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
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
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.
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.