Great Pic of a triangle in Indiana !!

terrible fake, it stands out a mile N a half....that aint gonna fool no one..the noise isn't consistent AT ALL across the craft itself..whoever faked this..you need to back to photoshop skool kiddo! LOLL

reply to post by jritzmann
JR 1. I find it amazing that compression artifacts can move the top
of the tree several feet to the left while right below the power line is not moved one iota. Ok maybe an iota plus 2pix

2. I can agree that whatever moved the top of the tree also moved the
second lurking UFO:-) ( it also matches the top of the tree if whatever
moved the top also moved the area directly below the power line.
In other words I think this section is also shifted like the top of the tree.

3. If camera compression or a Head finding algorythm can do this
I will need to look at all future pictures crosseyed to eliminate this feature.

4. Note the tree to the left shorn of all leaves, the branches do not look
shifted at all.

5. The compression artifacts overall seem to be almost half an order of magnitude less than the shift in the firtree.
However saying that, the power line IS thickened to the left of the firtree., which is what I think you were referring to, ie comp art modifying the picture. but no loss of power line is seen to my eye, to the right.

6. There is total blue noise sky to the right of the shifted top of the firtree,

7. I will give you one or two feet of shift due to organics but an abrupt
shift of three feet with blue sky with noise to the right and no rotational
bend (in case of wind and long exposue) says to me it's an artifact not of compression but of (photo)shopping with an invalid credit card.

By eagle1229 at 2008-02-12



[edit on 12-2-2008 by Eagle1229]

reply to post by davidbiedny


I think that he's talking about these types of cameras:

Nikon Auto Focus

a lot of the

Originally posted by saturnsrings
Just a blimp, swamp gas reflecting off the trees because Venus wasn't in the picture. The moon was near but also not in the picture so, it was a reflection from 2 jet liners, flying in formation reflecting the sun, over California, never minding that California is 3 time zones away and the witness could see it 2,000 miles away because it was so high.

All of that, or a ufo, not sure which. Not that it is from outer space, as I said in a different thread, I've always thought the triangles were ours, but have learned on this forum, that triangles have been seen for decades.

Actually they are not "ours", they are mine. Now I know where my date's ride went. That's cold blooded.

woot good call JR. saw the same thing your talking about when i took it into my prog. the edges are too defined you can see the cut/paste job.

GOOD CATCH!!

reply to post by Orion437


That one from China is freaky man gave me goose bumps can someone explain how that one could be a hoax? As far is the pic I agree with someone looks like a copy and paste.

In ZeroGhosts defense if you look at his post, he is replying to a post made by Indierockalien, that was in reply to JR's original synopsis of the image.

In essence ZeroGhost was agreeing with JR, but disareeing with IndiealienRocks reply to JR's explanation of what he believes the picture to be.

Just trying to clear that up.

If you look at ZeroGhosts posts the quote says:

-Originally posted by jritzmann
Reply to post by IndieAlienRocks-

Then he goes on to quote a paragraph written by Indeiakienrock, and disagrees with it.

So he was actually speaking to IndieAlienrocks, if I'm reading it right.

But I believe this one has been pegged, and rather quickly I might add by JR. A 100% match to the China UFO. As they say in the business "case closed"", well imo.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by Nola213]

reply to post by neformore


LOL ... I will have to say that your avatar changes every time
you post. Is this intentional on your part ??? or is it part of
a revolving credit plan ??? LOL I know I've seen at least 4
different avatars from you today alone.

sorry, back to the topic

That is the same exact "UFO" that was used in a fake Chicago O'Hare UFO Picture...

another mediocre attempt for a hoax..

what's evident is the obvious blurring beneath the ufo in comparision of the rest of the pic.

hmm could there a connection with the www.abovetopsecret.com...

ufo sighting?

[edit on 12-2-2008 by AwakenedOne]

reply to post by OzWeatherman


I agree with OzWeatherman. The 'craft' appears more pristine that the rest of the photo. It clearly shows less 'noise' in comparison to everything else. My guess is that it's a bog standard hoaxed composite image.

Some of the purple fringing would also suggest it's from a digital camera (a known issue with most models). If I make the presupposition that it was indeed a digital camera - and that most models also have a 320x480 minimum spec video option, why arent we seeing a moving image that would have been just as easy to take.

The answer is simple, its just as easy to take but infinately harder to fake!

That's my 20c worth.

InfraRedman Out!

reply to post by Alpha Grey


I have not seen edge lightning like that in a long time.

Based on one large central motor, those are maximum wave points.

I did work out the frequency of the standing wave based on some
mean craft diameter at one time.

Waves are sent out like a rock on a pond, electrically making the air
rigid and effecting suspension of the craft.

Guess things have to spark once in awhile if you work with electricity.

Originally posted by jritzmann
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.

OK, I guess I had attitude issues and insulted the anointed. I did disagree however. Aren’t you impressed your badge did not intimidate me? I even gave your retorts a star! (That’s a thank you, not a sorry) sorry later.

I did not look at your avitar.And where the hell did davidbiedny come from???? . I’m being gang banged!! I can respect both of your work, and know David’s reputation of course but still I did disagree. What can I say? Sorry (wimper, wimper) I have been frustrated with so many teen amateurs so long; I don’t look at badges anymore. I do apologize to Jeff, and did some karmic work (below) to stop the bleeding.

Oh, yea, Springer, honored to be called out! (no star because I can tell you don’t like a kiss-ass) Really. I love how you kick the guts out of fakers here, never thought I would be in the crosshairs though.

OK, now I am a bit concerned though. Outnumbered, as such, anyone would in danger of consensus imposed reality. (It’s a nervous laugh) So I’m honored to be picked apart by experts but in my defense I’m a science illustrator. I’m not just a digital forensic, like David or Skelitor, uh, I mean Jeff? (Jeff hates me now )

I’ve been pushing around pixels since 82 and went through the whole painful evolution of imaging hardware-software. I started testing capabilities of Targa Boards and Everex Boards for TimeArts Inc. back then with Lumina 16-32 way before Photoshop. Then making whole FPS-Game environments with 16 (hex-decimal) colors and only 1 meg of total space for a whole level. I know, and have traversed most the limits of digital. I’ve dealt with the initial problems with Newton Rings in scanning, Haloing in digital photography too and can tell when artifacts are from editing or inherent CCD problems. But my experience is in making things look real, not so much proving they are fake. My approach is from the other side of the road and quite valid for that perspective.

I’ve learned that it is all in the 5%. No matter how real it looks, few things are impossible to do. I know because I’ve done some. Hey, check out the Meier stuff if you want a field day. I believe Billy for other reasons though, despite the planted and overenthusiastic nievity at work. But, I digress.

I also know when I am wrong. I proved I was wrong to myself. But I had to swallow hard.

I proved you could fake this image, and found an indication of artifacts of secondary image compositing. All just for you Jeff and David. Springer was just acting tough, but can kick my ass, so I guess I did it for him too. (moan)

So, I took the (low res) image and with some due diligence ran it through the routine. I was able to easily composite a Meier beam ship using my own technique and will try David’s method later, and in After Effects so I can get up to speed with that too.

But while doing this I found artifacts of a cut-paste you cannot see at the displayed resolution. I cut out the area, made a indexed color gif out of it so I could blow it up without loosing the actual pixel image, and pasted that in too.

In essence, I got 4 more percent. (do you hate me less??)




The only interesting point originally was the distance between the lights. I believed it was a very low probability of a cut-paste. More likely the Chinese image was the same type of craft and in the same configuration. We know these craft can change their dimensions, light configuration and other visual characteristics. This was just in a similar angle from the viewer, I would have bet, and the craft was just in a similar configured profile, lights being at specific placements on the craft. It was not convinced by the examples, and could not say that that was proof of a fake. I thought I would wait for an original or walk away. My frustration was the configuration of my ill chosen words and hasty decision. I'll pay that bill for a while. With interest.

OK, burned this location, so I'll go finish with David. and power down.

ZG

Originally posted by davidbiedny

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]

The consumer level cameras do not have such; I stand corrected, yet when using face recognition as in cameras available, the camera does not actually recognize a face. It matches a structure and pre-set pattern. The newer cameras even with multiple targets and at oblique angles. A UAP if displaying a face-like shape and points to recognition parameters would, like anything call functions like focal and exposure adjustments. Shape and boundary was not what I was referring to. But David, such camera tech actually is theoretically possible and will come soon.




Also some patent theory.


Most cameras now do some impressive processing.

Fujifilm’s proprietary Face Detection 2.0, featuring automatic red-eye removal was first seen on the award-winning FinePix F50fd. This one-touch selectable mode enables cameras such as the FinePix S100FS to detect up to 10 human faces in a scene, correcting focus, exposure and white balance automatically as fast as 0.05 seconds to ensure that photos of human faces are clear and properly exposed, no matter where subjects are located within the frame. Fujifilm’s Face Detection 2.0 has an advantage over the other face detection systems currently on the market because it can identify faces at extreme angles – even in full profile.

So, without testing, I would think the technology might see a face where it is not. Finding corresponding patterns that execute the functions.

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

OK, “composite digitization” (Digital Composting), I admit you got me on points there. I tend to write like in German language, inventing a word to change it’s specific applied meaning. I’m a user,not an engineer writing firmware. (I’m feeling micromanaged by language police. ) Your probably not an artist, I'm definitely not a writer. In fact writing is so linear to me I need 10.000 words to explain a simple idea.

In my work I am very detail oriented (obsessive compulsive). I'm a realist and look at the physics of light to determine how an image should look, and add what most people would consider insignificant detail to make something look real to the brain/eye. I tend to be just as creative with words too, but for the same reason. To get an idea across. In this case I dissed Jeff. A darker shade of crimson I could not be. But you called me on that because you did not understand me, so a valid call.

If I wasent so religious with spell checking you would think I was from another country, or...planet.

My final:
The image in question CAN be faked, and from the indicators I myself found probably was.

I do reserve 1% in honor of humility. I won't be so easy to fool next time, because I will not comment without tests. So, much less commenting I guess.

So this has been fun, but I really need to retire to lick some deep self inflicted wounds. Good thing I have no huge ego. Don't know where I would put that anyway.

ZG

Originally posted by Springer
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...

Yup,

I paid the price. and should get another bill every time I show my face here.

Lesson: Don't decide on looks alone. Do the work or just go home.

ZG

reply to post by Alpha Grey


i just dont understand. there seem to be regular sightings of these ufos or suspected alien crafts. but not one of them lands and no beings ever come out. No matter how many photos there ever are, real or not, of UFOs, what is the point if no one actually ever communicates them, that is not in government. they may as well not be there. Of all the people who think they have seen a UFO, I have never met or heard of anyone who has seen an alien, that doesnt seem to be suffering a pscyhotic episode. Why are these other-worldlies so elusive.?

David, Jeff and Zero, I for one appreciate the technical analysis as it can get very complicated...way too complicated for me, however, I live in central Indiana and have to say that when I saw the title for this thread I was very excited (not much excitement here in February..brrr). When I opened the thread I would have given anything to NOT have seen an identical pic of the China ufo (and probable fake). Now, I'm not technical, but I am reasonable and was very dissappionted.

I cannot find any other source regarding this sighting. I checked mufon and indiana mufon and found nothing. Now, sightings are on the increase right now, especially northern indy, but mostly multiple lights. There is also this sighting in Bloomington (southern indy). www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will continue to check around here and see if I can get any details about this but I don't think that we will find any.

Interesting. I figured someone would offer some better "devils advocate" on this image.
First off, I made a quick image to show that this is not a copy paste from the china pic.
I matched the two end lights and then highlighted key areas then superimposed. It should be self evident.
ED to add that I don't see any shape distortion filters on either image like previously suggested. One craft has lights under the top edge and the other has the lights going above the top edge.



After I finish a couple other small projects, I'll make a quick video screen capture with audio recording then I'll link it here.
I'll address most of the points thus far. I'd like to hear a response to how I look at it from Springer, Jeff and David.

This is not an attempt at being "super graphics man", just an honest attempt at truly debunking this image or allowing it to be more of a possible than a direct write off. With all of the reports of seeing this type craft, I like to pick these apart to be sure.

Video coming soon with an honest wish for a blunt reply.

reply to post by Eagle1229


Those that came to my defense, thank you, but I feel I screwed up. In any case we keep going because it's important.

Yet this is a very painful process here. In true investigative work you need better source, better corroboration of facts and many more pixels to work with. I feel sometimes like a Mona Lisa is demanded, but all you have is 24 colors of Crayons and a 6 inch piece of cardboard. It's too important a job, and needs a much better venue. As it is, it serves the negatively biased debunker's more favorably, even YouTube, Google Video and other video sharing services cannot be anything but corrosive to real UFO investigation.

But people need to communicate their extrordinary events in an attempt understand what is happening in their experience. Our society is currently very dysfunctional, mean and nasty and there is something happening that is real and pervasive and there is evidence for everywhere, but it is very efficiently managed with attitudes of disbelief and other darker agenda. That and low resolution forensic, public sociopath attitudes aggravate any helpful process.

I tend to want to support peoples, because I believe people are good, and in essence honest. And when they make a mistake, you need to educate them and not shame them. But hoaxers poison the intellectual/spiritual atmosphere, and I have problems with cynical bias that can hurt the feelings of someone who honestly feels they saw something they likely do not or cannot understand. I loose my objectivity sometimes. Evidence I am not perfect, but human like everyone.

I have seen many more than one real non-earthly craft in my life, and, with many others. I am fairly credible, and much more than most. So knowing in my heart the phenomena exist, I tend to be biased in the positive. I know a lot about perception and awareness also, so know how to account for natural misidentification. But I tend to believe people who believe themselves. You can tell if they experienced something by a sense of inexact, but non-local empathy and experience. We can all be fooled, so I keep that humility and wear that badge too. I don't believe anyone who cannot be wrong, or, human can be trusted.

I've sent some ideas to staff on how to improve the process here, but until we have better user technology and user management that can seriously approach the need, we have to settle for what is here now. We can't give in to ignorance.

I'll keep trying at ATS, but put more energy to formal investigation, as I've been drafted for science organizations who are becoming overwhelmed with reports of late, and I sense will be even more so in the near future.

ATS has the potential, at least, to help many, many more people understand their experiences than existing orgs, IF they can leverage the technology and talent. The non-profit volunteer organizations cannot help the thousands of experiencers with any efficiency, and, that is why ATS can help, but needs better media support and people with tougher skins helping. Thats why there are not many real investigators here yet. Mostly attitudes, opinions and biases.
The occasion we have to rise to soon as a society, looks like a 10-foot wall to a toddler to me. I am hopeful though for us all.

ZG

Originally posted by Bspiracy
Interesting. I figured someone would offer some better "devils advocate" on this image.
First off, I made a quick image to show that this is not a copy paste from the china pic.
I matched the two end lights and then highlighted key areas then superimposed. It should be self evident.
ED to add that I don't see any shape distortion filters on either image like previously suggested. One craft has lights under the top edge and the other has the lights going above the top edge.

After I finish a couple other small projects, I'll make a quick video screen capture with audio recording then I'll link it here.
I'll address most of the points thus far. I'd like to hear a response to how I look at it from Springer, Jeff and David.

This is not an attempt at being "super graphics man", just an honest attempt at truly debunking this image or allowing it to be more of a possible than a direct write off. With all of the reports of seeing this type craft, I like to pick these apart to be sure.

Video coming soon with an honest wish for a blunt reply.