423 replies to this topic

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 04 October 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

What are you talking about?  He said this:

Without the ability to travel to the location and do specific measurements of stationary objects to compare with focal lengths and other triangulation points, I cannot determine the distance of the object. However, it's level of atmospheric haze indicates to me it is of some distance away and of substantial size (perhaps even the legendary 40ft diameter is not out of the question)

What does that mean exactly?

By the way, how different from motion blur is atmospheric haze?

You're hanging your hat on this guy's supposed qualifications without knowing anything about him unless I'm mistaken.  I haven't spent any time looking into him or his qualifications.  I don't really care that much about this picture to bother with such things.  I just find it fascinating that you seem to be jumping all over the 'defense' of this picture when nobody knows what it is.  Are you incapable of understanding what I mean when I say "this is what it looks like to me, but I don't claim to know whether this is actually what it is." ?

Boon, may I ask what you mean here exactly? Are you stating that motion blur and atmospheric haze are very similar and can easily be confused with each other?

Also yes I think many of us go with what the 'expert' has said, to be honest all I have seen to date is people attacking him and not any of his points. Euphorbia keeps asking McG why does he trust him and that he should even prove him 'right' huh? Surely the experts can pick apart his points? that is the way it works isnt it?

One other quick point, If we use both pictures and 'pretend' that what we see is the UFO 30 seconds earlier. Surely some mathematics can be used to calculate approx speed or size??? Of course this is working of the premise that its the same object but it would be interesting.

Boon, I know you said it looks like a bug to you, BUT do you think that is what it is?

[bee]

tipotep, on 05 October 2012 - 05:39 AM, said:

I get this gut feeling that something is wrong with this picture , what you may ask ? I’m not sure but something is telling me that this picture is not right

I get the same feeling...


Setting aside the 'UFO' for a minute.....I was looking to see signs of it being some kind of photoshopped montage...

If you look at the shadow coming from the goat's front right leg (the goat showing it's bottom )....it doesn't look correct...

But I could be splitting (goat's) hairs with that shadow...dunno.

Another thought.....if the pic is genuine....what about the possibility of a drone nipping to or from North Africa ...

Something like this maybe... http://infoseekchina...ting-terrorism/

Or....


.

Edited by bee, 05 October 2012 - 09:05 AM.

[1963]

booNyzarC, on 05 October 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

Offering potential terrestrial explanations doesn't mean that I don't entertain the possibility of something extraterrestrial.  Why would you think that?

By offering potential terrestrial explanations I'm only suggesting something that is more likely, and I'm only suggesting it as a possibility.  How could a terrestrial explanation be less likely than an extraterrestrial one?  Think about that for a moment.

Until everything close to home is ruled out, why jump to something that isn't close to home as the de facto conclusion?

Hi Boony!

I have to say that your comment of..."How could a terrestrial explanation be less likely than an extraterrestrial one? "...is a perfectly valid one. ...Only if used by a person that is not convinced that extraterrestrial visitation is a likely reality! [Because surely to someone that believes in the reality of ETV, if the anomaly has the appearance of 'what is perceived as an ETV', then to that person, an ETV must logically be the primary-impression!]
Lack of tangible proof aside,as you know, we differ in that opinion.And if you are leaning toward 'the bug explanation' for this particular photographic-anomaly, then I have to say that we are of differing opinions on this one too.Because although I do not completely dismiss that option out of hand,..I find it a very unlikely one, for the reasons that I have seen nothing so far to indicate that the photographic-analysis expert over at ATS is 'unreliable', and in his report he makes it clear that he thinks that the object in the picture is of a considerable 'distance' from the photographer, and therefore logically the  'size' of the 'Bug' is not commensurate with any known bug here on earth!
[unless of course , someone can show that the expert's analysis is irrevocably-flawed?]
And also,..as scientifically sound as ever,.. I would like to add the codicil that though I have seen plenty of pictures that contain out of focus birds,insects and bugs etc, that have been touted as exotic-craft....this one is not in that class![call it a gut-feeling if you like]....For me, this anomalous photograph is something entirely different to those ones.
It is my opinion that the options for identifying the object in the photo are , either a 'semi-deflated balloon', in which case, if the analyst's distances are correct, then it must have been 'a whopper'.lol.
...or some kind of 'secret test craft, or experimental Drone'...which begs the question..."why would it be jaunting around the Mediterranean Islands?", and "is the shape of that thing viable for conventional technology?".
And the third option for myself personally,[as a proponent of the ETH] is that the photographer has unwittingly caught a ETV on her holiday snaps !...But by no means do I suggest that this thing [or the other speculations] is a definitive conclusion!...Merely the most exciting possibility!

And then of course...as always in these cases, there is the very-real possibility that the whole thing is a dirty heinous scam!...that has been so expertly executed by the perpetrator that it has completely hoodwinked even the 'expert analyst at ATS!

There may be other options that I have overlooked ,but in my honest opinion, this photograph, ...just like so many others throughout the years, will remain 'up in the air' ,unless a confession of 'fakery' eventually turns up!...Because that is how the extraterrestrial debate between the 'believers' and the 'non-believers works'!

....if it's fake...then it's a good one though!


Cheers buddy.

[Abramelin]

SwampgasBalloonBoy, on 05 October 2012 - 02:46 AM, said:

The bug theory is plausible. At least I can accept some of what skeptics are throwing out there as a possibility. But it seemed that skeptics never, and I mean ever accept that ET is a possibility. Some of you "skeptic" seem to have a singular goal of discrediting everything but refused to accept that it could be anything, including ET origin. Some of you are willing to throw every possibilities out there except ET. The jelly fish theory is not anymore absurd than the swamp gas theory or the planet uranus theory. Yes, uranus or is it venus?

Point is: we know about bugs, we know how they can accidentally show up on photos, and so on. I have worked in an Eastman- Kodak lab for 10 years, and although I was only busy analyzing the chemicals used, I have seen zillions of photos with the most unbelievable images (and how many photographed noses by people who had no idea what was front or back of their camera, you won't believe it, lol). That was before the time of digital cameras, btw.

But all we see here is an 'UNidentified object' in the sky. We don't even know if it was flying..

If you say that it could be an ET spacecraft or something, then I can say it is a very rare and cryptoid kind of silver skinned elephant having severe gas problems.

That's a possibility too, right?

.

Edited by Abramelin, 05 October 2012 - 10:21 AM.

[synchronomy]

bee, on 05 October 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

I get the same feeling...


Setting aside the 'UFO' for a minute.....I was looking to see signs of it being some kind of photoshopped montage...

If you look at the shadow coming from the goat's front right leg (the goat showing it's bottom )....it doesn't look correct...

But I could be splitting (goat's) hairs with that shadow...dunno.

Another thought.....if the pic is genuine....what about the possibility of a drone nipping to or from North Africa ...

Something like this maybe... http://infoseekchina...ting-terrorism/

Or....


.

Would a drone be at a much higher altitude?  It would be a strange drone in that shape.
Here's and enlargement of the goat's leg shadow.  It does look strange, but I think it's because there's a depression in the road there that the shadow disappears into.
I still think the photo and everything in it are real, but identifying the "UFO" is impossible.

[thewonderman]

booNyzarC, on 05 October 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

The clarity of the photographer herself in the mirror and everything else in the foreground makes the argument about things close to the camera being invisible moot.  Surely anyone can recognize this?

The fact that the object in question is out of focus could equate to it being distant and relatively stationary (which begs the question of why the photographer and the driver didn't notice it) or to it being relatively small, close by, and in motion (which could explain why it wasn't noticed, as most bugs go).

How many bugs go unnoticed when you're looking at something else?  Who can know for sure when such things go largely unnoticed?

How many (purportedly) 40 foot wide hovering alien piloted vehicles go unnoticed in the same circumstances?  If there was an object that large and you were looking at goats within a 30 to 60 degree angle, do you think your peripheral vision just might pick it up?  Would you need to see a photograph after the fact to recognize it had been there?

Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but this whole line of argument seems counter-intuitive to me.  I glance at the slightest of discrepancies when I see them with my peripheral vision.  Don't we all?  If an object of that size were hovering in front of you, don't you think you'd at least notice it?

What about if it was going so fast that it could not be seen with the human eye as clear as one frame shot on a photo, it's nowhere to be seen on any of the other pictures so that could exlain it.

[TheMacGuffin]

My one last thought about this is that just judging by the evident distance from the camera, that would have to be one very big bug.

[TheMacGuffin]

quillius, on 05 October 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

Also yes I think many of us go with what the 'expert' has said, to be honest all I have seen to date is people attacking him and not any of his points. Euphorbia keeps asking McG why does he trust him and that he should even prove him 'right' huh? Surely the experts can pick apart his points? that is the way it works isnt it?

Boon, I know you said it looks like a bug to you, BUT do you think that is what it is?

Since I am definitely not an expert on photography, I can't prove or disprove what the real expert are saying, only judge by their conclusions, and I have yet to see any posting information that would refute his rather lengthy conclusions.

By the way, how did you get banned, Quillus?  You were always among the nicest and most gentlemanly of posters, praised by all for your mildness and even-handedness.

Of course, most things are never really as they seem.

[quillius]

TheMacGuffin, on 05 October 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Since I am definitely not an expert on photography, I can't prove or disprove what the real expert are saying, only judge by their conclusions, and I have yet to see any posting information that would refute his rather lengthy conclusions.

By the way, how did you get banned, Quillus?  You were always among the nicest and most gentlemanly of posters, praised by all for your mildness and even-handedness.

Of course, most things are never really as they seem.

Hey McG,

I too know very little about photography and agree we just have to use our judgement where we can. My point is that surely the so called experts like 'Euphorbia' should be able to pick apart the analysis rather than try and attack with the flaky 'how can you trust this guy' ?? makes no sense, its not about trust....he states x y and z.....so prove those claims/analysis inaccurate.

oops forgot I had changed my title to 'banned' ...I was never banned just messing around...

I do try and fly straight McG and I am a reasonable person, I appreciate your kind words....

and no my friend things are not always as they seem......my 'paranoia' helps me combat any suprises

[bison]

Have looked over Jeff Ritzmann's analysis of the photograph. He remarks that the object has an appearance, consistent with that caused by atmospheric absorption of light over a relatively large distance. This apparently affects the brightness of the object. This seems to be readily distinguishable from the blurring of an image caused by motion of camera or object, or atmospheric refraction. He noted no blurring of this sort. He evidently found the object to be as sharp in the image as it should have been at an optically 'infinite' distance, given the the obvious near in focus of the camera.

[Euphorbia]

quillius, on 05 October 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Hey McG,

I too know very little about photography and agree we just have to use our judgement where we can. My point is that surely the so called experts like 'Euphorbia' should be able to pick apart the analysis rather than try and attack with the flaky 'how can you trust this guy' ?? makes no sense, its not about trust....he states x y and z.....so prove those claims/analysis inaccurate.

oops forgot I had changed my title to 'banned' ...I was never banned just messing around...

I do try and fly straight McG and I am a reasonable person, I appreciate your kind words....

and no my friend things are not always as they seem......my 'paranoia' helps me combat any suprises

Hey quillius, I've never claimed to be an "expert" in photography or in forensic photography. I'm just a guy with 23 years experience in photography and 4 years of schooling in it. I will say that my schooling dealt mostly with learning to use a camera, processing negatives, and making prints, not the art of manipulating digital images. I switched over to digital 11 years ago and have to say that although the basics of using the two types of photography are the same, there are many differences between the two.

I'm not a forensic photographer and the point I've been trying to make all along is that several points in this story are not proven factual! How do we know for sure who took the picture?... and whether they did send it to ATS? We don't know for sure that this wasn't staged somehow. How do we know what the qualifications of the guy at ATS are? Is he a forensic photographer, or are we just getting a layman's opinion? If he is the former and can prove it, then I would take what he says more seriously. If he is the latter, then it's just another persons opinion.

The fact that people read some story with a cool UFO shot with it and believe everything that the guy at ATS says, baffles me. Do people really believe everything they read on the internet? Is it not OK to question things until we are satisfied that what is being claimed is actually true? I would bet that there are more lies and half truths on the internet than there are facts. And then there's people's opinions.......going in every which direction.

All we have is a digital image (.jpg instead of a raw file), a guy at ATS with unknown qualifications, and EXIF data that may or may not of been tampered with. Yes, something is in the picture......something that we have zero facts on as to what it is.

Conjecture and speculation get us no closer to the truth.......I guess I'm just a die hard skeptic........

[bison]

Jeff Ritzmann, who did the photo analysis for ATS, is described as a digital imaging professional. In his report, he seems conversant in language and concepts that appear consistent with such a profession. He remarks that he has examined many images of supposed UFOs over many years, and has found most of them to be hoaxes, or misinterpreted prosaic objects. This seems to indicate a professional, reasonably objective attitude.

Edited by bison, 05 October 2012 - 06:55 PM.

[Euphorbia]

bison, on 05 October 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

Jeff Ritzmann, who did the photo analysis for ATS, is described as a digital imaging professional. In his report, he seems conversant in language and concepts that appear consistent with such a profession. He remarks that he has examined many images of supposed UFOs over many years, and has found most of them to be hoaxes, or misinterpreted prosaic objects. This seems to indicate a professional, reasonably objective attitude.

How about this:

The Photo "Analysis"

Jeff Ritzmann, as talented and skilled as he is, isn't much of a 'name' though. However, he has a personal friend who IS a name in the industry, David Biedny.

Jeff and David quickly became the "be all and end all" of photo analysis, when it came to The Picture.
Any contrary opinions of the validity of The Picture were played down by the management of ATS, no matter how talented, skilled or well known the individual making the contrary opinion was. Jeff and David were IT.

ALL Jeff and David had to do to 'keep the story going' was to repeatedly state: 'we can't prove that The Picture is a fake'

That's an incredibly SAFE statement to make, even if the picture is 100% falsified. ("Oh, it IS fake? Well, what do you know, learn something knew everyday. At least we tried")

During the two weeks following the arrival of The Picture, Bill and Mark played down the opinions of other photoshop users (and at least one specialist, ATS member "photochopz"), and also came down hard on any ATS member who made comparisons between the O'Hare story and SERPO. At the same time, Jeff and David continued saying things like "we can't prove that it is a fake, here are reasons why we think it Might be genuine". While all of this was going on, the O'Hare thread on ATS grew by 68 pages, and only Bill and Mark know how many page views they received.

Shortly after this, The Above Network receives funding from private investors and becomes an LLC.

http://www.realityun...es/atsohare.php

Although this is a different picture they are talking about in the above article, it doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about him. Of course, this is another website's point of view and that's the point......how do you separate fact from fiction?

[1963]

Euphorbia, on 05 October 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

How about this:

The Photo "Analysis"

Jeff Ritzmann, as talented and skilled as he is, isn't much of a 'name' though. However, he has a personal friend who IS a name in the industry, David Biedny.

Jeff and David quickly became the "be all and end all" of photo analysis, when it came to The Picture.
Any contrary opinions of the validity of The Picture were played down by the management of ATS, no matter how talented, skilled or well known the individual making the contrary opinion was. Jeff and David were IT.

ALL Jeff and David had to do to 'keep the story going' was to repeatedly state: 'we can't prove that The Picture is a fake'

That's an incredibly SAFE statement to make, even if the picture is 100% falsified. ("Oh, it IS fake? Well, what do you know, learn something knew everyday. At least we tried")

During the two weeks following the arrival of The Picture, Bill and Mark played down the opinions of other photoshop users (and at least one specialist, ATS member "photochopz"), and also came down hard on any ATS member who made comparisons between the O'Hare story and SERPO. At the same time, Jeff and David continued saying things like "we can't prove that it is a fake, here are reasons why we think it Might be genuine". While all of this was going on, the O'Hare thread on ATS grew by 68 pages, and only Bill and Mark know how many page views they received.

Shortly after this, The Above Network receives funding from private investors and becomes an LLC.

http://www.realityun...es/atsohare.php

Although this is a different picture they are talking about in the above article, it doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about him. Of course, this is another website's point of view and that's the point......how do you separate fact from fiction?

Hi Euphorbia!

Well...i'm not really quite sure what to believe now buddy! lol.
My initial thoughts on your excellent research are that on one hand, the guy who is responsible for that quite convincing ATS ethics-damnation article, 'Torbjon Jensen', appears to be shooting from the hip, and has me very much wondering if this whole thing could just be an elaborate scam, dreamt up by publicity-minded site owners to improve the 'perceived importance' of their site!?

And on the other hand, there is a sceptical cord that keeps on pulling to remind me that this guy has been [by his own admission] 'Banned' by the very site that he is casting aspersions upon!
Is it too cynical to muse whether this article...'Could this just be sour grapes?'
Sounds too convincing for that though ...doesn't it?

Anyway, I think that I will leave it at that... for now at least!...and await some input from our own Lost_Shaman whom I believe is in an infinitely better position to judge just what the hell is going on with this case, as he is undoubtedly familiar with both Jeff Ritzmann, and Torbjon Jensen from his time at ATS, and due to the fact that he too was a founding member of 'Fair Skeptics,Above TopSecret.com. !

http://www.realityun...ab5c94d69c5b7d3


...for a nice little story of a great UFO photo,...this circus hasn't half gotten complicated and muddy!!


Cheers.

[Harlequin Dreamer]

JeffRobinson, on 02 October 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

At some point during this half hour drive a hurt of goats were on the road,

Nice picture but I hope you didn't drive for another half hour to hurt more goats. lol