZeroGhost]

Very skeptical on this. I work as a Graphic Designer, so I do know a fair amount about Photoshop and similar programs. The bulk of the image is of poor quality and resolution, but the UFO seems to be of much higher quality and resolution.

reply to post by jritzmann


Jeff, I love your sweet Valentine Avatar. It is a heart in the center right? I wish you could help me with mine...

Originally posted by Unkle Greggo
Very skeptical on this. I work as a Graphic Designer, so I do know a fair amount about Photoshop and similar programs. The bulk of the image is of poor quality and resolution, but the UFO seems to be of much higher quality and resolution.

New chips have recognition software that can find detail like faces, eyes and such. The software actually will put more resources to those areas of the CCD for processing. That's probably what you are seeing.

Still want the original to test. See no real evidence of fake yet.

ZG

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
Sorry, I can see you [Jeff Ritzman] are not a photo or digital expert. Your conclusions are based on assumptive and non-professional speculation.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, god. Thanks. That's about the most non-intentionally funny thing I've read on ATS.

reply to post by ZeroGhost


If you sign off on this as 95% "real" (whatever that means) then I have serious reservations about your expertise. The short response is your over-analyzing a very crude image. I guess by your ending statements, you want it to be true, rather then looking at comparative data.

I've been doing this for over 20 years, and have a good enough track record to have been consulted on many cases, including Gulf Breeze, Mexico City and O'Hare. Unlike many others, I've proven more fakes then unknowns.

In short, I think I know what I'm doing...but thanx for your marginalization, as it shows others what a thankless job this truly is.

Jeff just asked to to take a look at this image...

I have to agree with him, the similarity to the Chinese UFO is uncanny, everything seems to line up just right, and the reduction of the lights and their surrounding outer halo diameters would correspond to the overall brightness reduction needed to match the background.

The focus mismatch is significant, as the lens was certainly in a position where there could be no reasonable way to expect the whole image to be soft EXCEPT the object. This alone raises huge flags.

As far as introducing CCD artifacts to the comp element, it's actually quite trivial - one simply takes a sample of the CCD "emulsion" from any other part of the sky, and comps it onto the newly added element. There are a number of ways to do this, one could try the Overlay blend mode, it would be my first choice. Overlay is a combination of Multiply and Screen, where M is used in the event that the background is lighter than the foreground element, and S where the background is darker than the foreground element. Photoshop or After Effects (which I would probably use instead, more blending modes) could definitely be used to create this type of effect.

But if one looks carefully at the "UFO" in this image, it's interesting how little artifacting it shows when compared to other areas of similar density in the image, strengthening the argument that it's been comped in.

The linked report has the supposed witness claiming that they saw some sort of shimmering effect along the tree line, below the object. The photo does not support this claim.

Combine with with the lack of snow - which others have pointed out is rather odd, if the image is from where it purports to be - and this looks like a fabricated image.

So I'm curious, has anyone attempted to contact the person who posted this image to ufocasebook? Any other corroborating witness testimony?

I'm with Jeff on this one. There are lots of reasons to doubt the image, very few to find it credible.

dB

[edit on 12-2-2008 by davidbiedny]

reply to post by Alpha Grey

Hi Alpha,
This looks very much like the UFO seen by the pilot over Texas and reported in my thread here on ATS. The sighting was on Jan 25th. The airline pilot (my friend) saw a UFO from above and it had 8 lights more or less in an octagonal shape.

Originally posted by ZeroGhost

New chips have recognition software that can find detail like faces, eyes and such. The software actually will put more resources to those areas of the CCD for processing. That's probably what you are seeing.

Still want the original to test. See no real evidence of fake yet.

ZG

I was not aware that there were cameras that did shape and boundary recognition based on the shapes of UAPs, could you please provide links to examples of these cameras? The algorithms used to do this type of analysis are specifically tailored to faces - the distance between the eyes is one of the key factors evaluated in the process of recognition. There is no camera designed to automatically detect the shape of a UAP - and given the morphology seen in the many years of reported sightings, such a camera would not really be very feasible. Your comments quoted above are not applicable in this context, sorry.

dB

[edit on 12-2-2008 by davidbiedny]

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
You do not understand composite digitization process to a sufficient degree.
[edit on 2/12/2008 by ZeroGhost]

That's funny, in my 25 years of working with digital imaging technology, I've never come across the term "composite digitization".

Please enlighten us as to the meaning of this term.

dB

reply to post by ZeroGhost


I have to wonder... ZeroGhost, are you looking at the same image the rest of us are?

The "overlay" of the Chinese image on top of this one (the "Indiana") is, well, blatant, obvious, a no brainer, etc... I mean I am certainly NOT an expert but I do have eyes and the lights and the outline of the shape are DEAD ON. How is that remotely possible?

I am not trying to be a pain here, but you just told one of the best and most dedicated UFO image analysts on the planet that you don't think he knows what he's talking about and THIS is your reason?!

Springer...