Regarding issues some people have with the comparison of my found photo "congestion", and the first OHare UFO shot:
Firstly, I'd have saved a few days of no sleep, a bottle of Visine, and a lot of aggravation had I just jumped to the conclusion that congestion is
directly related to UFO shot 1. I'd have also gotten some pretty good accolades I think for it's discovery and link to the UFO shot.
My problem is I don't give a crap about accolades, I just wanna know what the deal is. Pressure one way or the other from public opinion isn't going
to effect me one way or the other. But to explain a bit about the differences, so it's more defined as to why David and I have been up with this
image for the past...how many hours?...here's a bit of a visual.
Below is an overlay, the first I presented, showing the transformation of "congested", which we'll refer to as "Cgd" from here on out, and the
UFO photo. I have however added some circles that point out some evidence that we are likely not looking at the same shot.
(image updated on 1/28/2007)
Before I get to their explanation, I want everyone to note the overall shot. I have paused longer on the UFO shot, and sped up the dissolve to give
you a better view. It'll loops so you can stare at the individual photo, or it's referred to areas.
The overall UFO shot, in comparison with Cgd:
Note that the runway turn seems to line up fairly well. Between Cgd and the UFO shot, we see very little movement in this stationary point. This was
my guide for aligning the 2 together, and it was also my rotation point. If that point lines up so perfectly,
then why as we progress further right, do things seem to "swell", and shift...and do so with gradual progression.
It's ocular distortion. The UFO image, seems to swell and level towards us as opposed to the Cgd shot. It seems to get worse as we move right. At the
right end, we barely match up...and forget being as definitive as the runway turn. The entire UFO shot seems to compress inward progressively. One
would have to stretch out the length, and even then you couldn't make everything maintain it's every matching stationary point.
This indicates to David and I that we are not looking at a photo from the same camera, but rather a close proximity of location in shooting. The
properties are just too far removed in an overall sense.
Now ok, lets walk from that aspect. Lets look at the circled areas, which remain on top during the cross fade.
A - Within the circle you'll see a small warm light beige color that exists in the UFO shot, but not in Cgd.
B - The most significant area, and David's find, a large orange mark not seen whatsoever in the Cgd shot but only in the UFO one. It
seems to fall directly between the 2 horizon lights from Cgd. It just shouldn't be there.
C - A very small area of warm colored area, again, not seen in the Cgd shot, but only in the UFO shot.
D - Warm brown area seen only in the UFO shot.
E - Small red area seen only in UFO shot.
F - 2 semi-white spots seen only in the UFO shot.
Some of these are rather "in your face" and some are not. But they are there, and I'd say if you look hard enough and adjust your monitor you'll
see them. "B" will no doubt jump out at you.
If you'll also take note of the "billboard" seen over what we were calling the "train" you'll note that it seems to compress to the
left...scrunch in that direction if you like.
So in essence, there's enough difference in a lot of ways. IF this were exactly the same shot, I'd expect to see items overlay to the letter. They
do not. In addition there are small objects not seen in the Cgd shot, but only in the UFO one.
These small changes (or notable ones such as "B")...just think about it. IF this was faked, throwing the ocular distortion out, why would anyone
insert these minute changes? It seems way over the top, and again, how far is someone willing to go? To that end, why put them in at all?
David and I also have put time in looking for evidence of cloning out the landing lights of Cgd vs the sky on the UFO shot. We're not seeing cloned
areas, nor evidence of it. I had said that the sky in the UFO shot seemed too finely and evenly gradated to me, in that could someone have alpha
channel masked out the skyline and composited a new sky in. Seems totally possible to me. That way the hoaxer would eliminate any evidence of cloning
over the lights with sky.
After looking at the sky in Lab mode, and examining and auto adjusting levels in the B channel, we see a better view of the subtle dark and lights of
the gradation, which shows there's NOT the uniformity of a computer gradation. So an added sky was out.
There is more, however I think this best illustrates the aspects of difference in both shots. Some are pronounced, like the distortion, and some of
the circled areas, and some are so subtle it's ridiculous.
It becomes a question of odds. We only have a limited number of pixels, and what we can see. This is some of the differences we see, which tells us
we're not looking at the same photo. If they were put in, why. Why the smallest details, the most nearly undetectable shades and colors. I have to go
with the odds and say someone is not going to go to that length...to me and speaking only for me, it's stupid and makes no sense in the grand scheme
of trying to fake it. That orange blob in circled area "B", does nothing to convince anyone that's a real UFO. It has nothing to do with it
Don't forget, IF the assumption of fake is made, then the hoaxer wouldn't expect us to find his Holy Grail of the congested photo.
So at this point David and I don't believe we're looking at the same shot and these are only some of the reasons. I hope it puts to bed some of the
questions regarding both.
[edit on 28-1-2007 by SkepticOverlord]