please debunk this photo

reply to post by Bspiracy


Dig the pic Bspiracy... that was quick work!

reply to post by Alxandro


Sorry I have not gotten back to you here are the offset within the file.

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

The offsets I talked about are circled

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

reply to post by Wing-nut


May I ask what tool you used for your captures?

I see the references to Adobe in your first pic but all I see is XML markup that is pointing to a URL for a XML NameSpace of
h t t p : / / ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/.

Your second pic does show the Fuji and DateCreated strings you mentioned, but I don't see anything that references the actual JPG in question.
h t t p : / /www.esnips.com/nsdoc/ee94d71a-1e7e-4f9f-a2b2-41133479d836_files/laughingpoliceman.jpg

Your screen shots could be of anything.
Something worth noting, your second pic actually references an EXIF marker and not JFIF. It is my understanding that this type of marker is usually generated by digital cameras, so this almost gives more credence to the legitimacy of the image, but again there is nothing that references the image file of laughingman.jpg

The string "D41D8CD98F00B204E9800998ECF8427E" appears to be some type of downloading checksum.

This is raw data of the beginning of the image file, data captured while accessing the esnips web site:


Note the filename circled in blue, the start of the actual JPG image denoted by marker FF D8 in voilet, and the JFIF marker in circled in green.

I know this is extremely cryptic but there is nothing that references any Adobe or Photoshop application ids because file editing tools usually leave their proprietary fingerprints.


[edit on 27-2-2008 by Alxandro]

Originally posted by Alxandro

If the squared area is a "dead giveaway hoax" then why does this 8x8 pattern continue to repeat within the areas we know to be unaltered, like the clouds and trees?

You're absolutely right, the blocking doesn't have anything to do with tampering. Often people look for a sort of matte behind or around the object, and most hoaxers don't even go that far.

Again, you're dealing with an image that you have no clue how the sizing and compression has been applied. I'd be interested in seeing a straight from camera shot. I question really, what good posting anything on UFO evidence is when all you get from them is compressed and sized images. No one can do a damned thing with them, and rarely is there an open offer to provide raw data, like there should be.

Sorry, unless someone is willing to give unfettered pics...it's another worthless shot on the net.

reply to post by jritzmann


Jeff, this should be the photo as it has been originally uploaded:

hidebehind.com...

reply to post by internos


I'm still seeing a lot of artifacts on that. A lot of blocking within the clouds as well as the cloud behind the supposed UO. The biggest issue I have is the UO seems to be "glinting" on the wrong side for the angle of sunlight. The UO also seems to have that "Kai" look to it, if ya get my meaning.

umm, what's a kai look?

[edit on 27-2-2008 by reject]

reply to post by jritzmann


I think i see what you mean.
It does shines at the opposite side of the light source, and that, if i'm
correct, should happen just incase the UO itselfs would be the light source, or if being hit by the sunlight from top-left (please, correct me if i'm wrong).
All the edges of the object seems to be affected by the light in the same way:
i mean, it looks like the object isn't affected by the sunlight at all, or that it's surrounded by the light, at 360 degrees.
Besides, the ray of light that i pointed with the red arrow, seems to be broken while crossing the UO (blue arrow): that would be normal on a 2d surface, but this is supposed to be a 3d one.


The ray in question, looks to be "cutted"/"filtered" more or less where i putted the red arrow, (i've increased the contrast just to make it more visible):

The "cut" looks too drastic, specially if comparised with the other rays, that don't seem to be affected by this specific issue. My question is "why?" .
I'd like to know what's your take about these possible clues


[edit on 27/2/2008 by internos]

Not only do I agree on the square parts someone pointed out earliear but it appears the "craft" has a false glare near the top... Which in my opinion would be on the bottom of the "craft" not the top... If you notice which ways the glare from the sun is shooting off into the sky and how it refelcts on the clouds it's more apparent...



I point out some things useing lines and arrows, I'm sure that is a better way to tell the trajectory of the suns glare, but I did my best...

In this picture I flipped the "craft" in the angle I felt the sun was glaring... You tell me if it looks better this way or not, but also shows how easy it would be to make a fake photo...



photoshop rules!

If the UFO is in-fact translucent, or liquid, then the rays of light are being projected through it and bent around the curve.

If you follow the central marking, or line, on the UFO it points directly to the glare of light.

To me it looks like the light is shining through the object, bent around the curve and refracted as it leaves in precisely the right position. Although this doesn't mean it is an actual craft..

reply to post by internos


Internos-the reason the volumetric light is not effected, well, one possible reason is that the UO is not in it, but below it.

There's another issue, which is the obvious high reflectivity. So, where's the ground reflection in the object...it's only doing the clouds as if a image map was put on it.

Thats just a meteor passing through some swamp gas

In this picture I flipped the "craft" in the angle I felt the sun was glaring... You tell me if it looks better this way or not, but also shows how easy it would be to make a fake photo...



photoshop rules!

First just because somthing is easy to do does not make it a fake, if life was like that it would be a boring ole place,

And no it does not look better the way you did it, now it looks faked and hurts the eyes, i am sure i saw this picture a few months back on www.ufoseek.com i shall have to go and search to find it, because im pretty sure tests where done on it there also, if i find it ill post it.

From the puffy trail the big saucer looks like its turning around.

Is there a series or is this a one shot of the sky that now has an
unknown in it.

It might be a very large craft.

Making a bubble in the sky might be just another vibration mode for
a large single engine craft.

If the large Texas craft has multiple engines who knows what kind
of effects it would generate.

Originally posted by Alxandro
...I adjusted some of the hues and the saturation of this image and some of these artifacts seem to follow the standard JPG compression file format....

...If the squared area is a "dead giveaway hoax" then why does this 8x8 pattern continue to repeat within the areas we know to be unaltered, like the clouds and trees?...

I agree with Alxandro. I'm not saying the picture is real or faked, but this 8x8 blocking artifact often occurs in JPGs files with "lossy compression". The blocking proves nothing (nor does it automatically make this an actual "craft").

Originally posted by internos

I guess that you are referring to these ones:

Source:
www.ufocasebook.com...

Here you can find the full size image

The image is interesting, but here there's something much close to a possible photo editing "fingerprint":

Such a squared shaped feature shouldn't appear in a natural formation, unless i'm missing something.
This is not conclusive, of course, but it's a negative clue.

Easy.

Its clouds in front of the sun....gezz.

It looks to me like the sun is centered perfectly horizontally and the rays of light are centered horizontally and vertically. Minus the object, it looks like a beautiful picture of sunrays which, what I imagine, the photographer was trying to capture. Considering the size of the object I don't believe he would have missed it unless it was added later.

reply to post by Alxandro


I use WinHex which is a computer forensics tool, to look at files
and do data recovery of hard drives.

Wing-Nut

I don't know if this is real or fake, but I do not believe the square is evidence of tapering. I have come across this type of artifact countless times while reviewing my pictures of very much identifiable objects that I know I did not modify. It looked to me to maybe be the pixel pattern of the picture, so with photoshop's help I pulled out the pixel pattern of the image with abit of curves n' contrast:

You can see the square falls into the raw image's pixel pattern.

It's a compression pattern that happens when you get an even dominate shade over an area due to similar colors or other consistencies. Usually you can tell if this is the case (and fix the problem for restoration purposes) by going to greyscale so here you go:




I had a little more time so I figured I would do a work up of the light angles. I would wager that the light spot in question is a lens flare a first glance.


[edit on 6-3-2008 by Shakesbeer]

wow, i cant believe you guys ...none of you have actually come across the punched cloud phenomina.. this is a picture of a punched cloud. its a mystery right now cause science is saying that this formation in the sky happens when ice crystals from above the cloud actually melt through the cloud and separate it in this manner..

however, durring the ufo sighting at o hare airport in chicago. this same spectical happened after a ufo shot directly up in the air. leaving the cloud with a punch mark in it.

sorry i have no links to the pics that i saw.. its from earthfiles.com and its 3 bucks a month or 36 for the year.

but ive seen this before. i feel its ufo related and not the scientific theory thats out there. your not looking at an object.. its a cloud thats been ran through. please reconsider the picture with this in mind.