It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
size: can't tell, but I would guess it was pretty big, like 50 meters maybe? The clouds, although deep this day, are still a few hundred meters above ground, so the thing should be bigger than just 10 meters.
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
I'm reserving proper judgment until an analysis is done, but I'm wondering why the object is not centered. One would think that when you take a picture of a UFO you'd want it to be the focus of the picture and not off to the side. Also, it looks like the coloring of the object is different when it's behind the bars.
Originally posted by nosmokinggun
Ok the first thing that I have found is that currently the sun is setting around 6:19pm in Wurzburg so if this picture was taken around 6pm I would have expected it to be a lot darker, especially with the low cloud cover, it just looks very bright considering it is getting close to sunset, I might be wrong so will throw it open to the panel.
Originally posted by nablator
There is no EXIF in the JPEG file. But the APP12 "Ducky" segment (not part of EXIF) was not removed. Photoshop uses the it to store some information in "Save for Web" images. The APP12 segment identifies the company "Adobe". The compression signature matches Adobe Photoshop save for web quality. So it's been through Photoshop and the EXIF was intentionally removed. The hoaxer thought removing the EXIF would be enough to hide any Photoshop marks. It's not. Too bad. Try again.
Originally posted by FireMoon
If it is a hoax, the guy has done his background work well. The description of the hum and other details, such as interference with electrical equipment, sound like a classic , *old school* UFO report.
I suspect many of those who cry photo shop every time they are presented with a purported image of a UFO. Are of the opinion that you are a member of the "Tin foil hat brigade" should you question the validity of the images you see in the news on TV.
Originally posted by Wasco
That's what I'm talking about but a couple of questions first before I put this one to bed. My LG VX8300 camera phone does not store EXIF data in the file. Other pics I found I from the photographer's type of phone did not have EXIF data. So can you be certain there was any there to begin with?
I never heard of APP12 "Ducky" segments. Why are they important and how do you detect them?
Is the compression signature exclusive to Photoshop?
It was a 1.3 megapixel camera so compression was probably not needed.
ps I get pictures off my phone by sending them to Verizon's Pix Place and then downloading them. It's possible EXIF data is removed somewhere in that process.
Originally posted by nablator
Interesting. Could you maybe post one of these before storage by Verizon? I'm building a database of signatures and metada (EXIF + other). Thanks.