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.

 

More "Anonymous" Chicago UFO images

page: 9
125
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by zeeon
Again, if ATS mods altered the pictures with photoshop (or ANY Adobe product) you can disregard this.

I added the watermark in Photoshop.

Let me see if I preserved the originals... if not, we may need to wait until Springer emerges tomorrow.


SO, for future reference, you might want to look into Shake. It's cheap these days (well couple of hundred dollars instead of the $10k I paid for my first copy a few years back), runs on a mac, and is fully scriptable from the unix command line so fully automatable.. if you like I can put together some scripts to do these watermarks etc without degrading the image at all, and send them to you..


Can I insert HTML into the post? If so how do I do it? The exif tool I use allows me to output HTML to make viewing the results easier.




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Either way here is the text format of nowthenlookhere's book photo (kindly sent to me through email.)

D:\>exiftool -ALL Image001.jpg
ExifTool Version Number : 6.74
File Name : Image001.jpg
Directory : .
File Size : 141 kB
File Modification Date/Time : 2007:02:08 19:56:42
File Type : JPEG
MIME Type : image/jpeg
JFIF Version : 1.1
Resolution Unit : inches
X Resolution : 0
Y Resolution : 0
Image Width : 1280
Image Height : 1024
Image Size : 1280x1024

And thats it. No APP14 tag or anything else. Looks like a straight up cell phone pic. No editing tags, no FlashPIX or DCT. Looks clean


EDIT - To clarify this was given to me to document further examples of clean cell phone pics. This is just to set a precedent of what simple Camera Phone pics should look like. It doesn't have a lot of EXIF information, but it still shows no signs of tampering.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by zeeon]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
yup.. the modification date/time is new though. I just checked on my phone and i took the photo at 15:21 (uk time) earlier today, the 8th. (dang it's 4 am here now.. i guess I mean yesterday.. i really am going to go to bed!).

thing is though, I bluetoothed it to my computer a few mins after taking it, so I'm not sure when the modification time got added.. maybe when you saved it from my email?



[edit on 8-2-2007 by nowthenlookhere]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Just a quick pause to affirmate all you guys posting in this thread tonight - we have covered a lot of material tonight, and have done it in a very civil, on topic manner. Cheers! WTS points distrtibuted!



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere
yup.. the modification date/time is new though. I just checked on my phone and i took the photo at 15:21 (uk time) earlier today, the 8th. (dang it's 4 am here now.. i guess I mean yesterday.. i really am going to go to bed!).

thing is though, I bluetoothed it to my computer a few mins after taking it, so I'm not sure when the modification time got added.. maybe when you saved it from my email?



[edit on 8-2-2007 by nowthenlookhere]


Yes it would have to be as thats the approximate time I saved it. I think that is whats happening.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Okay, I found where I saved the originals locally... might want to have Springer upload his directly also, just to confirm.

Here it is:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

I see no EXIF data at all, but your tool may have more mojo (doesn't seem to be many heavy-duty EXIF readers for Mac that I can find right off).



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   


Appears clean, but not a lot of tags present. Could this be one of those phones that do not attach any EXIF? Or could someone have stripped all the data out before submitting?


[edit on 8-2-2007 by damajikninja]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Drat
it looks like it.


Probably a phone model that does not include EXIF information.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Okay, I found where I saved the originals locally... might want to have Springer upload his directly also, just to confirm.

Here it is:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

I see no EXIF data at all, but your tool may have more mojo (doesn't seem to be many heavy-duty EXIF readers for Mac that I can find right off).


don't know about heavy duty, but this works well and is free.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
Drat
it looks like it.


Probably a phone model that does not include EXIF information.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Palasheea]

but is that really so bad? I mean if it was edited at all, something would show up here... but we get nothing... i mean it is certainly not proof-positive by any means, but this does add points to the "Plausible" side of the board... looking less and less like a hoax...



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
You're right! It's pretty amazing but now I've to go back and analyze these photo's from the perspective that they are actually authentic photo's of a UFO.
So in this regard, a lot of what Jeff was saying about #4 is right on the mark.
I just thought that these images were too good to be true... but it turns out that they very well could be authentic.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by damajikninja
if it was a blimp, it must have been haulin ass! Like I said, those photos were all taken within seconds of each other... and the "object" traverses a large swath of sky in that time... and it is so small in the field of vision, that if it were a blimp, it would have to be pretty far away, which would only increase the amount of sky it traversed during the sequence of photos. I just don't buy it.


They where taken within seconds of each other? "haulin ass!"

We should be able to estimate how fast it was moving then.


The UFO is almost center in each shot. If it was speeding it may not look "center" in each of the pictures. The UFO says Hello I'm right here in the center, this is something a amateur hoaxer might do.



[edit on 8-2-2007 by XPhiles]



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Maybe it is a blimp! Oh dear God!!




posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles
The UFO is almost center in each shot. If it was speeding it may not look "center" in each of the pictures. The UFO says Hello I'm right here in the center, this is something a amateur hoaxer might do.


I dont believe it's "speeding", but moving at a moderate pace by virtue of cloud movement from shot to shot, which is very evident. I have no idea of date/time, so it's impossible for me to get an average wind reading. If the UO is moving as slow as cloud estimated speed would be (as we've all seen clouds like that move) I dont think it a stretch to think someone could shoot it fairly in center frame.

I'll say it again, these are some of the best shots I've come across in a long time. Really compelling stuff to me. And a sucessive series to boot.

#4...what else can I say. Well besides it sucks and I love it.


If I could have 5 minutes with the photographer..sheesh.

One thing I was thinking about, is that the supposed story is that the person who took these said they felt a static charge in the air. Seeing all these really clear shots ya wonder if the static might have had an effect on the shot itself. Then again if someone is as nervous as I'd be in that situation (honest note: I'd have bolted had it moved even *slightly* in my direction), hand shake might be responsible, or trying to follow it no matter how fast it was moving.

I've been looking at smear direction half the day, and I just cant determine if the smear/blur is going left on stationary objects. That'd mean they were moving the cam as the object moved right. That would add tiny bit to credibility in terms of composition.

Interesting stuff.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Springer, go put yourself on another radio show and tell the nation we want this anonny poster to come chat with us!!!

If we could just figure out date & time, location, and estimated time between each shot... that would be amazing! If anonny is reading this... talk to us! Pwease?



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I was going to say old school saucer but

the two dark or bright circular areas mean the modern and popular

triangle craft.

I can tell by its tell tail ugliness of ether disturbance.


Does any one know what millions of volts can do ?

No. But you are seeing it now in that picture.

Don't forget, its not using jet fuel. Zero point magnetism might
be close but who would think that, not your brave scientists
from NASA. We wait on their word.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 04:46 AM
link   
I just love the fact that we don't just have one shot to mull over we have 4 successive and that's pretty rare. The way they are being researched on this thread has been done in such a constructive teambased way with no pointless backwards forwards bickering (Happening a lot in the last few days on other threads). Let's carry on and see what else we can find out. And finally a BIG hats off to Zeeon for all the research done so far.



[edit on 9/2/07 by October]



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Hey,

Sorry about the false positive - and thanks Skeptic for allowing us to dissesct the original photos


As far as I can tell the ufo photo looks like a standard jpeg compressed image. It has an older JFIF tag (JPEG File Interchange Format) which tells us that the phone is a bit older.

There might be some unusual goings-on in the JPEG DHT segment in the APP0 header - I'm looking more indepth at it with a hex editor.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Jritzmann,

Question. Are you familiar with the process of bit-plane splicing? I'm vaguely familiar with it, and I could probably do it with photoshop but..
*sigh* I'm at work right now and don't have access to it.

The idea being is that if you bit-plane splice all 4 of the images and look for differences in each part around the UFO we might be able to spot irregularities in the photo. I'm especially interested to try this on the 4th photo, because if it hoaxed, it was masterfully done.

I've seen some examples of this technique and it appears to be valid. The entire process is called "Binary Simularities Measure" and, like I said before, looks to be a viable way to detect forgeries (Law Enforcement use it as well as other agencies...including the military believe it or not)

Your skill with actually looking for and messing with images, combined with this technique might be what we as a community can use to start *accurately* filtering out hoaxes and the real deal.

As usual I can provide source information (academic paperwork, a powerpoint presentation on images, and google work with key words like bit-plane splicing, binary simularity measure, forensic image analysis, etc).



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Here we are again, my 3rd post in a row...i'm sorry I just can't give up on this


I don't have a lot of tools at work, but I did manage to use Microsofts Photo Manger thingy along with a trial version of Focus Magic (focusmagic.com).

I enhanced the ufo photo alittle bit and I wanted to see what you photo experts could come up with..

Have fun -





new topics

top topics



 
125
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join