Photoshop is a curse to UFOLOGY.

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There was no shortage of UFO pictures before the advent of digital photography and Photoshop.



And "photoshopped" wasn't an easy quip for skeptics either.. That is the only explanation skeptics have for anything anymore.. "I don't believe in it, therefore PHOTOSHOPPED."
Really, it's a pain in the ass for anyone who has an interest in administering the truth.

[edit on 25-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]




posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
too bad we couldn`t just take all ufo photo scammers and have them
targeted for instant termination. we could take the government
future thought crime bill and use it for something constructive...
ok you know i`m just kidding......but ya ....fake pics just kill the whole
thing.....I don`t even look at new ufo pics or vids anymore...
why bother huh?

[edit on 25-12-2007 by Maya432]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Maya432
 


Maya, that certainly is the otherside of the coin, yes.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Why is everybody discussing ufo movies and pictures when there is so much more credible proof.

Photoshop happens to be a very cool app, It's not photoshops fault there are morons who think they can make the ufo field look bad. Screw those guys.

We have... infobombs!!! Our saviour at all times.

It takes a little more patience to study but it's really worth it.

www.freedomofinfo.org...
www.freedomofinfo.org...
www.freedomofinfo.org...
www.wanttoknow.info...
www.wanttoknow.info...
www.mufon.com...
www.ufoscience.org...
www.scientificexploration.org...
www.ufoskeptic.org...
www.cohenufo.org...
www.konsulting.com...
www.cufon.org...
www.exopoliticsradio.com...
www.theblackvault.com...
www.narcap.org...
www.majesticdocuments.com...
brumac.8k.com...
strahija.tripod.com...
www.presidentialufo.com...
www.keyholepublishing.com...
www.disclosureproject.org...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
www.serpo.org... (Reagan/UFO transcripts)
www.presidentialufo.com...
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufoevidence.org...

Peace

New here, signature coming up



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   
In my opinion it is rather narrow-minded to just blame some application, when humans are the fault and that same application (i.e., photoshop) can be used to point fakes out of real pictures..

If a real professional does a fake UFO picture, you propably can't point out that it is indeed a fake picture, because those professionals do know how fakes are revealed with that very same application. Therefore it becomes obvious that they can also produce a picture that won't show signs of a fake when applying filters and adjustments in purpose of revealing a hoax.

Because such fakes are extremely rare, and most do not want to bother and spend most of a weekend producing a single fake, let alone a series of shoots of an UFO, we are actually quite lucky.

We are lucky because those professionals and serious hobbyists keep pointing out obvious fakes for us, so that we don't have to bother every time.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


the soviet regieme [ 1919 to 1989 ] routinley altered pictures to remove people who had fallen out of favour

google ` airbrushed ftom history ` for examples



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
unaware of photoshop , what planet have you been on ?

in rebuttal of the claim that people do not even know what photoshop is , the claim is pattently ludicous

photoshop has entered the lexicon as an adjective for any digital image manipulation

any discussion of image editing software and digital imaging mentions PS at some point - even it its only to compare the product under review to PS by comparing its price and features as % of what PS3cs can offer

even if you have no interest in photography / computing - the use / abuse of photoshop has been headline news :

in fashion / womens magazines - the controversy over photo manipultation of cover photots and celebrity / model images .

in news / current affairs - the ` reuters phot affair ` and other similar scandals involving doctored imagry

unless they have absolutly no access to western media / TV computers and internet - people who truthfully claim they have no idea what photoshop ois are , IMHO so woefully ignorant and out of touch with 21th century life



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by rawsom

If a real professional does a fake UFO picture, you propably can't point out that it is indeed a fake picture, because those professionals do know how fakes are revealed with that very same application. Therefore it becomes obvious that they can also produce a picture that won't show signs of a fake when applying filters and adjustments in purpose of revealing a hoax.



So, according to you, even if the picture can't be proven to be faked, it's still "fake"....


[edit on 26-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
...before PS there was the old school way of manipulating people -- the double negative trick. I used to do this for art purposes in college and it's really easy to cut/dodge sky areas of photos. This can be easily spotted in pre-digital shots from other dust or specks around the object in photo; I see them in older UFO books all the time.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Look at the ISAAC CAROT hoax..people swore up and down its real yet to someone who works in the 3d industry it was dead easy to see the rendering method he used for the machine part close ups (Mental Ray) there was no doubt whatsoever. But so many of you are ignorant to HOW 3d stuff is created you cant fathom it at all and so it appears real to you..just because you know how to open a spreadsheet does not qualify you to tell whats fake or not as a lot think they do..



Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by rawsom

If a real professional does a fake UFO picture, you propably can't point out that it is indeed a fake picture, because those professionals do know how fakes are revealed with that very same application. Therefore it becomes obvious that they can also produce a picture that won't show signs of a fake when applying filters and adjustments in purpose of revealing a hoax.



So, according to you, even if the picture can't be proven to be faked, it's still "fake"....


[edit on 26-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
That is the only explanation skeptics have for anything anymore.. "I don't believe in it, therefore PHOTOSHOPPED."
Really, it's a pain in the ass for anyone who has an interest in administering the truth.
[edit on 25-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


Honestly, isn't this thread more about your frustrations with "skeptics" than with Photoshop? You just don't like your buzz being killed. You wish that people would leave these hoaxed pictures alone, because you want to believe in them.

I mean, you don't really want any images analyzed, do you? You just want them to be believed. It's right there in your username, and you've said it in the above quote; you want to "administer" the "truth" --- not debate it.

I'm sorry to say that if you think the capabilities of Adobe Photoshop are the worst of your problems as a "ufologist", it's going to be rough on you in the coming years.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


Just because someone who knows the software and how its used claims that a photo is fake after the spend time analyzing it, does NOT mean they are skeptics.

Many people who want to see a legit UFO/alien/spirit need more evidence then some JoeSchmo who claims to have taken a picture and refuses to hand over the original picture taken on his camera. But instead hands over a copy of the original.

There are way too many edited photos for everyone to NOT analyze them.

To me, its the people analyzing the photos who are actually trying to find truth....not the people who see some random photo on some random cheesy website and believes JUST because someone says so.

Also, the people who claim that every photo is what the taker claims it is, is just as much a skeptic. They refuse to believe that it could be fake. They only will see that it is the real deal.


Photoshop is a blessing because it weeds out all the crap and allows people to show crap vs. legit. But it is also a curse because it allows all those people seeking their 15min of fame to edit in images and cry "UFO!" "Aliens" "Spirits"...."See!"

I (and others) dont just go thru life blindly.

Seeking truth means researching and analyzing and weeding out the crap in order to find that truth

Also the motto of the board is "Deny Ignorance". And if that means picking apart a photo proving that it is NOT what the picture taker claims....then so be. THAT is denying ignorance.

Can you imagine if we all just went thru life believing everything the government tells us w/out researching and analyzing to find out what is true and what is false?

[edit on 26-12-2007 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
And "photoshopped" wasn't an easy quip for skeptics either.. That is the only explanation skeptics have for anything anymore.


Nah, my biggest trump card is still, "What do you have besides the photo itself to help identify what it might be?" This one is particularly useful for those who insist that something is an "alien craft." Oh, really? What do you have that backs up that assertion?

Besides, unlike some people, I'm not necessarily trying to "explain" anything that just doesn't have enough information about it to be explained. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I don't know what something is, and leave it unexplained.

To some folks, though, "unexplained" automatically equates to extraterrestrial craft. Of course, those folks are unimaginative idiots.





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join