It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chicago LaSalle...write up and 4th shot

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Well, at least it's a set.


The final shot of this series is to me the most interesting. But in the interest of looking at the set, lets say this:

Distance hazing looks good. As the disc moves away you get what you'd expect, a slightly lighter overall effect. Could you fake it? Sure.

The disc seems blurred equally with the rest of the photo. Could ya fake it? Yup.

The pixelation doesn't show any distinct disturbance on the disc vs the rest of the shot. Could ya fake it? Absolutely. Little noise little blur...it's possible.

However it has to be said that things look pretty much like you'd expect to see, everything looks good. But there's no real distinct thing that says it couldn't be faked. If it's fake, it aint the typical obvious stuff. The cloud movement I find interesting, and it suggests that if it's a real event, the disc might have been moving at a rather moderate pace.

Now we have shot 4, which as far as I know no one has seen. Springer gave me a day alone with it before giving it out on the board. This one I find compelling.



In short, it's a crappy shot. The disc is circled in yellow so you can see it. Now, this, is not what I'd expect to see a faker do. Until I pointed it out Springer didn't even see it. I mean it's crappy, and mostly obscured by branch.



I really find this interesting. Could you alpha channel mask the tree and slide the disc in behind that layer? Sure. But there are some fine branches in that area, depending on how much was masked if that's the case.

So ya could do it, but wouldn't you want it to be a better shot then that? Would you want to take the chance of pulling a mask and being caught on that shot after the first 3? Good question. If it's a mask, it's tight. Unfortunately the pixel quadrant with the branch (dark) ends and a new quad begins right at the disc's edge, so it's hard to tell if we have a straight up overlay. I don't feel it is, but I can't rule it out.



But it's a compelling shot, because it sucks. That's what interests me. Most hoaxers want good shots but not unbelievable ones,but also not majority obscured where we have to hunt for it.

People need to realize that it's gotten very hard to level an effective answer on some of this stuff, not only because of digital imaging and manipulation, but due to lousy resolution cam phone pics. At the same time, I think a lot of people dismiss shots like this because they can fake them. Well so what, I could too. That doesn't prove anything but that it could be faked "X" number of ways.

I think we're coming to a point where we have to go with our gut about some stuff, because all the technology in the world isn't gonna help us...the sophistication of hoaxes is equal to the level at which we have to dissect them. At some point we have to step back and examine the composition, the obvious points, and give a gut feeling coupled with what the computer tell us.

Throw the baby out with the bathwater and we're going to dismiss potentially real shots. I'm not willing to do that. The majority of my involvement in the UFO visual stuff has been to expose hoaxes, and there's a lot of em.

I don't know that I'd put these into that category. There's just something about them. I know that wont mean anything to anyone, but I'm sayin it anyway. If they're faked, they're not obvious about it...they're actually damned good. I think people are putting far too much into "well I can fake that too", and dismissing totally out of hand. Sure, it looks like the O'Hare UFO…and? We've not established that the 1st O'Hare UFO shot is faked…only that it's been tampered with, non relating to the UFO itself. Is it such a leap to think this UFO might show up or had shown up in or around the area? It's happened before, so I don’t see what the hang up is with that.

BUT...

They're just fuzzy low res shots. There's only so much info we can get out of them. We also have no contact with the photographer, and no name, which immediately puts them into the suspicious bin. However it one thing needs to be said: Why would someone go to this kind of length to fake it. I mean it's obviously not a rookie PS user nor rookie moves to make it, in my opinion, it's someone with a fair amount of skill and time...and what's the motivation for someone like that?

I don’t think this is someone just fooling around to sit back and laugh at ATS. It's a shame we don’t have a computer test for motivation.

So, I like em. They're some of the best to come across my desk in a long time…but I can't call em legitimate either. It's a shame, because if this was a real event, think how great these would have been with even so much as a 4 megapixel camera. We need more info…who what when why…resolution. My kingdom for resolution dammit.

I find them compelling. That's about all I can say. Especially #4, not because of any technological flaw or the lack thereof, but the composition of it. I don’t think we can dismiss them all that quickly.




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Point taken. I think sometimes people go to far, and should just let things be and part ways in indecision, denial, grief, disbelief, or belief. Sometimes people just don't agree.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Thanks for that analysis.
It seems to me that since almost any digital image can be faked with enough skill and time, the only hope is to establish the provenance of the image by non-digital means as best you can, as even EXIF data could be spoofed.

Would that there were some kind of secure digital signature assigned to each camera and each digital media card, and some sort of checksum-like code on each raw image so that any modification would cause the check to fail. Lacking that, you need to know who took the image, who will attest to having seen the raw image, and any notes on any innocent processing done to the image before posing (e.g. hitting the "Enhance" button in iPhoto). In addition, we need the exact location, date and time.

The gold standard is multiple consistent images with good provenance taken at about the same time independently by identified persons who could not have collaborated. I've never heard of any cases like that.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Someone should develop some program to read the binary signature that is in the image. This would be the ultimate tell-all as far as I'm concerned. Even through compression you would see a pattern and be able to detect if the binary flow is off.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky
Lacking that, you need to know who took the image, who will attest to having seen the raw image, and any notes on any innocent processing done to the image before posing (e.g. hitting the "Enhance" button in iPhoto). In addition, we need the exact location, date and time.


Exactly. I wish people who shoot this stuff would stand by it. Although I can see why some wouldnt want to. But it makes it very hard to anyone to really take it to the next level.

I for one would really like to talk to the Mother or Son.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
We've seen many many photo's on these boards come through several hands with little information beyond the photo's and the fact that the original photographer wishes to remain anonymous.

But i have to say that even though im in no way 100% convinced of these photo's being real , that 4th picture does lend the story that little something extra.

Analysis of these will only get us so far , we need date, time and place and a little background information on the people involved .

Excellent work done so far jritzmann , this for me is more interesting than O'hare .



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Mr. Ritzmann...

Check out this post in the main picture thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I tend to agree with this. The blue of the sky and the green in the trees seem way "too good" for a sub 1mp CCD in a camera phone.

What do you think?



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I personally dont see the color as any issue. I've got some cell pics that are pretty brilliant actually.

I do see the common chromatic issues that are associated with camera phone lenses, that I dont think would be present within a reshoot scenario, and if they were used in such a way I'd expect them to be twice as bad.

I think Edward's shots of color has an equal amount of saturation, and show the same aspects we see in other cell cam shots, a relatively hot center and more often then not in high contrast areas, the inability of cell cams to relate accurately some spectral data. I see this in both Ed's (second more high contrast shot) and the LaSalle shots. There is an overall purple/blue-red wash over the pictures consistent with limitations of cell cams. Take it into photoshop and do an auto levels and you'll get a better picture of that aspect, just as an example. So I dont see an issue of oversaturation, we're also all looking on different monitors that may or may not be corrected. Lets not forget this looks like a fairly bright day which would yield better colors then an overcast one.

I wish I knew someone at a place that made the cams for cell phone and we could send it to them and see if they note any oddities. If anyone has such a contact, my email is jeff.ritzmann AT gmail.com

I also have to say that again, we have NO CLUE what camera/phone it was. Lets face it here folks, we're relatively in the dark here. We gotta work with what we have, thats why it was one of the smaller write ups I've ever done for some, in my opinion pretty compelling pictures.

NOTE EDIT: Ya know, it just occurred to me that perhaps some of the perception of saturation might be due in part to the chromatic issues of cell phone optics and their inability to relate spectral data correctly. The overwash of purple or red/blue due to the high contrast of the overall shot might be part of some people's view of it being too saturated.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
I personally dont see the color as any issue. I've got some cell pics that are pretty brilliant actually.



First, thank you for all you do and have done, great work. Two, most people own low end camera phones so they assume everything out there is garbage. Here are a couple pics with a Samsung D900 that I snapped of the sky and these are not a representation of the best pics I can get from it. Samsung D900

Let's just say I have access to LOTS of cell phones from all carriers, so if you ever want a sample pick by a particular model, I'd love to contribute to ATS in that way.

Thanks again!



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Thanx Knows...I'm probably gonna have to take ya up on that sooner or later the way cell pics are becoming the norm lately!

Take Care,
J



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Yea hey ill take this one here




Sanyo SCP 7000 Sprint Cell Phone
Hehe

My son dropped mine in a cup of good ole folgers coffee the other morning lmao
Ill be waitin on it rofl not a sample pic but the actual phone itself




Originally posted by knows_but_doesnt

Originally posted by jritzmann
I personally dont see the color as any issue. I've got some cell pics that are pretty brilliant actually.




Let's just say I have access to LOTS of cell phones from all carriers, so if you ever want a sample pick by a particular model, I'd love to contribute to ATS in that way.

Thanks again!



[edit on 8-2-2007 by Kr0n0s]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   
[edit on 8-2-2007 by nowthenlookhere] posted to wrong thread.. oops

[edit on 8-2-2007 by nowthenlookhere]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
In regards to the point about hoaxers wanting a 'clear shot'.

I would not rule out the possibility of either a double bluff, or the possibility that a hoaxer might like to put the ufo behind an object to add credibility of some sort.

Just a thought.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainLazy
In regards to the point about hoaxers wanting a 'clear shot'.

I would not rule out the possibility of either a double bluff, or the possibility that a hoaxer might like to put the ufo behind an object to add credibility of some sort.

Just a thought.


No youre absolutely right, it's a thought. We just have to look at the aspect that many people didnt even see it at all, and would they do it *that* bad.

No idea, but nonetheless it's intriguing.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join