It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Daylight Disc...Lets get it done. Pt2

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:37 PM
Ok, lets get this wrapped, I gotta get a project done, and I wanna make sure people get to see this while I'm here. (I'm trying not to rush, but I gotta get a set done by monday, today's my birthday and I aint workin half the night.
)

Cog has the distance worked out to at least 10 ft away, based on focal length. Cog, can you post how you arrived at that?

I used a focus ratio based on the trees being approx. 40 ft away. Coming down in focus to sharpness, the disc in my opinion is less then 3 ft away (or at least thats the program's estimate), and therefore would be about 4 inches in diameter...it's a generality, give or take a foot, or an inch. Remember I'm working with higher resolution images.

You dont have to be a genius to figure it's a model, or we're being visited by very tiny aliens.

Next...the search for poles or tethers....

[edit on 14-4-2005 by jritzmann]

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 01:46 PM

Cug has the distance worked out to at least 10 ft away, based on focal length. Cog, can you post how you arrived at that?

I figured the distance to be at least 10 feet by using a depth of field calculator + the Exif data in the images. It's way too much to post here but do a web search for depth of field and/or hyperfocal length and you will find out all about it, it's pretty common knowledge to photographers.

So lemme ask ya this, because I have it figured a little differently. From that 10 ft distance, estimate the size of the object.

Too lazy to do any trig that's needed to figure out the width of the cameras view, but using my digital camera I'd guesstimate the distance from one edge of the image to the other @ 10 feet to be to be about 9 feet.

The image is 400 pixels wide and the object is 40 pixels wide (well 38 but I'll use 40 for lazy math) So the object is 10% of the width of the image.

so 9 feet = 108 inches

10% of 108 - 10.8 inches

Now the odds are my camera is different that the one used so I'll add a + or - 2 inches so 8 to 12 inches.

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:04 PM

I'd guesstimate the distance from one edge of the image to the other @ 10 feet to be to be about 9 feet.

So you would need to measure this with the camera that the picture was taken with, right? Like measure out 10 ft. then measure the width of the field of view?

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:10 PM
Yep that would be the simplest way.

EDITED

OK DUH on me.. It's just dawned on me the image size is 400x300. That is not the standard proportion of a digital image. The image has been cropped so I can't make a guess at the size of the object. because I don't have a way to figure out the distance from edge to edge.

If this was an uncropped image then what I said would work.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Cug]

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:38 PM
I gotcha, hyperfocal of 10.2. The calculators usually want a subject distance, which is listed on the profile at 100meters. Basing on the trees being 40ft I get into your general area. Basing on the info at subject being 100meters, I get alot different.

But, regardless of what method we use, it's small, and close.

One thing I'm surprised no one mentioned:

"Antennae" are great tether points. Dead center (usually) and makes the disc hang well.

Anyway....

So, on that we look for support structure. Starting at square one, we know a pole being removed would be a pain to clone out (other than using 2 pictures). On the other hand, sky can be cloned with careful planning to match the level of gradient, usually done by starting a clone point even with the area we want to replace. Lets take a bitslice slightly above the antennae:

We enhance the pixels to make them more defined within the bit slice, and move them along the estimated path needed to effectively remove the tether. And see if *anywhere* we have footprints of cloning. When you find it, it's damned evident. You can use emboss filters and high pass scans to try and see odd edges, which do work, but when youre up against it, pixel matching is God.
Moving along the line, up or down a bit here and there, we find a suspicious area.

We zoom in and find a match in density/tone of pixels within the bitslice. (We have no idea if our bitslice is straight, so we go short and right above the disc centerpoint...our slice may be smaller or larger then the effected area.
Here's the matchup area:

Overlay of match:

I hope the online nature doesnt obscure it too much, an animated gif would distort the matching effect too much to make one.
But looking between the 2, you can see several areas of matchup of unique pixel groupings....way too much for luck. This is the area used for cloning. You can follow the areas around to see the match fairly well. The dense blues are darker, light parts lighter. I hope this comes across viewbility wise for ya. It's certainly dead on on my screen.

Looking at the other close photo, there may be edvidence of tampering there too, but we have one that we know isnt right, so why go on.

We have focal issues, tether and tampering, size issues. Is it a real thing? Yeah, and it's small and close.

Next is showing the shooter the findings, and getting their "response".

The data collected is going to be presented to the shooter, so he can reveal how he did it, and what he used. After I hand them the results, they'll give me the reality....and you all will get to see the accuracy of what we've done.

If anyone wants to comment on how big the disc is, or how far based on the info everyone gave, sound off. Lets see how close we get. This oughtta be fun.

I'm back to work, I'll post later tonight our results, and outcome. I'll check in when I can til then. Excellent work Cug and all the rest of ya, I really enjoyed it.

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:52 PM
jritzmann,

I edited the post above yours while you posted this.

My size finding were wrong, and I can't make an educated guess other than distance, (10 feet is the closest but prolly 15 to 20 feet.) and it's small (say under 3 feet).

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:06 PM
This like watching the Forensic Files on TV. Awsome stuff.

You have voted jritzmann for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

If you could go through any cases you debunked in the past, that would be great. When you have time.

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:15 PM

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:19 PM
I just want to say this is very interesting stuff, and thanks for showing this to us jritzmann.

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:42 PM
Cug, no sweat I think we're still in the ballpark. I say it's around 3ft away, and maybe disc size being under 6 inches....if I had to be exact, 4.5-5 inches.

No problem guys, I enjoyed it. Glad ya did too. But, it is but a drop of water in what the scheming scumbags will try. There's SO much more...but man when ya get that one unknown one, makes it worth it.

Hal-I participated in a long thread, I think it's called "Remarkable UFO footage", it's not far down. Regarding the Mexico City Daylight footage. Read the whole thread. Alot of people didnt realize it was CG, and proven, because I truthfully didnt go much further then the 21st Century Radio Show. I should have gotten Art Bell and Jeff Rense, but by that time I'd moved on. I take alot of pride in that one because I was the first to publicly announce findings after about 3 days of getting a 2nd generation dub.

Wierd that I got an email maybe a month ago asking me how it was proven a composite CG piece...then found it here. I really had no idea people still thought it was truthful.

Someone ought to do a UFO photo/video clearinghouse website. (Not me I got enough to do.
)

[edit on 14-4-2005 by jritzmann]

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:55 PM

Wierd that I got an email maybe a month ago asking me how it was proven a composite CG piece...then found it here. I really had no idea people still thought it was truthful.

That's because many Mexican "pseudo-media" sites still report it as not being debunked. To be honest, I knew of pixelization issues with it, and pretty much left it in the "likely hoax" category...nice to move it into the "definite hoax" category.

Some of these sites still show the Sci-Fi promo as real. In fact, we usually get about a thread a month touting it yet again....

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:58 AM

Originally posted by jritzmann
One thing I'm surprised no one mentioned:

Honestly, that's the first thing I noticed j-ritz. That's why I came to my conclusion, but I thought it was obvious and didn't want to insult anyone's intelligence. Besides, what does a UFO need an antenna for? Are they tryin' to get better reception of the local classic rock station?

Are we ever going to know exactly how this picture was made, or do you not know for sure?

I voted you WATS as well.

Peace

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:50 AM

Hey dont ask me what the antennae's for, I was thinking they'd be on Sirus satellite by now!

"Are we ever going to know exactly how this picture was made, or do you not know for sure"

I dont know for sure yet, the ones who set it up couldnt make it over last night, my wife had a B-Day party for me, and it didnt end til kinda late. I'm supposed to have them over tonight so I'll post all their data on what they did and how. Sorry I dont have an answer now, I said what we'd found and all I got back was a snide "uh huh". I think they wanna see my face when I get the "answer".

I thank ya for the vote, but...whats a WATS?

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:52 AM

I thank ya for the vote, but...whats a WATS?

Way Above Top Secret award. One member gets the award each month, as a result of member votes for that month. It's to recognize outstanding posters for that month...

or as some of us refer to it...TWATS (The Way Above Top Secret) award

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Gazrok]

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:54 AM

These images are tagged with tracking, and if they go from this site, and get posted anywhere else, I WILL know it, and I dont wanna have to get nasty with anyone.

Unless you are reffereing to digital watermarking ive lost any respect i may have had for you, and no offense but its not that hard to strip it from the file. Truth be known i did a quick glancs at the files and i saw no watermarking but hey it could be there and i just missed it.

Secondly you are claiming to be a photo expert as you indicated in the post in refference to the mexico video footage yet at the same time you didnt check the specs on the photos to confirm the camera it was taken with? Im in no way a photo expert but even i check header records in files for date/time stamps as well as the origin data. As for the header record indicating that the image was edited with photoshop this could mearly be that the image was resized and saved, each time a photo is saved in photoshop the signature is added to the file regardless if actual editing has been done to the image.

Now im not trying to be an a\$\$ here im just very particuliar when it comes to people offering expert opinions if they in fact are not an expert amd im sorry but not even checking the header record is a pretty big overstite for an expert.

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:02 AM
Jesus here we go...
Firstly Minnie...read the whole thread, part one too. All of it. This was a simulation, and certain issues were deliberately misleading.

Thats the whole friggin point. Finding the hoops you have to jump thru, the mistruths to be exposed, and the answer to be found. BTW I stated that I used photoshop to adjust image quality.

The photos are not to be posted elsewhere because some dumba\$\$ will somewhere claim it's real, and mislead people with our simulation. Thats precisely what I combat against, and I wont have it.

I've been in this business long enough to know what I'm doing, but you'll never hear me say I'm the "end all to end alls". I dont know everything, and thats the point...to learn more everyday.

I never worked for NASA, I dont have a PHd, and Edwin Teller never reccomended me for a job. I am what I am, and thats all. I offer provable, duplicable data to back up my work on cases I have done, to the point any person can see the true answer to any given photo or video piece. Thats what I do. Call it what you want.

I love it when people dont read.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by jritzmann]

[edit on 15-4-2005 by jritzmann]

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Gazrok

I thank ya for the vote, but...whats a WATS?

Way Above Top Secret award. One member gets the award each month, as a result of member votes for that month. It's to recognize outstanding posters for that month...

or as some of us refer to it...TWATS (The Way Above Top Secret) award

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Gazrok]

Oh wow, god thats really nice. Thank You Doc, thats really great. I very much appriciate that you think enough of what I posted to do that.

Truthfully I thought I'd get lambasted for taking down footage(s) as not being real. I'm glad there's people willing to really look.

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:41 AM

Jesus here we go...
Firstly Minnie...read the whole thread, part one too. All of it. This was a simulation, and certain issues were deliberately misleading.

Thats the whole friggin point. Finding the hoops you have to jump thru, the mistruths to be exposed, and the answer to be found. BTW I stated that I used photoshop to adjust image quality.

Firstly i did read the entire thread , if you will notice the qoute i used was from the original thread ( part 1). However as for your stating you deliberately posted the wrong information to test the abilities of ats members seems to me as more of a cover your a\$\$ type of scenario or an oversight.

Reason 1. any individual who had the skills to create a cgi photo or to photoshop an image of this quality would obviously be aware of the header stamp put on the file by the camera and alter it or remove it.

2. Given reason 1 any person creating these images would additionally not mislead people of the camera used in order to not allow easy debunking.

Now given these two reason i cannot see how this is even close to a good simulation on debunking or verifying an image. Right off the bat statements regarding it are falsified a good hoaxer would not lie about the blatantly obvious.

as for using photoshop to edit the image or make it more crisp yes i did see your statement in regards to that however at the same time i was just informing people that you dont even have to edit the photo in photoshop for this stamp to appear. You only need to open the image and save it and that alone will give it this stamp.

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:57 AM

Originally posted by minniescar
As for the header record indicating that the image was edited with photoshop this could mearly be that the image was resized and saved, each time a photo is saved in photoshop the signature is added to the file regardless if actual editing has been done to the image.

Well duh!

Almost everything that was discussed in these 2 threads are just clues, nothing more.

If Ma and Pa Kettle give you a UFO shot, and you see Photoshop CS in the file, And the Exif info is for an el cheapo point and shoot camera you have a big clue something might be up, as Ma and Pa Kettle ain't the normal photoshop users.

Now if you get an image that has some highend Canon or Nikon Digital SLR and that file said photoshop CS.. well that's not as big of a deal. But in any case if there is ANY sign of an editing program has touched the file you almost have to assume the image has been tampered with.

But in the end that are all just clues that can be altered at will. But I'll guess that a great majority of hoaxers are not pro graphic people, so these little clues can help.

Anyway I quite liked this thread, I never would of thought of the way jritzmann used to find the cloned areas. If this thread lacked anything it would be a story of the ufo sighting.. that can give you more clues to help figure things out.

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 11:01 AM
I aplaud what you are trying to do. If you convert even one believer into a skeptic you will have done your job. But be warned. There are some people who even see UFO's in John Wayne movies, www.abovetopsecret.com... so youve got a tough job ahead of you. Ive enjoyed your little lesson allthough to someone who has been around as long as me the pics looked just like the fakes I remember from the sixties and seventies, not that I remember much about the sixties, or the seventies for that matter. Kids. dont do drugs!!

top topics

0