Anon photo posts

May I ask why we spend so much time examining images which have been cropped, compressed and contain no exif data.

If the person posting claims to be the source of the image, there can be little or no excuse for not supplying the original intact fullsize image including exif data.

I have submitted images into competitions across the net and if the exif data is not intact it is assumed that the image has been doctored in some way and therefore does not qualify.

So why do we give so much time to such speculative posts?

In my humble opinion, even the presence of exif data does not prove the picture to not be doctored.

It is entirely possible to take a picture of another picture, or even a computer monitor, and the resulting image (from a camera) will have exif data present.

But the picture that was the SUBJECT of the picture could very well be digitally manipulated, and whether exif data is present or not in the "submitted" photo would be entirely moot in this scenario.


2 cents

That is the very nature of ATS.

To deny ignorance.

In order to do this we examine, discuss and hopefully arrive at a conclusion.

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
It is entirely possible to take a picture of another picture, or even a computer monitor, and the resulting image (from a camera) will have exif data present.

I tend to believe that an image taken in such conditions would loan itself to the truth through close examination and once again, through the exif data.

It is all to easy to fake these days, and a situation such as O'Hare is bound to be abused, as seen in threads already debunked.

I would say that before we pass imagery onto the likes of professionals for analysis it must meet a strict criteria.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Koka]

There's a little problem with taking photos of an image displayed on a computer monitor (CRT or plasma or whatever). Although the image on the computer may appear normal to your eyes, it is actually a hotter image than a mere reflected light photograph — meaning that even the apparently dark areas of your screen are radiating light, rather than absorbing it. Because of this back-lighting, the resulting "photo of a photo" will come out much brighter than you want it. Infuriatingly so.

If you have the patience and resources to print out a super-hi-rez version of the photo, you can set up a reflected-light stage and then make a much more controlled reproduction of it with your digital camera (taking care, of course, to reset the camera's date and time to match that of your bogus sighting).

Even at that, your overall light intensities may be uniformly muted — flat, in other words —and an experienced photographer/debunker may spot such tell-tale flattening in your photo-of-a-photo.

BTW, I'm not a photo hoaxer. I used to run process camera for a newspaper many moons ago.

— Doc Velocity

hey Doc, your points are noted. But the majority of ufo pics are usually out of focus, and under bad lighting conditions anyway, so I think it would be conceivable for some hoaxter to attempt to pass of such imagery.

actually from a CRT, there would be scan lines present as well, not sure from a LCD display.

anyway, i was just throwing my thoughts out there...

Thanks Doc V this is the sort of thing I was pointing toward.

I really do believe ATS needs to put in place a criteria for those submitting alleged UFO images.

Originally posted by sanctum
That is the very nature of ATS.

To deny ignorance.

In order to do this we examine, discuss and hopefully arrive at a conclusion.

I'm not sure of your point Sanctum.

Alot of the discussion, examination and therefore conclusions is a waste of time, when it is clear from the start that those that are submitting are holding back original images as they, either don't exist or have been manipulated.

If someone claims to have taken a photo (digitally) there is no excuse, so why do we entertain?

Originally posted by Koka
I really do believe ATS needs to put in place a criteria for those submitting alleged UFO images.

This is exactly why we now have the camera phone submission process. By retaining (in strict confidence) the email header, we can establish a chain of evidence from the cell phone to our server. While many cell phone images may not be of the most desireable quality, I think there is excellent potential for a high degree of credibility using this method.

However, you should be aware that many camera phones (because of Internet sharing) have little or no EXIF data.

Also, it is possible to create, modify, or retain EXIF data when creating or modifying images... so this isn't a reliable standard anymore either... in fact, some conspiracy-minded people might say that perfect EXIF data is too good.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Also, it is possible to create, modify, or retain EXIF data when creating or modifying images... so this isn't a reliable standard anymore either... in fact, some conspiracy-minded people might say that perfect EXIF data is too good.

Paranoia is sure to creep in, but you deal with the information provided and in my mind some exif data is far superior to no exif data, and images submitted so should be dealt with in the fashion they deserve.

This also goes to show another point which I'd like to make.

There are 2 logical conclusions that will result in the examination of images and neither would result in damning evidence.

Debunked/hoax
and
Inconclusive/Unknown

All too many people are willing to accept the "inconclusive/Unknown" category as evidence, this is where the UFO community falls down and is too often made a mockery of.

At best those images submitted with suspicious exif data would attain only the category of "inconclusive/Unknown".