Ok, here's where I am at this point:
I called my buddy David Biedny who's a literal PhotoShop God (Google him if ya want), and he and I agree there's a definite ocular distortion
between the congestion shot and the UFO shot. David is of the opinion that we're looking at 2 different cameras/phones, and thats what's causing
that. While I tend to see some disturbance in pixels in sky vs congestion's lights when the two images are aligned, David does not. I'm more
inclined to agree with his experience and fresh eyes then my own.
David also pointed out an area of the horizon that appears to have a color in it that doesnt appear in the congestion shot. I dont know what it is,
and I had not seen it. It's an orange blob we cant readily dismiss, and as David said, might be a product of ocular distortion between lenses if
these arent the same shot, but two different cams. At worst, I think it might be a blur of one of the horizon lights seen in the congestion shot.
There is however, (and if you look at the dissolve shot I posted you see this) an area where 4 lights are seen on the horizon on the congestion shot.
Look between the left 2 beginning lights...this area turns into an orange smear, and the trees become peaked as opposed to not being there at all.
This to me suggests a paint over to remove those lights. It's really subtle, but I can really see it. The big question is how far would a person
faking this go.
I also have extreme issue with the reflections on the landing cement. In both photos, they line up. This again furthers the assertation that these
might be the same shot, altered. Not only would it be a stretch to me to say these 2 photos were taken by a different cam at different times (and have
such a degree of alignment), but for the reflections to line up in both I cannot resolve as a "happy accident". I just doesnt make sense to
me...then again I'm not on the strip looking at it in person.
I'll make note that such reflections dont have to be from water or rain...heat can do this, as well as the smoothness of the landing strip.
The yellow and white tapered background object is definitely in both shots. IF thats some sort of train, that does it for me. No train is going to be
at the same spot in both. However, if it's a wall of some sort, or building, that blows that. We'll have to get panaoramic shots of the area once
it's found conclusively.
Were both shots taken at the same location. No question. I think we're past that.
I have another note no one really mentioned. The UFO photo's horizon is visibly slanted. However, the UFO is perfectly leveled to the top and bottom
of the photo. If you adjust the horizon to level, the ufo is slanted. Now thats not to say it couldnt BE on an angle, but I always look at it from
that standpoint that IF it's being faked using the congestion shot, and angled to make it look different, then the "ship" was put in, did someone
forget to level the ship with the horizon? Seems like a likely error, that we've seen before. It's a possibility to me, but we dont know the
orientation of the UO at the time.
David and I also picked up a smear around the UOs left side going up around it's top, almost like a Nike swoop. Could this possibly be air or
atmospheric displacement as was reported? Or could it be a sign of tampering to insert the UO?
There seems as much pro as con, which is ultimately aggravating.
I think we'll all be able to tell better when we get some shots of the possible areas I asked Pegasus for.
That said, I GOT to give my eyes a break. I'm gonna start seeing this shot in my sleep.
[edit on 24-1-2007 by jritzmann]