And the person who originally analyzed these pictures had 26 years of experience:
http://www.abovetops...hread886584/pg1
Some items I would like to highlight in examining this photo which are extremely interesting:
a) "SHOOTER" has been nothing but forthright and accommodating in providing every piece of data I requested. She has not made any suspicious excuses, nor has she concealed one very interesting aspect of her life: she is a professional, and very artistic photographer. Her work is shown in prominent upscale galleries and she seems to be very well seated in her long standing professional career. She has nothing to gain and everything to lose by presenting a UFO photo for public view. She made no hesitation to ask me how I could figure out that she had not "photoshopped" this UFO into the picture, nor that she was versed in computer image editing. She made the comment to me that she didn't think anyone would believe her based upon what she does for her livelihood. That an evidence provider would make such statements is not the hallmark of a hoaxer, but one of someone being extremely forthright in genuine curiosity about what she captured on media.
The photo exhibits:
-atmospheric distance haze consistent with the rest of the photo which indicates an object of some distance from the shooter
-channel specific data relating to the UO - one cannot overemphasize this point
-appropriate lighting, and shadows consistent with the rest of the photo
-accurate focus in relation to stationary objects
-clean and unfettered EXIF data, and files obtained directly from the camera
-correct pixelation across the image
c)The horizon is out of level with the UO and camera, which match. Ordinarily this is one of the evident issues with a photographic hoax. Rarely does the garden variety hoaxer take the time to make sure his objects are level with the photo's horizon orientation. Composition is not on his/her mind, composite quality is. However in this case we have data that shows the object is very likely not a composite photo, nor a typical hoax. Channel specific data as shown in this case, would be far too much to ascribe to an easy composite hoax, nor a 3d modeling re-render with UO elements added. It would also be near impossible to do effectively and have channel specific data as subtle and unseen as this. This is far and away past what someone would go through to fake a simple photo in my opinion.
Examples of assumed natural or misidentification explanations for the UO and reasons for dismissal:
1) Water or other debris on the lens / lens chip or fracture
- photo taken just seconds before shows no debris of any kind, nor do any of the subsequent photos after
-water droplet would not show correct alignment of the sun's highlight per a 3 dimensional external object
-object is in consistent focus w/ the rest of the shot
2) Camera defect
-No defects in any other photos, no evidence of aberrations in the image caused by bad write to chip or typical known glitch.
3) Physical object blowing in wind
-Object would have to be of extremely significant size
-Object displays symmetry, and structure not consistent with random blowing debris
-Witness relayed that this was an amazingly remote area, which involved lengthy drive on non-paved roads. Populace ratio to trash seems unlikely.
-absolutely no discernible movement blur whatsoever.
4) Weather Phenomena
-Object in photo is not attributable to any known weather anomaly.
5) Planetary body
-Daylight photo
6) Thrown object (hoax)
-Object again shows symmetry, and clarity which would be unlikely with a small thrown object
-Object displays distance hazing inconsistent with a small object in close proximity.
-Focus of object not consistent with small thrown object
7) Digital Composite (hoax)
-Object shows channel specific data not visible in the combined channel, or "normal" viewing mode. Such data is more visible in LAB color mode in the A channel with simple "auto level adjust" operation in photoshop.
-No evidence of composite edge, or poor alpha channel mask.
-Pixels of image seem consistent throughout.
8) Aviary Explanation
-Object does not resemble a bird in any way whatsoever
-While birds can appear to have highlights, they do not reflect the light per this object, nor have reflective properties
I cannot identify or explain the UO in the photo. Of importance to mention is that I am not familiar with every sort of high level and undoubtedly secretive aerial projects employed by any government, military, or private contractor and therefore cannot rule this out. I do find it unlikely, for the horizon alignment issue alone.
Edited by TheMacGuffin, 04 October 2012 - 05:32 PM.
4
Euphorbia, on 04 October 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:
