-
- NEW VIEWS:
-
- Comment
-
- From Barry Taylor
stingray@nor.com.au
To: Abductions@aol.com
Subject: 'Alien Choir'
1-25-01
-
-
- Until now, I was willing to accept that you and your
Science team had made an honest mistake in the image analysis, and once
it was pointed out to you that the image is a natural occurrence, you would
admit your mistaken identity and learn from the exercise.
-
- But, after reading your latest follow-up at..... http://www.abduct.com/photos/pn010.htm
It appears that you are "digging yourself deeper into a hole".
It is one thing to admit you are wrong and explain WHERE you went wrong.
It is another much more serious matter when you deliberately manipulate
the evidence in an attempt to 'MOULD' it into your already committed conclusions.
-
- You 'jumped to the Alien Choir conclusion' BEFORE serious
analysis on the image was done and the results tried and tested. Your Science
advisers made a mistake. It is clearly evident in the close image analysis
carried out by other independent Researchers, [including myself] of which
you have taken absolutely NO notice of, that a bright light reflecting
off the white house wall silhouetted by the two trees between the house
and garage roof is actually what is causing the lighting effect you are
claiming to be "Six Aliens" or the "Alien Choir".
-
- You either truly believe in your statements on the analysis
and unwilling to listen to a more rational explanation of the image analysis.
Or, you are unwilling to 'back up' and admit you have made an error of
judgment in your image analysis, and now intend to manipulate the evidence
so as to fit this mould you have already created.
-
- There are many Researchers out there willing and capable
of assisting you with this case. It would be advisable to listen to them,
and test their theories against the evidence. Not all will be right. But
some will be. Just because their findings do not match yours, does not
mean they are wrong and you are right. Test the evidence presented, if
it stands up to scrutiny, than use it to alter your opinion of the image
more toward the truth, not FURTHER from the truth through stubbornness
combined with ignorance.
-
- Power Wires:
-
- Your statement on the pixel scatter around the power
lines is ridiculous. You are saying you have a camera that can photograph
the invisible etherical energy of an alternating electric current surrounding
power lines at a distance of approx. 30feet. Next you will be saying this
camera can photograph the Human Aura.
-
- Digital cameras do not "see" more than a film
camera, they have a much lower resolution, therefore less capable of capturing
detail, especially maintaining detail during enlargement and file compression.
What you see around the power lines, pole, trees and buildings [infact
every detail in the enlargement of the image] is normal digital 'pixel
scatter', not what you are claiming.
-
- Night Comparison Image:
-
- Who are you trying to kid with this comparison image?
The Mercury Vapour street light is a similar brightness to the porch light.
The distance between the street light and porch light when scale and perspective
are taken into account, makes this image taken much further up the road
from where the original night photo of the "Alien Choir" was
taken. The lack of light from this street light indicates manipulation
in an image programme to "darken" the image so as to fit your
argument.
-
- Basically, every statement in your follow-up is carefully
selected so as to back-up your original statement. And anything that may
be directed toward a natural or suggested solution other than what you
claim, is carefully avoided. You even conclude again that this is a genuine
photo of Aliens.
-
- You state that the image warrants further investigation.
Well it is up to you to listen and learn from whoever is willing to assist
you with it. Maybe you are just looking for others that blindly agree with
your conclusions. As far as I [and many others] are concerned, the case
has been solved. More important than the image, is how you continue to
handle this issue.
-
- regards,
-
- Barry Taylor.
-
-
- From: Abductions@aol.com
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:36:28 EST
Subject: Re: Hello
To: stingray@nor.com.au
-
- Hi Barry,
-
- There is an old American / English saying from the 1800's
which applies to your situation as well as mine: You can lead a horse
to water but you can't make him drink! You can send questions, but I am
preparing a brief photo analysis for the web site. Marilyn
-
-
- To: Abductions@aol.com
From: Barry Taylor
-
- Marilyn,
-
- I have just read your update on the so called "Alien
Choir" image. As a follow-up to your message below, after reading
your latest response to enquiries, I say the following................
-
- "Don't try and lead a horse to a sand box, tell
him it is water, than expect him to drink it"!!!!
-
Update...
1-24-02
At http://www.abduct.com/photos/pn010.htm,
where AAER makes its defense of the alien choir/group image, a Dr. John
Geyde states: ""The 'alien choir' photographs should be judged
primarily by whether they are acceptable to "experiencers" (abductees)
as representing what they see when they "experience." Only if
the photos are acceptable, is it worth spending time discussing how they
are produced." What in the world does that mean?? It sounds
like a complete abandonment of all rational scrutiny and inquiry. Sheer
double-speak. It certainly isn't logic in action. If the picture "feels
right" to experiencers then its acceptable? Since when did experiencers
become the litmus for examining UFO/Alien photo evidence? This is not reliable,
rational or dutiful scrutiny. We in the UFO community should be first-foot-forward
before all others to examine evidence with a highly critical eye, otherwise
we send UFOlogy backward some 20 years to the days before rationalists
like Stanton Friedman, Keyhoe and others moved UFOlogy into the realm of
legitimate scientific inquiry and out of the realm of pop-fringe counterculture
"belief" systems held by what the public generally regarded as
"kooks." The question is not whether or not aliens can/have/do/did
congregate on the roof top of a garage in Alabama! The question is, whether
or not the photo is being interpreted correctly, has been tampered with
in some way or is a deliberate hoax. It doesn't impugn the "anonymous"
photographer to be subjected to critical analysis! The day UFOlogy stops
investigating all possibilities is the day UFOlogy becomes a certified
religion unto itself, apart from the taint to scientific inquiry.
-
-
- From Matt Taylor
matt@holomatix.com
1-24-01
-
 Jeff, I noticed on your site
an article pointing to a defense of the 'alien choir' photo (http://www.abduct.com/photos/pn010.htm).
I haven't looked through the whole page, but I couldn't help but notice
a point (point 10) referring to electrical wires, and the 'energy field'
that the digital camera has managed to capture. This effect is no energy
field, rather it is an artifact of the JPEG compression scheme commonly
used to compress digital images. The scheme is designed to represent images
of real-world scenes, which tend not to contain many sudden changes in
colour . The effect seen on the image is a byproduct of the JPEG algorithm's
attempt to represent the electricity wire, and nothing more. I'm not sure
which illustrious doctor was supposed to have made that particular point,
but their PhD was certainly not in image processing.
-
- Regards,
Matt Taylor
Matt,
-
- You are entirely correct.
The AAER site states (along with the picture above):
- "" Question: Why do the
close-ups of the electric wires have wavy lines?
-
- Answer: Because the digital
camera "sees" more than a 35 mm film camera, it is able to record
the energy field around the electric wires and other objects as well. Note
waves of energy which look like alternating bumps on the top and bottom
side of the wires. ""
There is absolutely no reason to conclude that
these electric lines are giving off any special energy to which the digital
camera is sensitive! If such is so, then the following elements of the
daylight photo need equally bold explanations regarding special energies!!
-
-
- Rense.com,
-
- I'm a photographer and I have looked at the alien chorus
photo and the control photo and I find a possible explanation that is neither
computer manipulation or aliens. If you will notice that in the control
photo there is a house some distance from the foreground (possibly) garage.
In between there are some trees. The aliens are supposed to be standing
on the garage roof which overlaps the house side wall in the background.
If you notice there are two vertical black areas in the alien group. Those
are out of focus trees and the hanging branches make the black areas that
form shoulders or areas around the alien heads. A bright secuity light
maybe illuminating the house wall and with the light blurred and out of
focus, with intervening trees, it appears that green body shapes are on
the roof of the garage. The control photo is somewhat to the left of the
night photos perspective. If this was shot on film maybe a filter was used
to make the light more green. If it was digital maybe the white balance
was wrong. The cut and paste artifacts may be from the conversion of the
.jpeg to .bmp. I have seen lines and artifacts build up around objects
in .jpegs that I have made.
-
-
- Sincerely,
-
- Bruce Conner
-
Bruce Conner's suggestion prompted me to make a composite, and sure enough,
there is strong evidence that his idea is correct; it remains that we have
no explanation of the odd light sources in the sky, a no verification of
a security light on that side of the house, or why the pixelization is
so intensely distorted near each of the anomalous objects (which I contend
is extreme compared to normal jpeg compression artifacts), but it appears
Mr. Conner has indeed seen something heretofore overlooked! Several other
eagle-eyed folks out there also submitted this as the explanation for the
"choir",,, thanks to all of them! We need your analysis! - Webmaster
-
-
-
-
-
- UPDATE: HOAX? MISIDENTIFICATION?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001
-
- To the RENSE.COM website. I have been a reader of your
website for about 4 years now and I have to advise you that the photo in
the story you ran today...
-
- Six ETs Photographed On Alabama Garage Roof? http://www.sightings.com/general7/roof.htm
-
- ...unfortunately appears to be a fraud. Checking these
photos out you see bright green glowing figures at night on top of some
sort of structure. Now I realize that you cannot go back in time to this
point to verify it, but using very simple tools it took me 2 and half minutes
to see this photo as a fraud. If you don't have a $500 graphics program
then I will explain how you can see this with only your basic Windows or
Winnt OS as I have done to verify this. First if you go to the peoples
website they block you from saving a copy of the photo and a message pops
up saying that the photo is copyrighted. Yeah right! If you go to your
Temporary Internet Files in your Windows or WINNT directory ( for PC Users
) you will find a file called...pn007.jpg
-
-
- I opened this file in Internet Explorer and saved this
file off as a BMP file by right clicking on it and choosing SAVE PICTURE
AS. Once saved, I open Microsoft Windows PAINT program ( START -> PROGRAMS
-> ACCESSORIES -> PAINT ) then open the BMP file you saved. Go to
EDIT at the top and choose SELECT ALL then goto IMAGE and INVERT COLORS
and you will get this...
-
-
-
-
- Now if you goto VIEW then ZOOM and choose LARGE SIZE
you will get this...
-
-
-
-
- Now what you are looking at is a negative of the websites
picture blown up. If you look carefully at the "ETs" you will
see a nice square pixelation around them that even cuts off part of their
glow. What this means is that the "photographer" digitally pasted
another picture on top of this one. Now that just took me 2 and half minutes
with no special graphics software or filters. I would imagine that someone
with these tools can point out more, but I really don't see the need since
this photo is what it is...a fraud!
Thank you.
Richard.
- ---
After being alerted by Richard, our own analysis reveals precisely the
same cut-n-paste evidence. JPEG compression leaves its own tell-tale marks
as we all know, but rarely such perfectly squared off edges of distortion.
-
-
-
-
-
- Comparison of pixelization in objects in photo
-
-
- More Comments:
- The Sentinel Files "Always Watching the Skies"
The Sentinel Files Home Page
-
- To whom it may concern:
-
- My name is Lynn Taylor. I know the photographer personally,
and I know for a fact that this individual did not hoax this photo. I cannot
say with certainty that the image portrays a group of aliens, but I can
vouch for the photographer's sincereness and honesty.
-
- It is people like you and this self-appointed expert,
Richard (whoever he is), who discourage the public from divulging their
evidence and experiences by way of your inept, arrogant, "shoot from
the hip" approach. What is more, you commit you dastardly deeds in
the name of "protecting the public from charlatans."
-
- Bottom line: I now know, personally, that you don't know
what you're talking about. Therefore, I must reassess everything about
Rense and associates, your motives, competence, sincerity, and honesty,
and the overall content of your Site. You people are not researchers, you
exist as a parasitic entity, living off of the work of others, You thrive
by creating an impression of authority on the subject of UFOs and aliens
by casting slanderous and ill-founded aspersions upon others.
-
- Thank you for showing your true colors.
-
- Regards,
-
- -- Lynn Taylor
-
-
- Lynn,
-
- You are welcome to bad mouth us all you want... but we
present what we feel people will be interested in. We presented the piece
as authentic... then we presented the viewpoint of someone who suspects
tampering and we replicated their results. If the photographer in question
would make an original image available for analysis, and not a compressed
Jpeg, we'd have more to work with. We're only interested in what is real...
and intense scrutiny MUST be applied to EVERY UFO/alien photographic claim.
Otherwise, we all just might as well admit that what we have here is a
religion, and belief, and not a scientific inquiry.
-
- Are you ready to cross that line? I'm not. Just because
YOU personally know the photographer doesn't tell ME a damn thing. Who
are YOU?
- - James Neff
-
-
- And it's people like you, James, who give human beings
a bad name. Further, I intend to make everyone in ufology aware of the
damage you've done to this innocent person, and to the integrety of AAER.
You will be avoided like the plague. That's a promise!
-
- - Lynn Taylor
-
- Reply:
- The Only people you will have any effect on are those
who blindly believe every UFO and alien story and photo that comes down
the pike, and people who don't want rational inquiry and examination of
evidence... and such people are quacks and are not legitimate Ufologists.
You've lost ALL PERSPECTIVE when you object to scrutiny and examination!
How embarassing for you. If my MOTHER said she photographed an alien being,
I'd test it for fraud/tampering and examine it in the light of reason,
open to alternative explanations. It is the only RIGHT thing to do. It
is the only RESPONSIBLE thing to do.
-
I would like to respond to Lynn Taylor's statement. You may post the response
below or forward it to her.
- Thank you.
- Richard.
-
- Lynn,
-
- My name is Richard. I am the one who discovered the pasted
images in the "Alien Chorus" photo. I am writing this in response
to your very passionate posting to the RENSE.COM website. I do not work
for RENSE.COM. I am not a Self-Appointed expert of photo- analysis. I do
not have Ph.D's and MD's in the field of physics, biophysics, biology,
medical, or zoology. What I am just a regular, hard working guy who gets
up at 5:30 every morning, goes to work in Atlanta morning traffic, and
looks forward to the weekend. I work in an office as an IT professional.
I have eight (8) years experience in supporting Computer Users, providing
network administration, and have also designed and administered websites.
I have extensive experience with computer graphics design and the various
file formats and compressions that are used in their creation.
-
- It is slow in the mornings and I like to look through
several news websites to update myself on the current events. RENSE.COM
is one of the sites I regularly check.
-
- I also have a fascination with the unexplainable events
in our world. Even though I would accept the reality of the situation if
UFOs, bigfoot, ghosts, etc. are proven real, that IF depends on them being
proven real. It does not matter how the scrutiny is perceived, the cold,
hard, bottom of the line fact is that any evidence of an unexplained occurrence...ANY...will
be put under a microscope and examined. I want to believe but I will thoroughly
take it apart piece by piece to verify that it is what it is. When I saw
the photo yesterday morning, I noticed that the proportions seemed slightly
off for the size and placement of the "ETs." I used the methods
I detailed in my original posting, and I stand by what I discovered. The
squared off pixelation does not occur naturally. Plus the shade of black
in the squared off pixels was an ENTIRELY different shade of black from
the shades of black in the entire photo. These are clear signs of what
is called the "Copy and Paste" method occurring where you copy
a portion of one image and place (paste) it on top of an other image. I
realize that there are skeptics out there that will use the standard responses
of, " IT WAS A WEATHER BALLOON," or, "IT WAS SWAMP GAS,"
or " ITS A FAKE" when looking at any UFO photo. I am just as
sick if not more of these closed minded people, BUT they do provide a gauge
on how we MUST conduct ourselves.
-
- IF evidence does present itself, such as this "ALIEN
CHORUS" photo for example, we have to scrutinize it just as hard as
the skeptics if not harder. Sooner or later, evidence will be found that
cannot be explained away or refuted. The odds are in our favor. It will
happen. Weither that is 10 days away or 10 years away, we don't know, but
it will happen. Until then, everything has to be put under the microscope.
The one thing that hinders the objective is people who present hoaxes and
fraudulent evidence.
-
- As I have said, I am not an expert of photo- analysis,
but I have worked with, designed, manipulated, and created graphics for
websites and personal photos to know what to look for in a manipulated
digital image, and unfortunately the "ALIEN CHORUS" photo has
VERY VERY clear signs of photo manipulation. If you tried to present this
photo as evidence of an unexplained occurrence to the media, the world,
or a court of law, ANY photo expert ( pro-UFO or ANTI-UFO / doesn't matter
) will see this and would have to admit that the photo has clear signs
of manipulation and would lose ALL credibility as evidence. There is no
personal agenda in this fact, there is no suppression of evidence, no clandestine
conspiracy to eliminate this photo. The photo itself gives the evidence
and nothing can change that. Lynn, I am sorry if you have taken this as
a personal attack on your friend and yourself, but facts are facts. I do
not look kindly on hoaxes and frauds and that spilled out in my words yesterday.
The photo shows signs of manipulation. If there is a negative and it can
be examined and shows something different, then I will reconsider my position,
but I only have that website image and the photographers word that it is
real. The website image does not prove itself to me, and I do not know
the photographer, or you for that matter, so I have no reason to put my
faith in their word. Our evidence is clear. I do not understand how, if
you are such a proponent of being open minded to the unbelievable, you
can be so closed minded to something so obvious. Use the method I detailed
and take the image from that website. You will get the results that we
have gotten. What you do with that evidence is up to you.
Thank you.
Richard.
-
-
- Comment from Robert M. Collins
- Jeff;
I read your headline story: No mention of a hoax: Where are you coming
from ? Marilyn had experts do a detailed analysis and she said there was
no evidence of a hoax...What kind of amateurs are you using ?
-
- THOSE HUMMING ELECTRIC LINES ?
-
- Note Marilyn Ruben's comments below at,
-
- http://home.earthlink.net/~lenozze/reports/alien_choir.htm
-
- Then see a reported Abductees comments at,
-
- http://www.peer-mack.org/PP3.pdf
-
- NOTICE ANY SIMILARITIES ? That humming electric noise
?
-
- Now, remember Tesla's Experiments and the Philadelphia
Experiment and those anomalous effects that were reported ?
-
- Is this reported "hum" a signature of an approaching
"Space-time" rift in the metric or teleportation is just about
to take place ?
-
- Things to think about ?
-
-
- Robert M
-
-
-
- Jeff Rense replied:
-
- Note: two photo analyses of the 'choir' seem to indicate
it is a hoax...pixels don't usually speak with forked tongue. see my headlines
for the story.
-
-
- I don't use amateurs. I don't use plural amateurs, either.
James is handling this entirely. He is a brilliant graphics expert, who
has, over the years, exposed several important UFO hoaxes. We always publish
both sides of a story...some of yours included. We always welcome further
documentation and I hope to get some from Marilyn's organization...she's
a pro. This is reminiscent of the daylight saucer over Mexico City ...which
still remains a question mark. I presented all viewpoints and images back
then, showing how it was a 'hoax' AND also how others showed that it wasn't.
The pixels in those Mexico video grabs showed signs of strangeness, too.
Until we see solid work from the *original* choir photo, and the names
of the 'experts' who have certified authenticity, the jury is out. Jpgs
are controversial to work with at best. If people post them on the net
and state they are real, they sure as hell ought to be able to entertain
some opposing views. That's why there is a question mark on the headline
for this story. In fact, if it were me, I would welcome the controversy
and I would bring out my big gun 'experts' with original print/negative
work and DAZZLE the world. Let's put the evidence on the table and knock
people over. 'He said, she said' doesn't work too well.
-
-
- From: jr@rense.com
-
- To: Robert Collins
-
- of course, but in this case, I say: bullshit. who the
hell gives a tinker's damn if somebody takes a photo of something like
this? what is all this 'fear' business?
-
- the ONLY thing that ought to be protected is the NAME
of the shooter.
-
- 'they' can discredit anything and anyone anytime...they've
been practicing their art for over 60 years.
-
- we don't even have a camera type identification that
I'm aware of. bad news.
-
- until and unless full disclosure happens, this will remain
in Stan's grey basket.
-
- like it or not, the 'secrecy' around this and the 'fear'
of the owner of the photo to say, "Gee, I took this photo with a (such
and such) camera and the conditions I observed were (blah blah)...what
to you people think this might be?" are dooming this photo to endless
tail-chasing.
-
-
-
- Jeff;
-
- the lack of data does NOT equal hoax...Jeff you and I
both know that witnesses are scared and afraid and don't want to come out
in the open
...Rmc
-
-
-
- jr@rense.com wrote:
-
- Jeff;
Bruce C made a nice try but as you notice in James' replication of the
effect the color of the side of the garage roof got changed: Also, I'd
like know except in someone's wild imagination how a combination of tree
branches, trunks etc, etc can produce the fine details of head, eye sockets,
arms, and legs, and a rounded bottom in one of the figures: This whole
effort to "explain" the figures has become a real stretch in
my opinion......Rmc
-
-
-
- Hi Robert,
This is the taste that some, not all, are reporting after reading through
the story. As you know, I always like a good discussion.
-
- This fellow's point is one that should not be a factor...but
it is. We need full disclosure on this, on that I trust we agree. I would
be pleased if this turns out to be a real photograph of visitors.
-
James
1-20-01
RMC wrote: "Also, I'd like know except in someone's wild imagination
how a combination of tree branches, trunks etc, etc can produce the fine
details of head, eye sockets, arms, and legs, and a rounded bottom in one
of the figures" ---
Eye sockets???? From more than 2 blocks away? There's no eye sockets in
that green blur! Arms? Legs? Someone in having serious halucenations! It
is so obvious that we're dealing with a fluke photo someone decided to
palm off as aliens on a roof (ho, ho, ho!).
-
-
- Comment
-
- Hoax Contention Supported By Lack Of Data
-
- From Tom McArdle
|