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.

 

Why is it hard to prove UFO evidence with photos

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I think the folks that don't believe simply don't look ino the compelling cases (canadian roswell, belgium triangles), they just see the hubcap pictures, and say, "see, its all hoaxes"

the folks that have an interest look into the matter more deeply

Its like the OJ Simpson case. Some folks saw a frame-up, others the most obvious murder case in history.

Most people just don't want to have their world view changed, regardless of the topic




posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bash the bishop
I understand some are beginning to do that in "Paranormal" investigations since the orb phenomena and artifacts have increased.


It's almost unavoidable in paranormal photography because of the ease with which digital photos can be manipulated. Analog photos will require less time trying to convince people of their authenticity...especially when the negatives can be provided. Another thing which paranormal photographers and investigators may consider implementing as a utility to support the authenticity of their photographs is voluntary polygraph evidence that they have not manipulated their photographs in any way. This should become a routine procedure in the presentation of paranormal evidence such as photos of ufos, or ghosts, or crypto-creatures, etc. to weed out hoaxers.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Photo's can be manipulated, this is definately true.
But there are ways to detect them.

One of such ways is a new technology coming out called bit plane splicing. Using this, we can tell if if the binary data in an image was pasted on top, altered and generally messed with. It can split an image down into multiple layers using mathematics for analysis.
Image forensics and the military use this technology to verify image veracity and authenticity.

It is true that images can be faked pretty easily. I worked on the La Salle UFO thread and if those images were fake, they were marvelous.
We did our best to verify the source, verify that they were indeed taken by a cell phone, and do our best to determine if the image had been manipulated. It appears to atleast me, that the images were real.

I'm starting a research project soon which will take images submitted to ATS and run them through a bit plane splicer (using MATLAB, a mathematics libary for working with images) automatically and post them to ATS for review. I really believe that while images can be faked, we still have to acknowledge them as potential evidence.

***Shameless plug*** anyone interested in working with me on the Bit plane splicing project send me a U2U and I'll get things organized so we can make this happen



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
Photo's can be manipulated, this is definately true.
But there are ways to detect them.

One of such ways is a new technology coming out called bit plane splicing. Using this, we can tell if if the binary data in an image was pasted on top, altered and generally messed with. It can split an image down into multiple layers using mathematics for analysis.
Image forensics and the military use this technology to verify image veracity and authenticity.

It is true that images can be faked pretty easily. I worked on the La Salle UFO thread and if those images were fake, they were marvelous.
We did our best to verify the source, verify that they were indeed taken by a cell phone, and do our best to determine if the image had been manipulated. It appears to atleast me, that the images were real.

I'm starting a research project soon which will take images submitted to ATS and run them through a bit plane splicer (using MATLAB, a mathematics libary for working with images) automatically and post them to ATS for review. I really believe that while images can be faked, we still have to acknowledge them as potential evidence.

***Shameless plug*** anyone interested in working with me on the Bit plane splicing project send me a U2U and I'll get things organized so we can make this happen




is bit plane splicing technology available to the public? ie: open source?



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by a1ex
is bit plane splicing technology available to the public? ie: open source?


Yep, the mathematics and technology is. There are a number of papers explaining the methodology and mathematics involved in order to accomplish bit plane splicing.

Just google bit plane splicing and binary similarity measure to see some of the research being done on image forensics.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
When it comes to digital capture/storage technology and the proliferation of easily-obtained digital manipulation tools, I think we can agree that digital images must always be suspect. Face it, the digital revolution was the best thing that ever happened for hoaxters.

But reverting to standard SLR camera technology is no answer, either. I was trained in darkroom procedure back in college (in the 70s), and I know that there are a great many photographic effects that can be implemented right there at the time of film processing. For instance, you can try processing your negatives a few degrees above the recommended temperature for some rather psychedelic results. A careful film photographer can double-expose frames, of course, for some super effects. And with today's micro-laser technology, I can imagine all sorts of little tweaks to the negatives while in the darkroom.

Rather, I think what may be needed is a radical bit of camera technology with multiple shutters, exposing as many as 4 frames of film simultaneously, providing a multi-level quadroscopic image when the frames are merged. This sort of dupli-tech would be extremely difficult to manipulate after releasing the shutter, and anybody who could pull it off would have earned his notoriety.

Yes, such a commercially-available quadroscopic monstrosity (the so-called Nimslo 3D Camera) existed at one time, as recently as the Ed Walters sightings. MUFON dropped one of those quadroscopic babies on Ed and invited him to photograph his little friends down there in Gulf Breeze, Florida, at his convenience. And Ed did it, returning multi-frame photos that couldn't possibly have been doctored, and squelching the skeptics' idea that Ed was some sort of darkroom mischief-maker — he actually was taking pictures of something outside of the camera.



It didn't prove, however, exactly what Ed's object was — whether an extraterrestrial spacecraft a mile distant or a paper model hanging from a tree branch in his back yard. But at least the Nimslo moved the research out of the darkroom and into the realm of theatrical staging with physical models. Which was an important bit of elimination.

In spite of the 3D Camera's seemingly foolproof image security, it wasn't a very big commercial success, probably because of the complexities of film processing — I think you had to mail your custom film cartridge back to Nimslo for processing, which could take weeks, and that just wasn't a selling point.

Still, there are some very high-quality dual-shutter 3D cameras on the market to this day.

Modern 3D Cameras

The stereoscopic nature of the images makes it incredibly hard to tamper with the film itself — although not as difficult as the 4-frame exposures of the Nimslo 3D. If you can afford one of these modern 3D set-ups, I'd say you had a fairly foolproof UFO camera. But the problem is putting this sort of tech into the hands of everyday people.


— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/17/2007 by Doc Velocity]



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join