UFO Hoaxes: Adobe Photoshop Forensics – Sleuths, Truths & “Fauxtography”

ATS Team:

I thought some of you might find this book interesting.

I note the major sections on:

1. UFO’s

2. Ghosts

“Adobe Photoshop Forensics – Sleuths, Truths & “Fauxtography”

Author: Cynthia Baron

I have just ordered this book…..it is available through Amazon:

www.amazon.com...



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d5effb87230.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/17a0f7943dc1.jpg[/atsimg]

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

Hi Maybe...Maybe Not
That sounds very interesting, looking forward to see what you come up with

That does look interesting, thanks!

Here's a vid about the author-

Northeastern University Professor and author Cynthia Baron discusses her new book, "Adobe Photoshop Forensics" as part of Northeastern University Library's Meet the Author series on March 26, 2008. Cynthia Baron, Associate Director of Northeastern's Digital Media and Multimedia Studies program, reveals an intriguing relationship between art and science as she describes how new technologies have assisted in the creation of altered images used for advertising, political propaganda, and even scientific fraud. In this work, Baron provides real historical examples and case studies of those who have used Photoshop to doctor photos for their own benefit and demonstrates the techniques used to deconstruct a photograph to detect fraud.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by freelance_zenarchist]

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Thanks for the tip MMN, just remember to watermark your creations with the word HOAX

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist


Freelance_zenarchist.....

Many thanks!

I will look at that in detail tonight after work.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Thanks for the tip MMN, just remember to watermark your creations with the word HOAX

Cripmeister.....

Yes dear.....

I'll be sure to mark them as hoaxes dear.....

Which BTW.....

.....is more than SOME people do around here!

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 6-6-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

I'm pretty proficient with Photoshop and several other phot/cgi programs. I have activly used photoshop for many, many years. But I am ordering this book as is seems rather darn interesting.

But it should go without saying, a photo or video of something is only part of a solid sighting, especially in this cgi day and age.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Already On it! Check your U2U's my man!

IRM

reply to post by InfaRedMan


Your Kung Fu is strong!

Thanks for the heads up. It would be interesting to see what this author came up with. I have almost 20 years in photography and approaching 10 years in CG now. I spend more on camera gear, software and new computers every year than I do on cars.

If I get one new thing out of this for $30 I'd be thrilled. My Wife is a professional Equestrian Photographer, but she has no interest in this stuff. She does like the post-work I do for her though. There might be some useful tricks for non-hoax photo's.

...and she thinks I waste too much time on this nonsense Imagine that?

I'll have to check locally first.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Blaine91555.....

I spend more on camera gear, software and new computers every year than I do on cars.

Well seeing that you drive a Bentley, that's pretty impressive!!

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not

This thread brings back fond memories of when I debunked that shadowman thread, showing how easy it is to make them in photoshop with 5 minutes up your sleeve.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0bcacbd27414.jpg[/atsimg]

The one circled in red is the original

IRM

[edit on 7/6/10 by InfaRedMan]

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Yes I do! How did you know I drive a Dodge Bentley?

No luck locally looks like a ten day wait.

Price a good Nikor Lens and then judge me

[edit on 6/7/2010 by Blaine91555]

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
ATS Team:

I thought some of you might find this book interesting.

...
www.amazon.com...

Thanks for the info and link.

Thread starred and book ordered...

Over the years, I've become increasingly surprised at the very limited amount of detailed discussion in books (particularly the UFO literature) about the mechanics of producing photographic/video hoaxes.

I think that understanding how such hoaxes can be produced is useful in identiftying hoaxes and, probably more importantly, understanding just how quickly and easily they can be produced by someone with the right training and software.

My perception is that the ease of producing such hoaxes is very gradually becoming more widely acknowledged (query whether this has been caused, at least in part, by the Haiti video hoax and/or the Drone images).

I used to regularly see suggestions that a particular hoaxed image would require a Hollywood studio and/or a massive budget and amount of time.

I haven't seen those suggestions so regularly in the last few years - although I suppose I may simply have got to the point that I've tuned them out...

All the best,

Isaac

reply to post by IsaacKoi


IsaacKoi.....

I'm glad you found this interesting!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Let's not forget about more "old school" ways of hoaxing UFOs, like in this thread. I am pretty sure the photographer used exposure time to achieve that illusion. Check out my ghost dish brush

Originally posted by cripmeister
Let's not forget about more "old school" ways of hoaxing UFOs, like in this thread. I am pretty sure the photographer used exposure time to achieve that illusion. Check out my ghost dish brush

That reminds me of one of the first UFO threads I read on ATS, it was about a mysterious cylinder UFO....turned out to be a "time exposure" of the moon, and that fooled plenty of people with no photoshop!

I can't find the same thread but it's the first photo in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And "Capturing the light" shows time exposure effects. You know it's odd that movie brought in Hollywood special effects specialists to talk about how many millions of dollars those special effects would cost using the Hollywood equivalent of Photoshop for films, yet not one of them just addressed the simple possibility of a time exposure.

Speaking of hoaxes before photoshop, look at this analysis of how many of the 101 UFO photos in 1954 were fakes:

www.anomalia.org...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6cd3f2fa480.png[/atsimg]

I must admit even I'm surprised to see fakes were the #1 cause that long before Photoshop. But without Photoshop I imagine fakes were a little easier to spot then, but maybe this thread's book can help.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
I have just ordered this book…..it is available through Amazon:

www.amazon.com...

Hi MMN, the book looks interesting! So what do you think of it so far?

Neil Tyson said he thought maybe Photoshop has a "UFO button" by now, but I haven't upgraded Photoshop since CS2, so I don't know if they added it yet

a reply to: Maybe...maybe not

Thanks for starting this interesting thread! Never mind that it was resurrected from 4 years ago. I'm new to ATS and thought about starting such a thread myself.

I am genuinely interested in "real" UFOs and ETs. But I've seen some UFO hoaxes over the years that made me laugh 'til I cried. Such as:

1) Some lab with a video-microscope putting a tiny nutrient bar in a petri dish with microbiology critters, which suddenly rushed toward it. (HEADLINE: "Attack UFOs Rushing Back to Mother Ship!")

2) Night vision catches a flock of migrating birds. (HEADLINE: "ET Army Caught Flying Off To Battle Above Our Heads!")

3) A large map of the moon laid out, and a live beetle that waddles aimlessly all over it. (HEADLINE: "UFO Spotted Inspecting Our Moon!")

Here's the latest:

www.examiner.com...
UFO PHOTOGRAPHED OVER FLORIDA CARNIVAL CRUISE SHIP!

Honestly, just look at the photo of this rectangular "UFO" - with eyeholes. It's obviously binoculars or a camera someone tossed up, while a co-conspirator snapped the photo. Plus, I'm not an expert in aerodynamics, but I'm pretty sure this is a terrible design for anything airborne, between the rectangular design with all that nubby stuff sticking out, and round pillars on both smaller ends.