PHOTO-SURPRISE Part 2

reply to post by scepticsRus


Close it.

Not a one liner...
I think

reply to post by davidbiedny


Hi David,

We are not giving Jeff a hard time, we are asking him to answer simple questions and it seems that he is avoiding them. Now you come up full
of arguments from authority which is totally fallacious and off topic.

If you guys cannot get your stuff together and answer simple questions, I do not know what "you" are doing here listed as "expert". An expert is someone that can back up his claims to a certain degree. This is not the case, both of you failed to answer the most simple questions. And now, you are trying to make me & us look like the "bad guys".

And guess what, you're gonna fail again because people might not be "experts" like you guys but they can sure read and think for themselves.

I do spend time on quiet a few forums and when I make a claim, I back it up and I always answer questions, ALWAYS. I've asked Jeff to show me what he calls a good UFO picture, same thing, he never posted them or at least one.

Who is claiming things he cannot back up, me ?

So who is acting weird here ?

I am really pissed now and I hope someone like the webmaster is going to
read this, because I know I've done nothing wrong.

Europa

EDIT : Go ahead and close the topic, but remember, you never answered ONE single question I asked.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Europa733]

reply to post by Europa733


Its quite simple Europa733, you posted the thread claiming that you had a pic of a ufo. Therefore it is up to you to provide proof of your claim. You have had an image analysis look at your image and he has given you his professional opinion, one which is consistent with the image that you provided, the fact that i also subscribe to the same opinion has nothing to do with this response.

The ball is back in your court, you need to provide evidance of what you think the image is.





[edit on 31-3-2008 by scepticsRus]

If you want to see some _compelling_ UFO photos, here you go:

www.ufoevidence.org...

www.ufoevidence.org...

www.ufoevidence.org...

www.ufocasebook.com...

Those are a few of many that I strongly feel are legitimately unexplained.

dB

reply to post by Europa733



Europa and Shakesbeer:

I have some very good advice for you, when you come to someone's house and ask for FREE HELP and THEIR TIME you accept what you get.

Jeff doesn't have to answer any bloody questions, you asked him for an analysis and that's what he gave you.

I suggest you both move on before I get really disgusted and very mad.

Springer...

reply to post by Springer


well said springer, we are a like a family here on ATS, and you give familiy members respect no matter what they say or do.

If a member tries to help you dont shoot them down just because its not what you wanted to hear.

Sometimes you have to be crule to be kind, and in this case i feel that some of us have had to be crule by telling the OP what he didnt want to hear so that we can all move along and continue to deny ignorance.

Almost seems like a points collecting exercise to me! just my 2 cents

[edit on 31-3-2008 by scepticsRus]

I said I thought it was cute little tweet-tweet though...

Don't mind me Jeff, you rock man, keep going. No BS


[edit on 31-3-2008 by Shakesbeer]

Originally posted by scepticsRus
reply to post by Europa733

 

Its quite simple Europa733, you posted the thread claiming that you had a pic of a ufo. Therefore it is up to you to provide proof of your claim. You have had an image analysis look at your image and he has given you his professional opinion, one which is consistent with the image that you provided, the fact that i also subscribe to the same opinion has nothing to do with this response.

The ball is back in your court, you need to provide evidance of what you think the image is.
[edit on 31-3-2008 by scepticsRus]

Hi there,

You are right, but since there was no demonstration that it is a bird, it sure still is a UFO. I'll keep working on this picture and post new data back in my first topic.

Springer, do not worry about me or Shakesbeer, we won't talk to Jeff anymore since it is useless because he avoids answering simple questions.
It's his right, like it is my right to say it and have everyone else notice it.

If I can demonstrate that this is no bird, you guys are gonna hear from me, no doubt about that...if in fact it is a bird, then you will hear from me as well
because I won't hide it neither.

Peace always
Europa

reply to post by jritzmann

Sorry I missed this. The facing wing is also blurred by motion (motion elongates the area). The tip of the triangle isnt the wing coming up, it's the more constant (or less movement) area of the wing (pivot) being seen.

The shadow is not a shadow, but high speed blurring of the facing wing, with much more dark area exposed, then the underside of the wing which is lighter and therefore not easily seen against the light sky.

I know this wont matter to you, but I thought I'd clarify.

Ok? All done.

Sorry i missed your reply.
And i have to agree with you, on seeing another pic (a bird) distorted in a similar way.
My question was from ignorance in this area, not one of spite towards your work.
Sorry if it came off in that way though, that was not my meaning at all.

Originally posted by davidbiedny
Jeff is someone who, like me, would LOVE to see some indisputable UFO photos.

Hi David,

1/2 Off Topic

I've got what you want...but I want to make a deal first.

It was :

Filmed by a tv crew
photographed with a grating filter (optical spectrum)
multiple witnesses
caught on a low frequency radar


Contact me in private if you are interested and I am not talking about some old b&w pictures or some disc thrown in the air.

Peace,
Buck

Originally posted by Europa733
Springer, do not worry about me or Shakesbeer, we won't talk to Jeff anymore since it is useless because he avoids answering simple questions.
It's his right, like it is my right to say it and have everyone else notice it

I answered what I was asked. You don't like the answers. Tough. If the questions were on valid points I'd address them, but all were covered on the post I explained the photo in.

More questions on the covered points don't get you the one you want...so you piss and moan.

Painfully typical, and part of the problem.

This is a really good thread because it brings up a lot of issues and not just those debating the authenticity of an image.

I agree with Jeff in the fact that he has stated his findings to the best of his abilities and as a result posted his findings per a request. Jeff did a fantastic job and made the best judgement on the photograph he could. He deserves the utmost in respect from each and every one of you. ATS is a place to debate and discuss topics not to beat people up. Those that continue to bully make accusations only derail the original intent of the thread. A conspiracy theory maybe? Regardless every human being in the world deserves the right for his/her opinions to be heard without being made a mockery of. You may dislike the idea or disagree with a person’s conclusions but you don’t have the right to make a mockery out of the person on a personal level rather than an intellectual level.

Although I agree that you have the individual right to question Jeff’s conclusions, he is under no obligation to clarify his viewpoint any further than he wishes. Jeff also deserves a lot of credit for taking his valuable time to examine the image. A professional’s time is a very valuable resource. He generally works for himself and balances his time and life between a great many things. The world lives 24 hours a day and thus so must imaging professionals. It really takes a lot of time and effort to examine a photograph, this he did for the community without asking for any compensation. Thank you for your time Jeff it is greatly appreciated.

As far as my analysis goes. I still hold to the theory it was digitally manipulated and as a service to this community I will post my reasoning’s as soon as I can find the time.

As other threads have talked about this subject before I will conclude in saying that any image out there can be manipulated into anything the creator wishes it to be. It becomes a difficult situation to assess the originality of such an image, However; there are tell tale signs that can be identified such as shadowing, pixel patterns, blurring, compression that are relatively common in fake photographs. It becomes an impossible situation because the originality of the image can never be 100% proved or disproved (except in blatant, poorly skilled edits). The more skilled the creator the more likely it will pass inspection.

Face it from this point forward in human history we will never know whether or not an image we are shown is real or manipulated.





[edit on 31-3-2008 by photobug]

Originally posted by jritzmann

I answered what I was asked. You don't like the answers. Tough. If the questions were on valid points I'd address them, but all were covered on the post I explained the photo in.

More questions on the covered points don't get you the one you want...so you piss and moan.

Hi Jeff,

Come'on, please do not give me that, I am not moaning, I did ask a specific question regarding the bird hypothesis and you never answered it. This is what pissed me off, not the fact that you said it was a bird because my hypo' is that it is an insect flying close to the camera with a high angular velocity and a high flapping (wings) frequency.

Now, for the last time, would you please answer my old question related to your hypothesis & opinion :

This picture was taken with a 1/400 sec shutter speed and a pigeon for example (adult size : 0.61 m wide) doing stationary flight has a tip of the wing speed of 6 m/sec or 5 moves (flapping) / sec, smaller birds have a higher flapping frequency but mostly while doing stationary flights, like this one : fr.treklens.com...

I assume this bird is not doing stationary flight (body's inclination < 45 °) and this could be easyle demonstrated by ornithologists. This is why I do not understand why it is blurred like this with a 1/400 sec picture with such a slow flapping frequency around 2 to 3 flapping /sec maximum. 1/400 sec is just 150 to 200 times faster than that.

So, can you explain us, how come the wings are almost invisible ?

Thank you in advance.

Peace,
Chris SPITZER



[edit on 1-4-2008 by Europa733]

reply to post by Europa733


Just ducking in because I dont want this going unanswered before I take leave of the board:

"This is why I do not understand why it is blurred like this with a 1/400 sec picture with such a slow flapping frequency around 2 to 3 flapping /sec maximum. 1/400 sec is just 150 to 200 times faster than that."

First, you assume you know the exact revolution of wing beats. Second, and more obviously, the bird's wings aren't only in motion....the BIRD as a whole is in fast motion, and relatively close. Therefore not only are the wings blurred for beats, but blurred even more overall as the bird is in full motion.

The End.

reply to post by jritzmann


Thanks Jeff,


I know someone can give me an idea (different ranges depending on birds size) of the distance between the camera and the bird and this will sure help to know if it was possible to get a blurry shot with the camera settings & data.

Let's remember that you assume that the bird is in close proximity which remains undemonstrated as for now.

I'll keep you updated with my findings if you are ok. Just tell me if you are interested.

Chris

Originally posted by Europa733
Just tell me if you are interested.

Chris

I don't think you're reading posts in a complete way:

Originally posted by jritzmann
The End.

Was that not clear enough?

Per my promise I have spent a little bit of time analyzing this photo in more detail to explain my belief that this image was photo shopped. Please see the attached link of the portion of the image in question along with footnotes and my explanations below. These are my observations based on my level of expertise and knowledge in the professional graphic industry. You of course are always free to make up your own mind on the authenticity of the photograph.




1. These lines show several areas in the photograph that are suspect due to unusual jpeg artefacts. These artefacts usually indicate that part of the image was cut and pasted as well as show that the image was altered then resaved using the jpeg algorithms. Please note the square looking area this is usually caused by what I call double jeopardy Jpegs. It occurs when an image is save repeatedly using the jpeg process. Although you may find similar patterns throughout the image none are as evident as this one.

2. These lines are referring to the strange shadow behind the object which is in total disagreement with the direction of light. Furthermore a shadow cannot be cast against an open sky. This to me looks like poor Photoshop work and possibly the remnants of the image that was cut and pasted.

3. In this area you can clearly see the patterns beneath the object which match the rest of the surrounding sky patterns. This is an indication that the objects opacity was reduced after it was placed into this photograph.

4. This is an indication that the object was blurred after being inserted into the image you can see traces of the blurring effect throughout the image. Yes I realize that the object may have been in motion.

5. Is not noted on the image however if you blow up the area in question and look a little to the top right you will see some yellow pixels. These could be a mistake, an incomplete erasure of surrounding areas, or simply a dead pixel. Based on the other problems I have seen it is worth noting.

perhaps it is an alien vessel but I doubt it. there are just way too many inconsistencies with the image.

My 2 cents

Hi everyone,

I did contact an ornithologist & photograph specialized in the birds located in the
South of France, this is her answer :

Honnêtement, je me demande si ce n’est pas plutôt en effet d’optique, une aberration de l’image. En tout cas, ce n’est pas un oiseau.
Cordialement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amine FLITTI - Chargé de mission LPO PACA
Bureau : Bureau N°1, 21 Avenue de Provence - 84300 Cavaillon
Tél/Fax : 04 90 06 07 46 - 06 89 19 43 14 - Courriel : [email protected]
www.atlas-oiseaux.org...

Siège social : LPO PACA - Rond-point Beauregard - 83400 Hyères
Tél/Fax : 04 94 12 79 52 - 04 94 35 43 28 - paca.lpo.fr...

*****************************************************************************
2004-2007 : Participez à l'Atlas des Oiseaux Nicheurs de PACA
*****************************************************************************

Translation : "Honestly, I wonder if it is not an optical problem. But I can tell you that
this is not a bird".



I'll ask other photographs & biologists specialized in birds & insects...


To be continued...

Europa

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Europa733]

Hi everyone,

Well, French Official UAP (PAN in French) study group (GEIPAN) recently released the case. You can easily find it in their archives, just by clicking on "recherche" then click on the map in the South Eastern most region. Here is the direct link anyway :

www.cnes-geipan.fr...

Let me just remind you that the GEIPAN is a branch of the CNES which is equivalent to NASA in the US. Anyway, here is the most important part of the tiny report that I will translate for you :

"A rigorous study of this case has been conducted by the French Military Police (Gendarmes) and the meteorological phenomena hypothesis has been
excluded but brought to light the fact that an unknown radar trace composed of 1 object "buzzing" on the radar 3 times were recorded by the PSR (primary radar of the Nice Int'l Airport) more or less during the same time the picture was taken. This echo showed an "object" accelerating at an incredible rate.

Another radar echo seems to show that a military aircraft (Mirage 2000)* was "escorted" by another unidentified object."

Well, this is good news, I do not think one second that the French Military and the GEIPAN would have posted this case in their archives, if it would simply be a bird.

I am still working on the bird hypothesis and will keep you uptdated with this story...

* : I know it was a Mirage 2000 because the witness told me that his uncle told him about the fighter jet story. Just remember that the photograph called the Military Police and his uncle in the French Air Force.

Peace,
Europa



[edit on 12-4-2008 by Europa733]

reply to post by Europa733


Wow must have been one hell of a bird! I was actually going to start taking pics of the numerous birds around here at 1/400s to see if I can get a cone shaped blur of my own...since no one else seems to be helping us prove the "bird theory" right either other then saying "yeah it's a bird".....