posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:34 AM
G'Morning. With not nearly the time I had yesterday to devote to this, I just want to say that there are differences to congested and the UFO
shot's "backplate" or environment if you want to call it that. There is significant ocular distortion in the UFO image as opposed to the congested
shot. As much as certain objects line up, the horizon does not completely align, nor can you effectively force it to align 100%. There are also
objects in the UFO photo's background that are not there in the congestion. I'm not talking about obvious things. I'm talking just enough to be
significant, and not anything we can connect to manipulation.
Could they be a by-product of reshooting off a monitor or print? I dont know. Without knowing the absolute properties of the phone cam, it's pretty
impossible. Biedny and I both agree that this shot was taken from a hieght that seems consistent with an airplane, and I think the shot vantage point
bears out that this was taken from a sort of connecting runway, and not a building on ground.
Now hang with me on this. Looking at the distortion, we see that the runway turn closest to the shooter is aligned perfect (or as near as I can get
it) where as the above area and off to the right gets progressively worse.
Take a look at the dissolve, and try and notice that.
Now, thats said, look at it from the standpoint of shooting out the window of a co-pilot seat. Aircraft windows are usually flat as far as I know, and
by the look of it and the way the framing is, picture a co-pilot seated individual shooting out an angled window. Would that window be enough to
coinside with the distortion (as surmising if his arm were out straight in front of him the window I'm thinking about would angle towards and away
from him, he's shooting out a window that isnt parallel to his cam, it's angled away on the right, giving way to the distortion), and also possibly
explain the odd angle to the ground (as if the pic was taken by someone raising for instance their right arm only and leaning forward to snap. It's
worth thinking about.
Looking at the ocular distortion, and the specific channel only visible information, and we dont see this as being a simple deal. Biedny has gone over
the UFO photo and has stated he sees no evidence of the "landing lights" of the congestion shot being removed. And he would definitely know. I have
to defer to him on that.
And if that correct, and I have every reason to believe it is, then we're not looking at the same shot.
At the same time, there are consistencies in both that I cannot get past. I'm telling ya, that white/yellow tapered object in the lower left...if
thats a train and we can prove it, this is all over. At that point it's a fake derived from the congestion shot. Or, alternatively, if it's a
flipped image, same result.
But until I get control shots of that exact area, it'll be very difficult to get any further. We only have so many pixels to work with, and only so
much we can see. It's truly not as simple as our replicas might imply. The face might get close, but the details show a much different photo.
Oh, someone had mentioned water on the window...if that were the case the dark area of the UO would be on top, not the bottom, Water drops are convex,
and reflect like a bubbled mirror. Try it on your home windows and see. The ground will be reflected in the top (dark).
So, as far as I go, there aint much to do until I get those comparitive test shots of the area. At this point for me, inconclusive-but interesting.