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.

 

German cellphone UFO

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I know there are some good photoanalysts here at ATS so take a look at this and tell me what you think. I think it's one of the most amazing UFO photos in recent memory:


MUFON Report





posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
That's a pretty good picture there. I can't wait to see what the debunkers have to say.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
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.

www.timeanddate.com...

Secondly looking at the picture I would expect the object to be bigger it does not look right in perspective with his account


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.


Also this guy is in local city administration which i guess is suppose to add weight to his sighting but on the other hand he is not very accurate at saying when the sighting occurred, most cell phones I know off would when taking a picture time stamp them so would not be hard to get an accurate time of sighting.

Lastly the whole I never believed in Aliens and UFO's in his final statement tries to add more credibility to his account being genuine..

I am going with hoax.

[edit on 3/11/2009 by nosmokinggun]

[edit on 3/11/2009 by nosmokinggun]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

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.


Could easily be explained by a lot of probable scenarios, really. Maybe the observer felt safer staying behind the buildings. If so, who can blame him?

Or maybe the object started moving away and he took the shot just before it moved out of sight.

As said, there could be several probable explanations.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

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.


That's a reasonable amount of light for ~20 minutes before sunset. For example, sunset today where I live was 7:35 and the light is pretty good until just after that time. It gets dark pretty quickly, but not until after the "official" sunset time.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
The first thing that I noticed about the photo is that the object is not even close to the middle of the frame...if you saw something that strange and were trying to take a photo wouldn't you look directly at it and take the picture? Why would you leave it on the edge of the frame? I deal a lot with 3D modeling and rendering and my first reaction to this photo was that it was a fake. The only reason I can think of why the object would be so far to the right of the frame is that the person taking the picture was moving the camera to try to get it into the middle of the shot but hit the shutter button too early, but if that was the case then there would be motion blur on all the other objects in the frame...which is not the case.

If somebody wanted to perpetrate a hoax this seems to be a pretty elementary way to do it, take a photo of some normal everyday objects and try to digitally add an object in behind them....similar to the drone images that popped up over a year ago from california, take a photo of some trees and power lines, and then add an object in behind them. If somebody has a decent understanding of photoshop and some time on their hands they could easily do this pretty quickly.

I would love it if this pic is real, but if its fake, which i think it is, it just makes me mad that people keep faking these sightings. All it does is create more doubt in people's minds that things like this can happen....which they definitely can.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
To Xcalibur254, I totally agree with you...why isn't the object more towards the middle of the frame?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I posted in the other topic about the same thing, but why not try again.

It is the same 3D model of a UFO used in older hoaxed photos from the US.


Original image from UFO Evidence dot org


New object.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
"I wanted to take a picture but the display wasn't working right. The images had stripes and pressing the trigger didn't do anything.

Only when the object was already pretty far it worked, I shot the attached picture and then, seconds later, the disk was covered in clouds once more and I never saw it again"


Suggesting that, the guy was constantly pressing the button but nothing happened and it was only when the craft had reached a certain point the camera actually managed to capture an image... That actually lends some credence to the guys story, not detracts from it, so quite what the point about it not being central in the frame is, I am not sure..


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.

That part of the report is interesting culturally. Those sort of details are not that common with modern sightings. It suggests that, either the guy is genuine. Or, he has based the hoax on rather old material.

Hoaxes tend to play on the current zeitgeist for their authenticity. That is, they conform to the latest mode of thinking and evidence, but expand on it in a way that, is mean to offer you a glimpse of that which you really want to see.. With this picture you really don't get that. As pointed out, it isn't centre frame, and it isn't that detailed.


There again, that could also be the mark of a true Trickster, not just a hoaxer. Someone who seeks to tantalise rather than offer a solution. Ergo, if it is a hoax, it is a considered one, not just a, spur of the moment, scam.


There is also, within German culture, a specific sort of respect given to those who manage to perpetrate *convincing scams*. Maybe one of the German contributors would remember the name for this, as it slips my memory right now. Again, given that cultural background it could, indeed , suggest a hoax.

For now, I shall keep an open mind towards the image. To my mind it reads like a classic case from a 60s/70s UFO book, the only difference being the invention of the mobile phone camera, has granted the witness, something tangible to show as evidence.


Another mark against i being a hoax is that. Anonymous hoaxers don;t tend to offer so little. The Surgeons Photo of The Loch Ness Monster is a classic example as were the MJ12 documents. The anonymous hoaxer usually provides something that challenges the fundamental precepts of thinking on a given subject with something that is truly, startling.

In this case, that simply isn't so. It is intersting yes, but it certainly doesn't scream.

"Here is the evidence you all seek"; as did the aforementioned Surgeons Photo and the MJ12 documents.


Again, that would point to the person who reported this, if it is a hoax, having a very deep and subtle understanding of what goes to make a decent hoax.

As for the remarks about it being photo shopped. Look if we are to question the veracity of every image that has been edited, be it film or photo, we are moving into an area where you can, legitimately, challenge virtually every image in the media. 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.

That's called, having your cake and eating it...

So yes, could be a fake, but an interesting *old school style* sighting ,brought up to date, by the mobile phone cam...

My apologies for repeating a post from another thread on the same subject... As for the assertion the picture it bares a similarity to is a proven hoax..can you give me a link for that?



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   

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.

Good story, but bad photographic hoax.


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.

Hey we're on a conspiracy site. It's not paranoia, it's healthy skepticism. Do you believe everything you read in newspapers, including tabloids? News channels, even the best ones, are full of mistakes, misleading quotes out of context, and sometimes outright manipulation. They do help propagate lies mostly because they lack the time and motivation to do real investigations. Of course validity of every images and text should be questioned, especially when the reputation of a media source is bad or worse. In this case, an anonymous poster on the MUFON board has zero credibility.



[edit on 2009-3-12 by nablator]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   

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?

If there was any it was removed. There are three ways to identify the software as Photoshop other than EXIF, all of them found in this JPEG file. It's a good thing hoaxers think it's easy to remove any trace of tampering. It's not.


I never heard of APP12 "Ducky" segments. Why are they important and how do you detect them?

Only Photoshop (and maybe Adobe Lightroom?) write the "Ducky" type of APP12 and the "Adobe" string right next to it. I don't want to give too much information about how to detect them, hoaxers could benefit from the help. I wrote my own tool in C because I don't trust available metadata readers.

This is the APP12 format specification:
www.sno.phy.queensu.ca...

If you open the file in a hexadecimal editor and look for the strings Ducky and Adobe you will find them easily. Photoshop specific tags were removed with the rest of the EXIF.


Is the compression signature exclusive to Photoshop?

Yes, well, almost. Adobe Lightroom shares the same signature (quantization tables, and other compression-specific tables). It also writes Photoshop tags in EXIF. I guess it shares the library for writing JPEG with Photoshop.


It was a 1.3 megapixel camera so compression was probably not needed.

It's very compressed, the quality is low.


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.

Interesting. Could you maybe post one of these before storage by Verizon? I'm building a database of signatures and metada (EXIF + other). Thanks.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   

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.


Absolutely, you've been very helpful. To check on the EXIF data I took these out my living room window just now. I moved them from the phone, LG VX8300, to the microSD card in the phone and then took the card out and put it in a card reader. I uploaded to Photobucket directly from the card. Irfanview still reports no EXIF data. I did open the UFO photo in a hex editor and find the "Ducky" and APP12 tags. I also found his reason for posting 640x480 instead of the maximum 1280x960 the camera is capable of lame. They're still only around 200kb so no reason to shrink them. His camera and mine are both LG 1.3 megapixel so it's reasonable to expect if mine does not write EXIF data his may not either. Hope the pictures help. Thanks.






posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
The 2 objects (even if one was debunked) are the same only the 2nd is at a different angle. My reasoning why the object was not centered in the picture is perhaps the photographer was shooting the tower for one reason or another (perhaps work related) and happened to capture this by total accident.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Wasco
 

Okay, no EXIF indeed, a compression signature matching many IJG based image editors (IrfanView, Paint.Net, GIMP), but not Photoshop. And it doesn't have an APP12 section. Your of phone camera produces bare bones JPEG, no embedded thumbnail, no metadata at all. It is ideal for hoaxers. The original format can be redone reasonably well without too many complications. Or maybe not exactly... I would have to check about that, there are some minutiae that could differentiate a re-saved file from an original. Anyway, this is not the format we have in the German UFO picture.

Adobe tools are unique. No camera or other software has the same metadata and compression parameters. I would be interested to see the result of sending this picture directly to your Verizon account. As you said it may get automatically processed through Photoshop in batch mode then, to reduce the quality and take a little less disk space. Do you have a sample of a picture you uploaded that way, without taking out the SD card? Thanks.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I just noticed somthing interesting. The picture linked from the MUFON website has the Photoshop APP12 and "Save for web" compression signature. It is here:
www.mufoncms.com...

The picture you linked in your first post has the same name but is hosted on photobucket and doesn't have them. Does photobucket rewrite the file? Possibly. If so it is useless for forensic analysis. I am sure the MUFON repository does not change anything to the uploaded file, I have analyzed many and they are often original full-sized JPEG files, untouched.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
well it looks like something that has been seen before and proven to be fake, but then who knows. It looks cgi. thats just the look it has. but when you see so much cgi maybe everything begins to look like cgi.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
The problem with trying to analyze any photo on the internet is that you have no idea if you have the original. I have seen a version of this photo that has a title in the upper left corner of the image. Then one on photobucket and one from MUFON. Which is the original?

And the image having been through photoshop isn't itself proof of a hoax. I'm sure many many people use photoshop as their default image viewer...I do on one of my computers. So if I upload pictures from my camera or cellphone and open it up...boom...photoshop. What is the first thing I would do if I had a pic of a UFO...open it on my computer.

About the object not being centered...LOL. Come on...IF this is a real photo...I'm sure the guy was a bit nervous. Using a cell phone camera...not a professional photographer and if his story is true, then he was also having problems with the phone. Even if we ignore all that...look at the picture and the angle it is shot at. I don't know where he is standing, but it is possible that if he tried to center the picture the railroad light would have more blockage on the object.

And about the image being similar to another reported UFO photo. The two are different no matter how much you say they are the same...there are differences. And let's assume for a second that they both are real photos...is it that odd that if UFOs exist and are here on earth that they would most likely look the same? Or do we think they should all look unique?

I'm not saying this image is 100% the real deal. But finding a photoshop tag doesn't prove anything except that it has been in photoshop and saved. Taking a poor centered picture of a moving/flying object is not suspect to me. And having another picture with a similar object...could be seen one of two ways...suggest hoax or gives credibility...take your pick.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join