It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is this thing in the sky?

page: 8
56
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

You know that was literally next to an AF base right? (The video)

Edit: what was the model of the phone?
edit on 11-1-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: elevenaugust

Hi elevenaugust

RE your post in that other thread.

originally posted by: elevenaugust
I think I was very clear in the related thread in my post here. Your photo may be genuine, but I'm afraid this is not an original, especially because it missed some EXIF data, like for example the camera model name.

Please, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying in any way your photo is faked, I'm saying that any serious analysis should be done only on original unmodified photo, that you haven't provided yet unfortunately.



Exif data.
Its already being argued within this thread that I have altered it!
With the exception of my deletion of the camera model; can you show whether I have altered the exif data?
I would appreciate it if you could answer that question.
I ask it because you have an identical copy of the original photo (exif stripped out), and you also have the exif data (minus camera model), therefore you have the full original photo with just the camera model missing.

With only the camera model missing you have the full set of data, so why is the camera model so important?

The photo I am offering is within this thread, and I feel the original should not be needed to determine whether the photo I have posted has been altered. If I am wrong then please state what you can get from the original that you cannot get from the posted photo. You have the image data and you have the exif. That ought to be enough to determine whether the photo I have posted has been messed with.

I greatly appreciate your offer of non disclosure, and I'd love to supply you with the original, but my golden rule on the internet is never to post personal data, even if its just a phone/camera model.



(post by raymundoko removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: EndOfDays77
I don't think so..troll much?a reply to: raymundoko


Finaly someone can see it!


Its not a fake, and I've made no claims of aliens or anything similar, just took a snap of something I saw in the sky and hoped others might post if they've seen something similar. It does make one wonder why they so desperately want to convince people its fake.

Since Charizard posted the vid about the illinois police departments also seeing an almost identical craft, its made me consider the Belgium triangle events (also seen by police), they took place less than 100 miles from where I saw this craft!



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: EndOfDays77
I don't think so..troll much?a reply to: raymundoko



Says the man that every object is a ufo first even when it's obvious it's not, like the fireworks drone video.

In this case he/she is right!!!



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Chinese lamps maybe



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

edit on 13-1-2015 by N50ulr because: unable to link external photo



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Attention:

The topic is never each other, please stick to the topic. Personal attacks will not be allowed and if you have an issue with someones post, alert staff to it.

Do not reply to this post.

Blaine91555
Forum Mod

edit on 1/13/2015 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: N50ulr

This? imagizer.imageshack.us...

Not sure what it shows but I can at least link it for you.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

You're just going in circles, that has already been answered for you.



posted on Jan, 13 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

I've never said it was fake, I said I think you know exactly what you got a picture of.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: elevenaugust

Hi elevenaugust

RE your post in that other thread.

originally posted by: elevenaugust
I think I was very clear in the related thread in my post here. Your photo may be genuine, but I'm afraid this is not an original, especially because it missed some EXIF data, like for example the camera model name.

Please, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying in any way your photo is faked, I'm saying that any serious analysis should be done only on original unmodified photo, that you haven't provided yet unfortunately.



Exif data.
Its already being argued within this thread that I have altered it!
With the exception of my deletion of the camera model; can you show whether I have altered the exif data?
I would appreciate it if you could answer that question.
I ask it because you have an identical copy of the original photo (exif stripped out), and you also have the exif data (minus camera model), therefore you have the full original photo with just the camera model missing.

With only the camera model missing you have the full set of data, so why is the camera model so important?

The photo I am offering is within this thread, and I feel the original should not be needed to determine whether the photo I have posted has been altered. If I am wrong then please state what you can get from the original that you cannot get from the posted photo. You have the image data and you have the exif. That ought to be enough to determine whether the photo I have posted has been messed with.

I greatly appreciate your offer of non disclosure, and I'd love to supply you with the original, but my golden rule on the internet is never to post personal data, even if its just a phone/camera model.


My golden rule is not to seriously work on any photo that have altered metadata.

The camera model name is important to validate the authentication part of the analysis methodology. Without it, there's no way to proceed with this analysis part. In details this could be, for the authentication part:
- Check of the possible photo size/resolution depends of the camera model vs size/resolution of the given photo, in order to check genuine ratio and if it wasn't cropped, for example.
- Determination of the order and value of technical metadata, to check if they match with other photos taken with the same camera.
- Checking presence/absence of some (hidden or not) metadata that could show the use of any software.

Once again, this verification if not in any way to accuse you of falsification, this is the required part of the analysis process. More over I really don't see the point to hide the camera model name since there absolutely no possibility for anyone to find the camera owner with this data.

With the full original photo, I could as well check:
- Presence/absence of thumbnail.
- Determination of the flash range, to check if the object cannot be a small one lightened by the flash.
and lots of other useful things...

I checked again the 'original' photo you provided in your post here:


originally posted by: VoidHawk
Heres the original...


Checking the metadata of this photo with EXIFTool gives me this:



This is absolutely impossible for any original authentic photo to only have this metadata set. It miss all the technical metadata (shutter speed, focal length, ISO, etc...) all the color space profile, there are APP14 tags that cannot be in the original, and NO WAY any original photo can give such a poor set of associated metadata.

So, sorry to say, but no, something has been done on this photo that removed all the EXIF tags and that added some other tags such as JPEG/JFIF and JPEG/Adobe markers (IPACO data remote check in the authentication module):



Anyway, I see that unfortunately, you stick to your position in spite of all my honest propositions and explanations that there's absolutely zero risk for you to privately provide the 'real original' for a full analysis, so I guess that it will stay as it, i-e a non workable photo lacking data. ("C" class for the French GEIPAN classification).
edit on 14-1-2015 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: VoidHawk

I've never said it was fake, I said I think you know exactly what you got a picture of.


You wrote a post aimed directly at me and said "Your a hoaxer"
I think thats calling it fake!

You've said what you have to say, so why continue? Unless you have something of relevance to add please stop posting!



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: elevenaugust

You just wrote


This is absolutely impossible for any original authentic photo to only have this metadata set.


I find it strange you should make such a statement!
Any reader coming through this thread will know that you are already aware that I saved the photo via photoshop for the sole purpose of removing the exif data.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Paperjacket
Chinese lamps maybe


Hi Paperjacket
Did you read all the op? I did state that I saw this craft with my own eyes!
It most certainly is not chinese lamps.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

A photo doesn't have to be fake to perpetuate a hoax.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk
I don't believe its alien, and I don't think its military because I don't get why they would fly this thing so visibly, so I'm more inclined to think its some elites own personal high tech transport!?


Yeah man, it's obviously some illuminati guys stopping to hit up the late night Taco Bell drive thru.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk
a reply to: elevenaugust

You just wrote


This is absolutely impossible for any original authentic photo to only have this metadata set.


I find it strange you should make such a statement!
Any reader coming through this thread will know that you are already aware that I saved the photo via photoshop for the sole purpose of removing the exif data.


Thank you for these precisions about the Photoshop use.

Unfortunately, in the general sense, there's no way to discern whether the manipulations under PS are done for the sole purpose of genuinely improving any photo (contrast, removing 'private' metadata, etc...) or for image manipulations, as both let the same metadata traces. That's why we consider that the use of PS, in any case, is a strong sign of fraud and we reject all the documents that exhibit PS tags or that lack metadata.

In your case, we can only rely on your truthfulness. As a person, I'd really love to do so, but as an analyst, it's impossible.

Anyway, I find a bit odd (and up to now I never met this situation in all the photos/videos analysis I've done) that you refuse, even privately, even with a non-disclosure signed agreement from me with my full name, address, credentials, etc..., even if I can certify you that there's NO WAY with the sole camera model name to find the camera owner, to release the full unedited image to fully authenticate it and continue the analysis.

This is a new and interesting situation but it does not change our (IPACO) scientific methodology and process that always begin with an examination of the image under authentication process.

So, in that strict sense, any further examination and statement about the nature of what can be seen in the photo is completely useless.

This should also be the same for all the YT videos (Among all of these, I really can't remember only one where the Youtuber offers for examination the full original unedited video...) and most of the 'UFO' pictures that can be seen here and elsewhere. The determination, qualification and quantification of any UFO/UAP that appears on documents can not definitely be done if these documents failed to pass step 1, i-e the authentication process. (and it's very easy to understand why: if we do not apply this methodology, then the 'UFO' can be anything, from an artificial object added under PS to a real genuine unidentified object via a black witch on a broomstick with some lights on... and any further speculation is completely useless).

I'm very sorry to say that, but at the light of all my previous explanations over the last pages of this thread, your photo failed to pass step 1. It's a pity, but I understand and respect the decision not to release the original, that of course completely belongs to you.
edit on 17-1-2015 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
56
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join