Originally posted by d1k

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Springer,

Don't bother blasting this to Jeff, I promise you that he'll concur with my assessment. It's a so-so rendered ship composited on photographic backgrounds. The Photoshop tags are meaningless. EOS.

dB

Then reproduce it if it's so easy. I'm sick of comments like this.

Again, do it if its so easy. I challenge ANYONE here in ATS to come half as close as these original pictures.

It's easy to sit back and say fake, easy to make but most are all talk and no action. Reproduce it or your claims are moot.

Youre quoting a guy (davidbiedny) who's done composite work at ILM, films, and wrote the first and most desirable book on Photoshop and compositing. So, I think he's a bit beyond having to duplicate stuff to satisfy anyone. He's one of the foremost imaging experts on the planet...so...please. Duplication, what is this a Meier thread? No need, obvious focal issues give it away, and to ignore that is to ignore optical physics. (which is pretty silly)

I dont see a smiley, what I see is a smudge and there are several in other shots of the sequence, so I'm in agreement with ya there. But as far as the authenticity of the shots, they just dont stand up to scrutiny.

There has been no English translation of the claimed Japanese letters underneath. Most of those shapes are common letterform types to all major alphabets, whether English letters "L" and "X" or number "7", mathematical pluses or division symbols, Greek "∆" shapes, or Cyrillic letterforms...these claims are strange. These shapes are extremely basic, found in nature everywhere, and repeated in hundreds of our earthly alphabets throughout history.
Could someone please post what these Japanese characters mean in English? I see "A ok..." "÷xyx7÷" and "÷£||†V". I think this excessively talented CGI artist might be mentally handicapped. He can't even spell.

Originally posted by greatlakes
, but it also points to HOAX in my view.
[edit on 7-5-2007 by greatlakes]

Well all photo's could be interpreted as being a hoax.

So for me i stay open to the possibilities.

Originally posted by d1k
Are we just supposed to believe him without asking questions?



[edit on 8-5-2007 by d1k]

Of course not!

But there is a "presumed level" of minimum research expected (Like a Google Search) here on ATS prior to asking such a mundane question of a globally recognized EXPERT.

Just sayin'

Springer...

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by kronos11
Haha.. for anyone on right now - Stanton Friedman will be on C2C to discuss these photos briefly tonight.

Friedman said that he is iffy on the pics and doesn't yet to know what to make of them.

Due to the lack of hard info (personal data, location, ect.) this is hard to buy, this are nice pictures, but a video would be the greatest thing ever...

Another oddity that just doesn't ring true:

Picture yourself in the same situation, YOU PERSONALLY making this find, you come across a craft that can only be described as alien or advanced military, in any case not an everyday occurrence!

How many pictures of the craft do you take?

Keep in my that the craft has been located several (correction 8 times) times across an extended period of time, once with a camera phone, and subsequent times with a friends (neighbors) higher end camera.

Do you ONLY take a total of SEVEN (7) pictures of this amazing craft? Or do you snap away until either the batteries are dead or the camera memory card is full?

Surely something as important as this potential warrants more photos than only just seven! Couple this with the fact that it appeared over 8 SEPARATE times to this the witness, as well as appearing to the other witnesses, persons making sightings:

Witness (8 separate times)
Witness Wife
Friend & Neighbor

Some pertinent quotes:

Are there other witnesses that made the sighting in addition? YES.

It is very easy to photograph and...many neighbors aside from my friend have also seen it.

The friend/neighbor was present so any arguments that the original witness was reluctant to fill-up the memory card is not justified.

A few days later a friend (and neighbor) lent me his camera and came with me to take photos of this "craft". We found it and took a number of very clear photos.

How many times did the witness spot the craft in so many days?

First of all, I see this thing VERY often. Since it first appeared, I have probably seen this thing maybe 8 different times since the first appearance. My friend and I went out the next day after I first saw it to get the photos, but it was not there. Then we tried again the next day, and we found it within like 30 minutes and followed it for a while.

Perhaps the hike out to snap the photos is long and arduous and therefore would limit the amount of photos taken? NOPE.

Most of the time I see it out of windows in my house, in the distance. but I would say almost half of the hikes I have gone on in my area, I have seen it very close. It is very easy to photograph and...many neighbors aside from my friend have also seen it.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by Springer

Originally posted by d1k
Are we just supposed to believe him without asking questions?



[edit on 8-5-2007 by d1k]

Of course not!

But there is a "presumed level" of minimum research expected (Like a Google Search) here on ATS prior to asking such a mundane question of globally recognized EXPERT.

Just sayin'

Springer...

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Springer]

Good thinking! Let me google jritzmann and see what comes up.

Now to be fair, now that I have looked up Mr. David Biedny and see what he has done and he is not just another ATS expert his opinion holds a little more weight.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by d1k]

Originally posted by d1k
Now to be fair, now that I have looked up Mr. David Biedny and see what he has done and he is not just another ATS expert his opinion holds a little more weight.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by d1k]

I am sure David will sleep better tonight knowing that "d1k" on ATS thinks his opinions "hold a little more weight".

Whatever...

Springer...

You cant please everyone Springer. Some people must believe you'd give me my own forum if I was "just another ATS expert".

Boy do I have you ATS big wigs fooled.

Stop trying to push a hoax so hard, your "logic" is just sad at best. I've seen you try to use the arguement "why go through so much effort making a fake?"... are you kiddin... the same reason thousands of other attention/money craving folks do it. Billy Meier started his career much in the same way fakin pics, maybe we'll have a nice book about this guys abductions and some lazer gun fotos next
"why cant anyone here reproduce it"... uh cause we're not photoshop experts like obviously the hoaxer is.

This hoax is just pathetic in my opinion... same old BS vague story and lack of proof. If this guy really saw something that would change our world I doubt he just posts the pics on the internet, with "rather not give the location" no source photos, no details on the camera used etc etc. His follow up claims he sees it many times,, so wheres the video? Wheres the news crew tagging along for one of his photo expeditions? Gimme a break, a guy who made a discovery like this would have nothing to hide.

admin edit to remove personal attack on a fellow member we don't do that at ATS

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by nybaseball44
d1k you are pathetic..

I've seen you try to use the arguement "why go through so much effort making a fake?"...

Quote me where I said this.

As for the rest of your post.....stay in school.

This thread brings into question "What will happen when we are presented an authentic ufo photo, one that is clear and detailed and has numerous non-affiliated witnesses?

In the digital age I believe even image experts won't be able to conclusively call a photo or video fake or real regardless of the evidence.

With that said I'm inclined to call this a hoax not based on the image analysis but by other intrinsic evidence, the lack of an entire archive of photos of the craft, the weak story surrounding the sightings, the lack of other witnesses coming forward (to a lesser extent).

Sometimes just common sense will point you in the right direction. If a photo does take many creative man-hours of cgi or model work, then the number of photos would of course be low. Perhaps future hoaxes may take this error into account and improve on these errors in my view.

Let's get a few things crystal clear here:

- Jeff Ritzmann is an associate and very close friend, and is an extremely skilled artist and creative thinker, Photoshop or otherwise. When he says an image is bogus, I back him up 120%. I consider him a peer, and anyone who thinks he's less capable than me would be absolutely wrong.

- If anyone makes ANY definitive statement about anything, a Google search is the LEAST amount of due diligence that should happen. Like Jeff, I use my real name here, I'm not hiding behind anything.

- That anyone thinks that these images present the possibility of being genuine, especially with the backstory and the latest comments by the hoaxer, is just sad. With the proliferation of digital effects in mainstream motion pictures, one would hope that the baseline level of visual sophistication would be higher than it seems - folks, take a look at these images, and tell me that your first impression is that they're genuine. If so, you're the kind of customer that every visual effects producer and supervisor dreams of. Really. Even a casually trained eye can instantly see the problems, the lack of depth and presence of the rendered object. It's flat, poorly lit in the closeups. focus issues, uniform texture and surface, silly lettering... the list goes on and on.

Look, I'd like nothing more than to see genuine images this clear, verifiable, with multiple witnesses and pray to the almighty chicken monkey, video.

There are compelling images of UFOs that are unexplained.

These are not genuine. Believe what you want.

dB

[edit on 8-5-2007 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 8-5-2007 by davidbiedny]

I think these images are pretty laughable. I'm no expert but immediately got the feeling they were fake.

Still it's nice to have some experts around to give a real analysis. Thanks guys

Originally posted by greatlakes
This thread brings into question "What will happen when we are presented an authentic ufo photo, one that is clear and detailed and has numerous non-affiliated witnesses?

If and when that happens, and we corroborate the witness testimony, we'll have a picture of a UFO. Nothing more. We won't know where it's from, why it's here, what it is or what to do about it.

dB

Well I was excited about these pictures and Im still not sure if they are fake as I havent read through the whole thread but I will offer my findings real quick. Ive been learning how to mask lately so you can seperate an object from one picture and put it onto another picture without anyone being able to notice that you combined two pictures together (if you did it perfectly that is the result you're hoping for).

If you have Photoshop CS2 or the new CS3, which I have now then open the cell phone picture labled Craft050607a and select layer properties and set the levels in the following order from left to right...

0, 0.86, 135. This will effectively make the craft dissappear which is what one would do to correctly mask an object and add/remove it to another picture. The idea in masking is to get the entire area surrounding the objrct you wish to cut out to turn bright white, then you invert it to turn it black and ut it out and then move on to the next steps. Again I may be off as im just learning but what lead me to even check this out is something in that cell phone picture that was kinda putting me off and thats the Bright Yellow Leaves in the bottom center of the image on the bush, they just looked weird to me.

After you set the levels to what I put above you will also notice how extremely bright the yellow leaves get in the bottom center and how the craft has disappeared from the image and the surrounding area is all white.

Dunno if this means anything or not but Im starting to think that this is a simple cut and paste job where he took a picture of an area somewhere in nature and took a picture of a model, used the masking process and then combined the two images???

Anyone with more knowledge in this area please check this out and let me know if Im onto something here... I actually hope these pan out to be real because these pictures are fantastic and or creative non the less.

~Anathema

Yea just hope these hoaxes don't deter people from continuing to look critically at all cases and give them the proper exposure and analysis.

It's the cry wolf scenario and tends to jade people with regards to any new thread of a supposed UFO. I keep an open mind but at the same time use logic, common sense and research (hopefully most of the time) when looking at any new anomaly.

Basically the phrase "a picture tells a thousand words" these days perhaps should be "a picture tells several hundred words". These days to document a case of a UFO not only do you need clear and detailed photos, but multiple non-affiliated witnesses are needed, also possibly video to back up a case properly for the community abroad to believe.

Also we should now be seeing more people use alternate scientific equipment to photograph anomalies. Equipment such as infrared camera, UV cameras and other instruments to view beyond the visible spectrum, or what our eyes see (as well as standard cameras).

[edit on 8-5-2007 by greatlakes]

20 mins quick work in CS2...

I'll post the original later so you can see how...
Given more time I could have added silly lettering and more spikes/lights or whatever I wanted, or made it in a 3d package..all good