Daylight Disc...Lets get it done. Pt2

Youre only restating what I already had. I said the images were off the card thru photoshop as a reply to Cug. You dont read.

If you think someone who can take down Mexico City's footage is too dumb to check a marker, thats your own uninformed opinion.

I personally have gotten 100's of photos thru the net claiming to be "real" and had obvious untruths associated with file data. It's typical, and I think you give hoaxers too much credit.

If you think I'm covering my "a$$" as you say, then thats fine, you can believe whatever you want. I've gotten far more positive comments on this whole thing then your one dissenting view. I think everyone took it for what it was worth, and had fun with it. Nothing was done to "test" anyone, but to engage everyone in a little detective work, and they kicked a$$. Some stuff got missed, but hey, they still found the inconsistencies and there's less left after that.

My guess is you have an issue with me on something else, cuz this is lame. Maybe you really hate the idea of Mexico City's big disc being crap? Maybe you dont like my opinion on the Swiss case?

Ahh, either way, you can believe whatever you want kiddo. Youre the only one reading so much into all this. You take a simulation for everyone to get involved in, to try and take me to task? Whatever. I posted the damned thing to give some people who had no clue about what to look for, some insight, and let everyone enjoy the who/howdunnit.

Dont think I know what I'm doin'? No problem, dont listen to me then. Go up against me on a real case, and see how well you stand up.

Actually Cug I should have had the guys work up a backstory...but often enough you get an email with a photo and very little other than "I saw this last tuesday."...or no story at all. (Gotta love those cryptic emails)

OR, the story starts....

"I worked at area 51 and...."


As I said in another thread, you wouldnt believe what people try to get past me....you really wouldnt.

Your only restating what I already had. I said the images were off the card through PhotoShop as a reply to Cug. You dont read.

No i am not restating what you have already said i am informing people that no matter what you do in PhotoShop if the image is saved using that program it leaves its signature. Basically im expanding on what you said , so the laymen understands that just having PhotoShop in the header doesn’t mean fake or tampered with.

My guess is you have an issue with me on something else, cuz this is lame. Maybe you really hate the idea of Mexico City's big disc being crap? Maybe you dont like my opinion on the Swiss case?

Wrong on both counts i have no problem with you or your opinions of any photos for that matter, i simply am pointing out that if an opinion is to be held expert it better damn be expert. I mean no offense however i like to check sources and question credentials. Just because someone says they are an expert on a subject and they do so on the Internet it does not mean they are an expert. For example you have stated you where on of the first to have analyzed certain video footage, i would assume this is due to high credentials however when i type in "Jeffrey Ritzmann" into my search engine i only get two hits and both of them lead me to rense. In order for me to quantify a person for instance your signature references Hypergraphics yet i see no listing for such a business in MD perhaps it is unlisted but that would be a tad odd for a business.


In as such i always question , an example as to why i consider this important is where i posted a pic in a different forum with the caption " look i got a pic of the ghost in my basement". The image itself was just a joke and it was mearly a pic of the construction i was doing in my basement, but when i took the pic i was smoking and of course some smoke got into the pic. It just so happened the smoke formed what the imagination could conceive as a face. The thread went on for 5 pages as people who claimed to be experts analyzed the image to debunk it. Many sited shadows, points of reference, as well as other factors all of which led to the conclusion the photo had been altered. hell they had done so much work they almost convinced me it had been photoshopped even though i knew it had come straight from my camera to my pc with no alteration. They had all in fact debunked an un-altered photo thus proving anything can be deemed a fake if you look hard enough.

The fatal flaw each and everyone of these experts missed was not one of them checked the header signature of the image which is a very common mistake amongst debunkers. I mearly find it odd you made this same mistake yet did so intentionally to teach a lesson.


I will save the remainder of my commentary and not interject into this thread further in order to avoid a continuing argument

i would assume this is due to high credentials however when i type in "Jeffrey Ritzmann" into my search engine i only get two hits and both of them lead me to rense.

What search engine are you using???

I use Dogpile myself.

From a simple search myself, I learned Jeff is a rabid Star Wars fan, an avid pipe collector, and an acknowledged consultant on cases such as Gulfbreeze and Meier.

sry but...

what are we doing in this thread???

are we going to make a final answer on of the pic is real???

Allthough i said i would not add further im just answering gazrok, any way i use google but using dogpile i get this.........


www.dogpile.com...

Originally posted by they see ALL

...are we going to make a final answer on of the pic is real???

We already know it's not real. We're waiting for an answer as to how exactly the picture was made, and as to model size and distance etc........
I think j-ritz is waiting for the guys who took the photo to tell him so he can tell us how close our guesses came.

Peace

Allthough i said i would not add further im just answering gazrok, any way i use google but using dogpile i get this.........

Ahh...but you should try using just "Jeff"... Less is more in internet searches... Anyhow, one thing I found out about him (apart from being a rabid Star Wars fan like myself, hehe...) is that he is part of a group of guys who get all dressed up in full Vader, Stormtrooper gear, etc. and visit terminally ill children in hospitals to lift their spirits, etc. Not that that has anything to do with this thread (sorry), but felt it was cool to mention...

Not sure if he wants all to know that, but I'll edit it out if not, just let me know Jeff...thanks.

Originally posted by Gazrok
...is that he is part of a group of guys who get all dressed up in full Vader, Stormtrooper gear, etc. and visit terminally ill children in hospitals to lift their spirits, etc.

That doesn't surprise me. I would be surprised if you told me he likes to dress up as Princess Lea!!

Peace

Hey! I look damn good in my gold bikini, thanks very much!!!

Ok, even I'm gagging on that visual...sorry to get off topic...

Let us know what your buddies say about the photo Jeff.

Originally posted by minniescar

In as such i always question , an example as to why i consider this important is where i posted a pic in a different forum with the caption " look i got a pic of the ghost in my basement". The image itself was just a joke and it was mearly a pic of the construction i was doing in my basement, but when i took the pic i was smoking and of course some smoke got into the pic. It just so happened the smoke formed what the imagination could conceive as a face. The thread went on for 5 pages as people who claimed to be experts analyzed the image to debunk it. Many sited shadows, points of reference, as well as other factors all of which led to the conclusion the photo had been altered. hell they had done so much work they almost convinced me it had been photoshopped even though i knew it had come straight from my camera to my pc with no alteration. They had all in fact debunked an un-altered photo thus proving anything can be deemed a fake if you look hard enough.

The fatal flaw each and everyone of these experts missed was not one of them checked the header signature of the image which is a very common mistake amongst debunkers. I mearly find it odd you made this same mistake yet did so intentionally to teach a lesson.

OK I'll admit it.. you lost me. Your example here seems to me to be EXACTLY what he was trying to show people. I think you missed the point of this thread. He has some buddys who made a hoax UFO picture without telling him how they did it. He used the picture to show people some ways to figure it out. Now it would not be any fun for him (or us) to spill all the beans right away.

Your right in that there are FAR too many people who seem to be fixated on photoshop.. You can do pretty much everything you can do in photoshop just by using good old fashioned photography tricks.

oh again I know and I'm sure he knows and I'm sure a ton of people know just because an image had be changed in photoshop does not mean 100% it's a hoax. Just like if there is a dead body and a smoking gun right next to it it doesn't mean that 100% chance that that gun did the killing.

A relax with the header info.. it can be helpfull but it can just as easily be faked just like everything else in a digital file..

On more thing. Personally if he has contact we prop makers and can get them to make a ton of hoax pictures.. I'd love to do this again. I think it would be an excellent skill building exercise for all. Especially because we get to find out what we did wrong and learn from our mistakes.