A request for you jritzmann.

Hey jritzmann, can you please show me ufos you have seen on the internet that you can't explain as being a hoax?

UFOs you think looks more real then fake basically.

Thank you.

sure, lemme compile some the next day or so. I'm getting ready to hit the rack right now.

Thank you for your time.

Here's a couple:

The Trent photos.

They've withstood a battery of computer analysis, but I like them for a different reason. The Trent photos were taken in 1950. In 1954, what looks to be an identical UO was shot in Rouen, France.

image source: http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/uploads/ats44514_fig1-thumb.JPG

The bottom 2 are Trent, the top, Rouen France.

You can read about the Trent sighting here:
www.temporaldoorway.com...

I find this case highly compelling. What is it? Military, little green men? No idea.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Next would be Trindade Island

image source: http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/uploads/ats44515_trindade.jpg


You've seen these before. If you look them up on Google, there's a series of photos, and you can read more about it here:
www.nicap.org...

Again, really compelling stuff...but we still dont know what it is.

I'll get more later on. Lots to get done today.

Hi jritzmann!
I've been keeping an eye on this thread and it's great that you posted some UFO's that you think are the real thing.

Will look over the information on these cases and by all means, please don't hesitate to post more UFO photo's that you think are authentic whenever time allows!

Hey Pala-well it's not saying much when ya say "the real thing", other then we dont know what they are.

So often I get people saying they know something is "alien" just because they cant ID it.

All it means is it's unknown, and theyre legitimate photos as far as I can tell.

Ha! You know how it is with those of us from the "Pepsie Generation' -- either it's 'the real thing' or it ain't, lol.

I read over those cases and they were FASCINATING! Thanks for posting them!

Interesting, thanks for the posts.

Yea Ive wanted to see some fake ones and some unknown/inconclusive/possible real ones as well. Of course some of the inconclusive ones are more convincing than others...But anyway, good work

Now that jritzmann is back in the swing of things, I thought I should bump this thread for the folks that are new to UFOs and confused about pictures.

For those that don't know, jr does a lot of photo work and his opinion is valued, even if not always agreed with.

Glad you're back.

Try never agreed with...when it comes to looney tuned UFO cult members and your garden variety "dont bother me with facts my mind's made up" people. Hee hee! Many thanx for the welcome back.

To bed with me...

Goodnight all.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by jritzmann]

What about that really close one of Billy Meier's (Spelling ?) where theres a UFO over the truck ? It seems quite real to me however I've only been looking at UFOs irregularly since I was 3 - 4 unlike your 20 years experience in the field

[edit on 14-10-2007 by eRauzed]

JRitzmann, after you tell eRauzed about that photo, I'd really like to hear what you think of the Heflin photos, in particular your opinion of the the new analysis done by Druffel/Wood/Kelson. I can't make a critical evaluation of their analysis, but it all sounds good to me. Reanalysis of the 1965 Heflin Photos

Over the van ya mean, I think.

The one alot of people see, is one that is fairly dark, enhancing the illusion that it's actually over the van. It isn't, it's probably a little more or less then 24 inches from the camera, evident by the obvious out of focus.

See this version:
Van shot

It's already been stated by on one the people at DeAnza Corporation (who allegedly supplied the computers for the original analysis) that they were asked to make alterations to certain photo(s), one regarding making the craft appear to reflect the ground below it. I've always thought that perhaps the van shot was sharpened and darkened to make it look somewhat better. But, who knows. Either way the above referenced photo is obviously garbage by virtue of the all too close out of focus.

Hope that answers your question.

Thanks for posting that Jeff. I was really surprised to never have seen that one, probably because Meirerites would just as soon keep it under wraps. Not Billy's finest hour there.

Any thoughts on the work of Woods et al?

Truthfully I have to read it thoroughly. I find the case and photos compelling, but I dont have access to any original data, and therefore would only be offering an opinion. If anyone ever offered to make me copies for analysis off original negs, I'd surely be interested.