PHOTO-SURPRISE Part 2

reply to post by jritzmann


I was just wondering about this:

The much (apparently) discussed cone shape is an effect of beating wings. Due to the angle of the bird to the shooter, the far wing is seen only in close proximity to the bird's body, as it's moving there the least, but still quickly enough to blur. It moves less towards the body, and more as it moves down the wing, giving a triangle appearance.

I can understand this hypothesis, but something irks me a bit about it though....
If that triangular shape is from the wing, as it goes up(?) why does the shadow stretch further away from the object, than what the reach of the wing is, as the bottom of this shadow is below the bird?
And also, if there happened to be two beats from the wing, should we not also see a dual shadow covering it or a very blurred motion instead of a shadow?

P.S
Really apreciate your work in this area, especially with Billy [HOAX] Meier

Hi everyone,

First, someone have to explain how the wings can be blurry with a 1/400 sec shutter speed, knowing that the average wing frequency of a flying pigeon is
2 beats per seconds ?

Then, let's compare, no empirical data here but still, look at the difference :



and now our "bird" :



It is totally different. I looked at a lot of "blurfos" photos and none of them have this "triangle" characteristic.

I am sorry Jeff but you did not convince me, you are saying that you have much better photos and I would sure like to see an exemple, just one daytime UFO photo would be nice. Thanks.

Peace,
Europa


[edit on 30-3-2008 by Europa733]

Originally posted by Europa733

I am sorry Jeff but you did not convince me, you are saying that you have much better photos and I would sure like to see an exemple, just one daytime UFO photo would be nice. Thanks.

I'm not here to convince you. You asked my opinion and I gave it. Instead what I have gotten back is the typical nastiness I'm accustomed to getting around here when I say that there's nothing anomalous about a certain photo.

No one here EVER said anyone else wasn't "educated". But, I have 2 decades of UFO work and analysis and I don't think many around here can say that. I have seen thousands of photos in these years, and I grow ever tired of these non descript blurry images that a skeptic will beat your behind with...every...single...time.

It is a huge, waste of time. You fellas want to go thru it, help yourselves. I guess I'm becoming a lot more critical of what a good UFO shot is, hey 10 years ago "lights in the sky" videos intrigued me, until you realize they could be anything. The years will make you see that these types are hugely worthless to showing the UFO reality.

I'm not here to validate photos. I'm here to look for validity that support the UFO issue. This one, does not. Until you guys reach that point of understanding and seeing the bigger picture, I'm always going to be the "jerk", and thats fine because I'm now pretty used to it. People get emotionally attached to a shot, and thats what happens when you don't agree.

I wouldn't stand by this photo, as I said, there's simply not enough to go on for a UFO answer, and more to go on with a bird. If anyone wants to champion this photo, help yourselves. Make sure you use your real name and not some anonymous screen name.

And again, if you're married to some photo that has some sort of preconceived answer you're hoping for because it's going to validate the UFO issue for you, don't ask me to look at it. I'd rather stay with cases that are laid wide open to scrutiny for me, then garner the ire of those who lay their desire of the brass ring on one blurry internet photo.

Like I said, at this point I have to pick my battles, this isn't one I'm choosing to go on with. You guys have at it.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Until you guys reach that point of understanding and seeing the bigger picture, I'm always going to be the "jerk", and thats fine because I'm now pretty used to it. People get emotionally attached to a shot, and thats what happens when you don't agree.

Well it appears you definitely have time to hone and massage your ego while assessing the "big picture" which apparently you have a grasp of much more then all of us here. Thank you for letting us know that...

And trust me man; I don't write for a conspiracy theory message board so I think the attachment part lies more on your side, especially seeing how quick you've been to point at your laurels.

I have posed a legitimate scientific question that has thus far gone unanswered and demonstrated as repeatable, even by numerous photographers. So yeah...who are the one's being more impartial and scientific again?

I'm not saying you have to agree with it being a saucer or whatever. I'm just saying there is no way to say that it is a saucer with any more certainty then one can say it's a bird in flight based on the apparent evidence.

But you did give your opinion, so thank you. We'll keep researching and add it to the "anomaly/coincidence" files... Next case anyone?

reply to post by Shakesbeer


Hey, when ya dont like the message ya shoot the messenger. I'm used to that. I think you mistake experience and hard learned education for "ego" (but thats part of the emotional-driven strike I suppose). I'm glad you can afford to ignore the experience and advice, as you sit behind your screenname. I personally cant afford to be an armchair "expert". I can take note that the questions I posed have gone unanswered and replaced with the typical personal attacks.

I've received several emails from the members here saying that you guys are essentially hell bent on your own outcome and wont cease til someone gives you the answer you want. So as I said, have at it...keep looking long enough and maybe you'll find one who'll tell you what you want to hear.

No more replies from me...enjoy yourselves.

Originally posted by Balez
If that triangular shape is from the wing, as it goes up(?) why does the shadow stretch further away from the object, than what the reach of the wing is, as the bottom of this shadow is below the bird?
And also, if there happened to be two beats from the wing, should we not also see a dual shadow covering it or a very blurred motion instead of a shadow?

Sorry I missed this. The facing wing is also blurred by motion (motion elongates the area). The tip of the triangle isnt the wing coming up, it's the more constant (or less movement) area of the wing (pivot) being seen.

The shadow is not a shadow, but high speed blurring of the facing wing, with much more dark area exposed, then the underside of the wing which is lighter and therefore not easily seen against the light sky.

I know this wont matter to you, but I thought I'd clarify.

Ok? All done.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by jritzmann

I've received several emails from the members here saying that you guys are essentially hell bent on your own outcome and wont cease til someone gives you the answer you want. So as I said, have at it...keep looking long enough and maybe you'll find one who'll tell you what you want to hear.

Hi Jeff,

I'm gonna tell you what is the problem since you (they) do not seem to understand.

Shakesbeer and I have asked you a couple of simple questions that you never answered. Why ? On top of that, you kept saying that you did not have spare time to work on this case.

So it is NOT because you said it is a BIRD. Let's be honest.
(my hypo' is that it might be an insect anyway)

I'll ask you one last question, why are the wings almost invisible with a 1/400
sec shutter speed ? (assuming it is a bird) You never talked about this aspect, first thing you should have done to back up your claim & opinion, isn't it ?

Now if you still think that we are hell bent, that is fine with me because I know I am not, I just want my questions answered and not some argumentum ad verecundiam instead !

Peace,
Europa


[edit on 31-3-2008 by Europa733]

IMHO, I don't think it is a bird. I have examined the image as well and to me it shows signs of photoshop work or another similar program maybe acdsee since the file was modified using acdsee almost a year after the creation. If you blow up the image to see individual pixels you will notice jpeg fragments that do not match the rest of the image. This part of the image has been superimposed over the rest of the image. The portion that is in question has been intentionally blurred it is not motion blur nor camera blur but rather editing blur.

Want to create a ufo photo simply cut and paste a ufo looking object into an image blur the object maybe lower the opacity then save it as jpeg with a high compression factor to help hide your editing.

Want a true examination send the original file before it has even touched another program. Additionally if your are going to try and capture photos of ufo's...... shoot in tiff format so that your image is not distorted by the jpeg compression.

reply to post by photobug


Good point PB I was actually thinking the next way to prove this isn't a fake would be to get the original file and see if it was edited. If our "birdy" friend is still there without out any editing signature, this thing will have gotten a bit more interesting. If it is a fake it's a very good one, not too obvious but enough to cause controversy.

Hi you guys,

I'll try to get the original photo from the "witness".

Remember that this case has been rewieved by the French GEIPAN*, the local Airport military police, local skeptics and quiet a few photographers. None of them said it was a hoax, I also have to remind you that I am in contact with the GEIPAN, they would have told me.

Bu let's verify, you are right. Could you tell me the exact modification date ?


GEIPAN : www.cnes-geipan.fr...
French Official UAP study group

They probably saw the original themselves, so it will be easy for me to know it. Thanks for sharing your opinion and I'll keep you updated with my findings
and other experts analysis are coming...

This one is for Jeff, funny how you never answered questions that could compromise your opinion, people will notice...


Peace to ya'all.
Europa





[edit on 31-3-2008 by Europa733]

Originally posted by Shakesbeer
That statement's got me sold! That definitely shows your professionalism as much as your last posts have.

How long exactly do you think I'm going to take your bullsh!t? I'm just wondering. You came to ME...remember?

You got what you asked for, my opinion. You dont like it, go elsewhere. Any more and I'll tell you where to go.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by jritzmann]

reply to post by jritzmann


Hey no disrespect really, I was simply defending myself and my theories when I felt appropriate. I am sorry if I have truly offended you.

I just like asking questions sometimes

Hi everyone,

Well, it seems that I got a hold of this photo sometime in April or May 2007 so 7 or 8 months after it was taken (09/01/06). Check it out, this is my first ever topic regarding this photo :

forums.futura-sciences.com...

It was posted in June 17th, 2007 but I had it in my posession 1 or 2 months before that.

Peace,
Europa

The thing about being anonymous online is that people will type things that they would NEVER say to someone's face in the REAL world.

Last week, Jeff asked my opinion regarding this image, and it took me about 5 seconds to realize that it was nothing to write home about. Some of you come up here to his thread, and ask him for AN OPINION. He doesn't tell you what you WANT to hear, so you give him a hard time about it. Why? Jeff is someone who, like me, would LOVE to see some indisputable UFO photos. Even so, what exactly do you think you'll have when those photos appear - smoking gun evidence? Of WHAT, exactly? A good, clear UFO photo does NOT tell you:

• Anything about what the object is made of
• Where it came from
• Who is piloting it
• What it's doing here

So what do you think a good photo will do for ya? Help you "believe" in UFOs? For those of us who have seen them, we need NO proof that they exist. For those who refuse to "believe" in them, the clearest photo in the world will NOT change their minds. For those who are on the fence, see the bullet list above.

No, it seems that, based on the tone of the messages to Jeff, that many of you have some sort of issue with his expertise, and want to pump yourselves up at his expense. Well, I'm telling you this, the photo you're salivating over is crap, it's a bird, and regardless of what you WANT it to be, it's nothing paranormal. That's an EXPERT opinion, I paid my dues, wrote the books, worked on the movies, analyzed enough images, and seen enough genuine UFOs to know that this image is nothing to get excited about. You want to debate it? Let's see your imaging credentials, otherwise, your opinion is just that - your opinion. To this of us with significant imaging knowledge and experience, your opinion is worth squat.

Class dismissed.

dB

reply to post by davidbiedny


So does that mean you can produce a good picture of a perfect cone shaped blur around a bird diving at 1/400 of a second shutter speed? Oh and what kind would you say it is? That would be nice...

Good job on the achievements too, sounds like amazing work.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Shakesbeer]

Oh My God......

I cant believe that this thread is still active....... its a bird people ...nothing more nothing less.

And its also something that the OP's posted elsewhere (he posted the link in the first couple of posts !!) ..... so two threads for the same thing .....

its a ..... B I R D

my 2 cents

reply to post by scepticsRus


Tell that to the fellas in here who refuse to accept it.

I'm actually glad this happened. Because it's opened my eyes to exactly what I have to deal with here at ATS more and more routinely...and ya know what?

It's not worth it anymore. At all. There's nothing being added in the search for answers (or more questions) in this forum.

It's about who wants to be right no matter the education or experience of those who disagree.

It's about wannabes who think they're going to grab the brass ring and don't care who they marginalize in their efforts to do so.

It's about anonymous fakes who think they can get over with a bad photo and run everyone thru hoops.

And it's about a simple lack of respect.

Why hang around. Why interact. Why take it.

Thanx for opening my eyes to a really good decision.

reply to post by jritzmann


It really annoys me to thing of so many cumulative man hours wasted reading through the rubbish posted by some people.

i hope you will be with me on this one jritzmann ....

ok people ..... who votes for this thread to be closed ?????

reply to post by jritzmann


Too bad that you feel that way Jeff.
I have to agree with you though on the image, could very well be a bird, i was looking at the other bird pic from the OP, and one bird in that pic stands out...The similarity

You really should have a plan, you post your analysis, that's it, no replies, nothing more than that.

If they wanted more, they can take it somewhere else
Anyways, good luck with your buissness