Plausible *and* probable, imo.

When using a camera from such an awkward position, the photog is almost certainly going to settle into a position that is most comfortable for them so the camera's position in 3D space will be almost identical for every shot. However, the camera can be very easily tilted *while still at that same location*, so that it's 'yaw' (left right angle), 'roll' (ie tilt of horizon) and 'pitch' (vertical position of horizon) vary. A small change in any of those angles of the camera, or the vehicle's angle, will result in a quite large change of the *outside* scene. You would need to consider the photog's/car's exact positions, their physiology and even their photographic habits to determine what might be the most likely of those three (pitch/roll/yaw) to vary.

In my early photography I was pretty slack when it came to ensuring level horizons, and I still occasionally miss, especially if the image is just a casual snapshot...

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
Have you determined the difference in the angle of the horizon between 3136 and 3137?
...
I'm still bothered by the position of the land in the background being almost identically located in 3136, 3137 and the ( IDK the number) "Afternoon" shot. Not only does it seem to close to perfect to be just a coincedence but the tip of that land appears to line up vertically with the UO.

I'm asking you these questions because I respect and value your opinion.

Compliment greatly appreciated - and I shall take a much closer look and get back to you. Xmas activities are currently allowing me a short breathing space, but who knows what will next transpire!

I agree with all of the above, I think.

I do know that it's a pretty crappy picture for a professional photographer, all that car and not much goat, and she seems to be holding the instrument of her profession like a builder handling a brick.

Next.

I might be incredible late to this party,but, right in the first lines of Ritzmann's Report, the Analsys from Mr. Allin, the stuff on LAB colors, respectfully, is BOGUS...

Nobody pretending to do any kind of serious investigation is going to fiddle around in LAB.
LAB is a bunch of tables of numbers mapping a (somewhat) machine independend colour space,
on TOP of LAB is your profiles, color management, RGB, CYMKY, HLS,
unless your in the print business or alike you shouldn't have to deal with LAB.
Machines live in LAB, photographers live in RGB.

My 2c...

I don't know what this is anymore than most of you i don't think it was faked and their has been alot of suggestions as to what it might be no here really knows for sure but it has been fun reading all the comment's and looking at a daylight UFO is rare enough.

I just want to say that I think, Jeff analyses of the photograph was a really good one, I just wanted to bring something that maybe he didn't see and would bring another aspect to the study of this picture. (see my other post to know what I'm talking about). And I think that most of you guys are the same. I don't think it's fare to say that the way he did his analyses is not the right way. I never worked myself with the Lab Colors mode but I won't dismiss it has a bad tool. If your used to it why not. Here is some excerpt from wikipidia.

"Unlike the RGB and CMYK color models, Lab color is designed to approximate human vision. It aspires to perceptual uniformity, and its L component closely matches human perception of lightness, although it doesn't take the Helmholtz–Kohlrausch effect into account. It can thus be used to make accurate color balance corrections by modifying output curves in the a and b components, or to adjust the lightness contrast using the L component. In RGB or CMYK spaces, which model the output of physical devices rather than human visual perception, these transformations can only be done with the help of appropriate blend modes in the editing application.
Because Lab space is much larger than the gamut of computer displays, printers, or even human vision, a bitmap image represented as Lab requires more data per pixel to obtain the same precision as an RGB or CMYK bitmap. In the 1990s, when computer hardware and software was mostly limited to storing and manipulating 8 bit/channel bitmaps, converting an RGB image to Lab and back was a lossy operation. With 16 bit/channel support now common, this is no longer such a problem."

It looks good to me, I think it should be the new way to work with all the HDR images on the market now.

Please lets us work together on this, nobody is better then the other, just maybe more experience and that's all. Even with all the experience in the world you will miss something, trust me I know. I'm just saying that together we have more chance to solve this.