posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 01:50 AM
I just wanted to drop a note after whats been about the most interesting 48 hours I've had in the UFO realm for a good while.
Firstly, Mr. Biedny and I have gone over the second photo, and again, see no signs of tampering. There also is some instances of common elements
within and around the UO, that are significant enough to correlate to photo 1.
Not only this, but I believe I've located at least a rough area where shot 2 was taken from. American airlines seems to operate out of gate A20, and
if this person were to shoot within that area at a vantage point, the UO is right where it should be in relation to him re: photo 1. I find that
Also, despite user "You Guys Are Idiots" negative statements about photo 1, through their description of their location at the time they saw the UO,
again, the UO is where it should have been, re: photo 1 and 2.
I have uploaded 2 times now, my overlayed map of labeled OHare, and a Google Earth view. The UO line of sight location and the position of shot 1 has
been labeled as well. I'll be making another one showing where shot most likely would have been taken, as well as witnesses that have come forward
here for reference and triangulation.
Many have written me privately to ask why I'm so "on" this one, and the answer is simple for me. I, nor David Biedny can dismiss it. There's not
definitive evidence of tampering or composite, in fact it's rather the opposite. Channel specific items only discernible through extensive
operations, witness corroboration of location and characteristics of the UO they claim to have seen. There's a lot as far as we're concerned.
I see (although I haven't seen them myself, but I've been told about them) that some are rumoring of Biedny's and my own expertise or knowledge in
image processing and digital compositing.
Lemme lay it out for you. Biedny's knowledge of imaging and digital and composite is ridiculous. One only need to a Google search on his name and see
that the man wrote the book on Photoshop, and his other book "Photoshop Channel Chops" is one of the most sought after books on the subject by
experts in digital manipulation and graphic designers (as well as FX artists).
As far as I'm concerned, I've been an imaging professional since I was 19 years old, and I'm 40 now. I've worked in digital compositing, photo
retouching (both digital and hand airbrushing), graphic design and CGI modeling and compositing into video for major U.S. companies and national
recording artists. I've been a graphic designer to art director, to Director of Creative Development for one of the largest privately owned
corporations in the east. I have freelanced as Hypergraphics Imaging off and on since 1991 whenever I felt the need to thrown down on my own. I am
also trained in the classical sense of visuals, right down to brush and paint, which was always important to me not to just relinquish myself to
I have applied what I do to the UFO field for nearly 20 years in the way of examination of photos and video. One of my highest moments was being the
first to analyze the Mexico City footage of Aug. 6th 1997 and determine it was a CGI composited fake. Since then I've ID'ed a lot of fraudulent UFO
visual data here on ATS and in other local and non-local cases, and been a frequent guest on The Paracast ( www.theparacast.com), published a report
on Gulf Breeze for Parascope back on AOL, as well as being a team member of "Sightings on AOL", and Parascope. More often then not back then, I'd
preferred to work the UFO cases behind the scenes, til The Mexico City case, where I felt it important to go on radio to get the statement out. Since
then I've been a little more vocal.
So anyway, the point here is neither of us are rookies, to the UFO field nor digital imaging. Both of us are well known for not being fans of the
hoaxed crap, and we both have sincere desire to know and understand more about the UFO phenomenon. I hope that gives the "rumor" folks a clue.
As far as myself I don't go into any case looking for anything but the actual data, whether it's fake or not, I want the bottom of it. Thats it,
period. I been called a "debunker" (although I'm not) by many, because I wont accept belief for real answers and all the work it takes to get
there. So friggin' be it.
At this point, David and I are very much still examining the shots, and it can take time. These answers don't come overnight.
Right now, we both agree that yes, with enough time and effort these photos can be faked. To the specifics I've mentioned here? It'd be a ridiculous
pro, high end job. There are some very interesting things being seen within these shots. No doubt about it.
I've just gone over notes I took during a phone call with "Eyewitness", and once again, she has confirmed the object's location per her own
location, and my estimation of where the object should have been (on overlay map). She was a pleasure to speak with, and she's obviously being very
sincere and truthful. In fact, she's every investigator's dream: honest, forthright, great memory, and honest visual descriptions. I literally felt
like I was there as we spoke. To boot, a really friendly and kind person to put up with my endless barrage of questions.
Yet again I have to say this, she's confirmed the location per the overlay map...as well as some items that haven't been talked about to any great
length, that she couldn't have known without being there, and seeing it firsthand. David has sent me 2 files tonight of the second shot, with some
very basic operations of unsharp mask, that reveal very well an aspect we see on both shots. I'll get them posted tomorrow.
We don't think at this point that these are faked images. I look at things like a scale, plus and minus. Right now it's leaning towards plus alot
more then minus (meaning these are genuine photos).
We have more to do, and I'm sure there's more to come.