Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy
Originally posted by Palasheea
Just wondering but after the hoaxer photoshoped that image, do think maybe he then took a photo of this image showing on his computer moniter with his
cellphone so that on analysis even in an editor, one would be able to see those surface artifacts typical of photo's taken with low quality cams?
I think the hoaxer even went as far as doing this to make the image look more authentic.
funny idea
at least it shows that some people here have a great imagination.
but anyway...i'll try that on my own and post the results...we'll see...
I'll keep the quotes for context...
I promised to provide some samples for your theory. Here they are (i used the "adobe" picture...so nobody gets confused about the original picture
that has been posted...)
I first must admitt, that i found out, that not all programs leave trails in the picturecode. Ok here we go:
img267.imageshack.us...
i used two different programs...
first step was to take a picture with my cellphone from my monitor showing the "adobe" picture.
next step was to extract the pic from my cell to my HDD.
third step was to open it with a imagetool (i used two to compare the outcome...but only one left a trail) so i'll use the pic from the program
leaving no trail.
the outcome is above.so this theory is not working
but i have to admitt the following:
if you extract a pic from your cellphone you normally see a trail from your cellphone in the code like that:
ÿØÿà JFIF ÿçAMSUNG THUMBNAIL> à0V¨2„2„„„||ò{ò{ó{ó{ó{ó{ósôsÔkókókócôcôcôcôcóc
img262.imageshack.us...
it depends on your cellphone (it also could be "nokia thumbnail" ) (or something else)
so i was wrong on that point and have to admitt (after i did my research): it _could_ be a hoax, because it was obviously edited with a program that
doesn't leave trails (like mine)
[edit on 24-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]